Tuesday, November 02, 2010

A bigoted bishop

I used to be rather impressed by bishop Spong when I heard him reject some of the sillier and more superficial aspects of Christianity but then I realized that he was really rejecting it all. He is hollow to the core -- and but for his ecclesiastical purple and pectoral cross, there is no way you would identify him as a bishop or even as a Christian. He is not above bigotry, however. He is bigoted AGAINST Christianity as we know it from the Bible. Note the following excerpt:
"I have made a decision. I will no longer debate the issue of homosexuality in the church with anyone.

I will no longer engage the biblical ignorance that emanates from so many right-wing Christians about how the Bible condemns homosexuality, as if that point of view still has any credibility.

I will no longer discuss with them or listen to them tell me how homosexuality is "an abomination to God," about how homosexuality is a "chosen lifestyle," or about how through prayer and "spiritual counseling" homosexual persons can be "cured." Those arguments are no longer worthy of my time or energy.

I will no longer listen to that pious sentimentality that certain Christian leaders continue to employ, which suggests some version of that strange and overtly dishonest phrase that "we love the sinner but hate the sin." That statement is, I have concluded, nothing more than a self-serving lie designed to cover the fact that these people hate homosexual persons and fear homosexuality itself, but somehow know that hatred is incompatible with the Christ they claim to profess, so they adopt this face-saving and absolutely false statement.

The day for that mentality has quite simply come to an end for me. I will personally neither tolerate it nor listen to it any longer. The world has moved on, leaving these elements of the Christian Church that cannot adjust to new knowledge or a new consciousness lost in a sea of their own irrelevance.

Source

As far as I can see, that is not only bigotry, it's hate speech -- but hate speech against Christians is routine from the Left, of course.

If Spong regards Bible-believing Christians as reprehensible, he should do as Christ did with Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10). -- but Spong is obviously no follower of Christ. I rather doubt that he is religious at all, in fact. His mission is to sell books to people who want to justify their contempt for conventional Christianity. And I believe that he does well out of that. His "new consciousness" is certainly not a Christian consciousness, whatever else it may be.

34 comments:

Anonymous said...

Perhaps it's just his way of "coming out", assuming there's anyone left who still doesn't know he's gay.

Anonymous said...

Any Christian "man of God" who refuses to acknowledge the historicity and authenticity of the Bible is not worthy of claiming that title.

Use the Name, Luke said...

"For though they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God or show gratitude. Instead, their thinking became nonsense, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools …

Therefore God delivered them over in the cravings of their hearts to sexual impurity, so that their bodies were degraded among themselves.

This is why God delivered them over to degrading passions. For even their females exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. The males in the same way also left natural relations with females and were inflamed in their lust for one another. Males committed shameless acts with males and received in their own persons the appropriate penalty of their error.

And because they did not think it worthwhile to acknowledge God, God delivered them over to a worthless mind to do what is morally wrong.
"
— Romans 1:21–22, 24, 26-28

If Spong has a problem with that, he needs to take it up with the Author, who he claims to profess.

"“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord!’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of My Father in heaven. On that day many will say to Me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in Your name, drive out demons in Your name, and do many miracles in Your name?’ Then I will announce to them, ‘I never knew you! Depart from Me, you lawbreakers!’”"
— Matthew 7:21–23

Anonymous said...

The Bishop finally realizes how stupid Christianity is as practised by so many so-called Christians. If he is a bigot for stating the obvious, then his bigotry is small compared with the bigotry of many "Christians". Jesus of Nazareth said nothing about men having sex with men, and if Jesus did support all that the jewish law said then I hope no "christian" here eats shellfish or does work on the Sabbath or is guilty of any of the other numerous prohibitions in Hebrew Law. And what the apostles like Saul/Paul thought were their own opinions not Jesus'.

Stan B said...

"Thus shall a man leave his mother and father and cleave unto his WIFE, and the two shall become ONE FLESH. What God hath joined, let no man put asunder."

Sounds like a rather ringing endorsement of heterosexual marriage (he didn't say "cleave to his life-PARTNER" did he?

And before you sin-advocates start talking about "the times" Jesus lived in - Christians accept Him as the Son of the Living God. His time on Earth was of HIS choosing, not yours or mine.

Bobby said...

Why is homosexuality any different from whether it's ok to eat pork, drink alcohol, smoking, marry more than one woman, etc? There is no longer one holy church, religion is a cafeteria and people pick the denominations (and sometimes the beliefs) they like.

Use the Name, Luke said...

Anon 2:35:

Your examples are an Epic FAIL on so many levels. You even admitted the failure in your own post with a simple two word phrase: "HEBREW law".

Laws given ONLY to the nation of Israel, and not given wider application and reiterated in the New Testament for Christians, does not apply to Christians. Laws such as eating of shellfish and the Sabbath fall into this category. Laws against things like murder and sexual sins were given to more than just Israel in the Old Testament and they were reiterated in the New Testament. (See my quotation above.)

And if you think the laws against eating shellfish in a hot climate in a time prior to refrigeration are "stupid", you should really check out the FDA regulations on handling shellfish.

"Jesus of Nazareth said nothing about men having sex with men"

Not directly. But he did state what the standard is, and that everything else is out of bounds, which necessarily includes men having sex with men:

"“Haven’t you read,” He replied, “that He who created them in the beginning made them male and female,”
and He also said: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?

So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, man must not separate.”
"
— Matthew 19:4–6

Jesus made frequent references to the "scriptures" (the Old Testament) as authoritative. The Apostles did likewise. Their writings were not mere "opinions", but based directly on the Old Testament plus Jesus' teachings.

Use the Name, Luke said...

Bobby, did you even read that quotation from Romans? Did it apply only to the nation of Israel (as the dietary laws did)?

Use the Name, Luke said...

Anon 2:35,

Your claims are an EPIC FAIL on so many levels.

Laws given ONLY to the Nation of Israel—such as dietary laws, laws emphasizing separation, circumcision, etc.—were explicitly stated as not applying to Christians in the New Testament:

"Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? … As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!"
— Galatians 5:11a, 12

Also see Galatians 2 and Acts 11 and compare Jeremiah 31:31-33 (contrasting the old covenant made with Israel with the new covenant to be made) with Luke 22:20 (Jesus announcing the new covenant).

Finally, if you think the prohibition against eating shellfish in a hot climate prior to refrigeration is "stupid", then perhaps you should take a look at the FDA regulations regarding the handling of shellfish.

Anonymous said...

Quoting fairy tales again?

Bobby said...

"Bobby, did you even read that quotation from Romans? Did it apply only to the nation of Israel (as the dietary laws did)?"

---Again, it's all interpretation. Some people think that Paul was speaking against pederasty (sex with an adolescent) and male prostitution.

As for Jewish dietary laws, I know that the 7th day Adventists don't eat pork because they think is a sin. I also know that plenty of Christians follow the ten commandments even though they were not given to the nation of Israel.

See? Everyone picks and chooses. The same Christians who quote Leviticus violate it when they wear a tattoo, in fact, some Christian websites even admonish their members not to get tattoos.

If I'm wrong then why did Paul get rid of circumcision? Clearly he knew that you can't expand a faith by requiring adult members to undergo the painful process of circumcision. So even he picked and choose what he wanted Christ's followers to observe.

Anonymous said...

Luke - quit quoting the scribbles of the early christians - it's babble!

Use the Name, Luke said...

Bobby,

I suggest you go read the passages I referred to for yourself. Don't just read the parts I quoted, read the entire context.

(Note: I suggest a faithful translation like the New American Standard, the New Internationl Version, the New English Translation, or the Holman Christian Standard. Stay away from paraphrases such as The Message or Good News for Modern Man. I also don't recommend the King James Version due to its ancient form of English, among other problems.)

When you're reading these passages, try to avoid imposing your own interpretations on them, but let them tell you what they're saying. This can frequently take multiple readings. 20 times should be enough.

"Some people think that Paul was speaking against pederasty (sex with an adolescent) and male prostitution."

Check out these verses:

"Don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be deceived: No sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, or anyone practicing homosexuality,"
— 1st Corinthians 6:9

"for the sexually immoral and homosexuals, for kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching"
— 1st Timothy 1:10

Both "homosexuality" and "homosexuals" are translated from the same Greek word: arsenokoitai. Here is the definition from two different sources:

"(arsēn, a male; koitē, a bed), one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite"
— Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament

"‘one who has intercourse w. a man as w. a woman’ … a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex … Paul’s strictures against same-sex activity cannot be satisfactorily explained on the basis of alleged temple prostitution, or limited to contract w. boys for homoerotic service."
— A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature

Also note that in the Romans passage, Paul explicitly spells out this definition, rather than simply using "arsenokoitai". So yes, "some" people do argue that this doesn't mean homosexuality, but those arguments don't align with the language Paul used.

Use the Name, Luke said...

(Split into two parts because Google is being stupid today.)

Bobby,

I suggest you go read the passages I referred to for yourself. Don't just read the parts I quoted, read the entire context.

(Note: I suggest a faithful translation like the New American Standard, the New Internationl Version, the New English Translation, or the Holman Christian Standard. Stay away from paraphrases such as The Message or Good News for Modern Man. I also don't recommend the King James Version due to its ancient form of English, among other problems.)

When you're reading these passages, try to avoid imposing your own interpretations on them, but let them tell you what they're saying. This can frequently take multiple readings. 20 times should be enough.

Use the Name, Luke said...

(part 2)

"Some people think that Paul was speaking against pederasty (sex with an adolescent) and male prostitution."

Check out these verses:

"Don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be deceived: No sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, or anyone practicing homosexuality,"
— 1st Corinthians 6:9

"for the sexually immoral and homosexuals, for kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching"
— 1st Timothy 1:10

Both "homosexuality" and "homosexuals" are translated from the same Greek word: arsenokoitai. Here is the definition from two different sources:

"(arsēn, a male; koitē, a bed), one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite"
Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament

"‘one who has intercourse w. a man as w. a woman’ … a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex … Paul’s strictures against same-sex activity cannot be satisfactorily explained on the basis of alleged temple prostitution, or limited to contract w. boys for homoerotic service."
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature

Also note that in the Romans passage, Paul explicitly spells out this definition, rather than simply using "arsenokoitai". So yes, "some" people do argue that this doesn't mean homosexuality, but those arguments don't align with the language Paul used.

Use the Name, Luke said...

(reposted for the 2,367th time… Stupid Google…)

"Some people think that Paul was speaking against pederasty (sex with an adolescent) and male prostitution."

Check out these verses:

"Don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be deceived: No sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, or anyone practicing homosexuality,"
— 1st Corinthians 6:9

"for the sexually immoral and homosexuals, for kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching"
— 1st Timothy 1:10

Both "homosexuality" and "homosexuals" are translated from the same Greek word: arsenokoitai. Here is the definition from two different sources:

"(arsēn, a male; koitē, a bed), one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite"
— Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament

"‘one who has intercourse w. a man as w. a woman’ … a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex … Paul’s strictures against same-sex activity cannot be satisfactorily explained on the basis of alleged temple prostitution, or limited to contract w. boys for homoerotic service."
— A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature

Also note that in the Romans passage, Paul explicitly spells out this definition, rather than simply using "arsenokoitai". So yes, "some" people do argue that this doesn't mean homosexuality, but those arguments don't align with the language Paul used.

Use the Name, Luke said...

Bobby,

Google is flat REFUSING to let me post the definitions of the words Paul used in 1st Corinthians 6:9 and 1st Timothy 1:10. (They appear, then disappear. I've tried about 20 times, and even split the post in two.) So let me see if they let me post this summary:

What "some people" argue is flat wrong, and doesn't fit the words Paul used. In fact, Paul explicitly spells out that definition in Romans 1:27, which is far more broad than mere pederasty.

Use the Name, Luke said...

I'll try it this way…

The greek word is "arsenokoitai".

Use the Name, Luke said...

Here's the definition from one source:

arsenokoitai - "(arsēn, a male; koitē, a bed), one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite"
Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament

Use the Name, Luke said...

And from a second source:

"‘one who has intercourse w. a man as w. a woman’ … a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex … Paul’s strictures against same-sex activity cannot be satisfactorily explained on the basis of alleged temple prostitution, or limited to contract w. boys for homoerotic service."
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature

Use the Name, Luke said...

This seems to be the definition Google doesn't like. Let's see if I can make it acceptable…

"‘one who has intercourse w. a man as w. a woman’ … a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex … Paul’s strictures against same-sex activity cannot be satisfactorily explained on the basis of alleged temple prostitution, or limited to contract w. boys for hom*erot** service."
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature

Use the Name, Luke said...

This seems to be the definition Google doesn't like. Let's see if I can fix it without damaging the definition.

"‘one who has interc***** w. a man as w. a woman’ … a male who engages in se**** activity w. a pers. of his own se* … Paul’s strictures against same-se* activity cannot be satisfactorily explained on the basis of alleged temple prost***tion, or limited to contract w. boys for hom*erot** service."
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature

Anonymous said...

fag, fruit, homo, sodomite, assfucker,

Anonymous said...

Does he not want to argue it because he keeps getting beaten? Sounds as if such debates about ethics, lifestyle, and the intention of God and his Messiah would be well worth talking about. It really comes off more as a child sticking his fingers in his ears and screaming LALALALALALALA. What a worthless pretender.

Bobby said...

Luke, I respect you and your beliefs. But I do not share them.


"Matthew 19:11-12
Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

Typically a eunuch is defined as a castrated male. This is incorrect. Castration means to remove the testicles (that were already there) or emasculate. If all eunuchs were castrated males then why would Jesus say that "some were born that way?" A eunuch is a man who has no desire or ability to have sexual relations with a woman. These men were commonly used to protect the harems. Since the Word of God is for everyone we can apply the spiritual concept found in Galatians 3:28 where the Apostle Paul says: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Therefore, a eunuch can be male or female in this passage."
http://www.christiangay.com/he_loves/Jesus.htm

Either way, I know we're not going to agree and that's ok. This is Christianity has so many denominations, we can't agree on everything.

Anonymous said...

I'm not the sort to quote scripture in a place like this but this quote seemed especially apt:
"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil..."
Isaiah 5:20
If Bishop Spong cannot accept the fundamentals of the movement he is meant to represent he should - if he had any honour at all - resign his position.

Anonymous said...

Luke - what is an "EPIC FAIL" is spending your life enthralled to an ancient tribal religion from the Middle East and to one of its numerous corrupted derivatives. Why not instead go for an indigenous religion of the Americas if that is where you live? It would at least be more geographically relevant.

Anonymous said...

Amazing the lengths some will go to to practice perverted sex.

jonjayray said...

No honest reading of the Bible would lead one to believe that homosexuality is acceptable

And I am an atheist so I have no dog in that fight

I suspect Spong is an atheist too at heart. He has made up his own pseudo-religion and fraudulently called it Christian

Anonymous said...

Most Christians have their own private version of Christianity, or what it means to them personally, regardless of the orthodox stance adopted by even their own favored denomination, much less other denominations and the myriad other sects of the same religion going under the umbrella of "Christianity".

Anonymous said...

liberals and faggots are usually christophobic

Anonymous said...

bigots are usually christophiles

Anonymous said...

"He has made up his own pseudo-religion and fraudulently called it Christian"

All religions are fraudulent.

Anonymous said...

11:38 PM, What lengths will you go to for "perverted sex"? 12 inches?