|
Review Summary: Sometimes scholarly, sometimes atheistic |
Date: 2007-01-10 |
|
| |
Details: Spong has some valid points in this book. He accurately notes discrepancies between what literalists of the bible quote and what they ignore. This part of the book is an eye opener and provides food for thought. After establishing himself as an expert at picking the bible apart, however, Spong makes some claims that have little or no scholarly basis. For example, after establishing inconsistencies in the written text of the bible, he then completely discounts all of the miracles of in the bible claiming that they are not "scientific" enough. The tendency for some people reading this (and the danger therein) is that once readers accept Spong as an authority on scripture, they will accept anything he says, including statements he makes in a blanket fashion without supporting evidence. I, personally, agree that his concerns with taking everything from the bible literally are valid, yet I see no reason to think that every single miracle listed in the bible is therefore a lie.
|
| |
|
Review Summary: An Important Study. |
Date: 2006-08-24 |
|
| |
|
Details: It is interesting that many Churches place much emphasis on the strict and literal interpretation of the Bible. Isaac Asimov pointed out that the whole reason Jesus clashed with the Jewish authorities was because while they placed strict emphasis on keeping with the strict letter of the law, Jesus' mentality was that it was alright to deviate from the written law if it meant doing a greater good. EXAMPLE: In the Gospel According to John, a woman is going to be stoned for adultery. "Levitivus" 20:10 and "Deuteronomy" 22:22 clearly state death as the punishment for adultery. And Jesus of course told them anyone who was without sin could begin the execution: "...He that is without sin amongst you, let him first cast a stone at her" (John 8:7). (None of them could.) Paul even warns us about taking the Bible too literally in his 2nd letter to the Corinthians: "...the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life" (2nd Corinthians 3:6). While Bishop Spong explains that the differences between the 4 Gospels often frustrate people, he explains that it shouldn't. The reason is that the 4 Gospels were written for different audiences. Mark basically wrote his Gospel based on the teachings of Peter. Matthew wrote his Gospel in a way that compared Jesus to Moses. He was writing for the Jewish populations, and he wanted to emphasize that Christianity was the fulfillment of Judaism. Matthew also liked to dramatize things. Luke wrote in a memorable and beautiful way. His goal was to make peace with the Jews who became followers of Christ and the Gentiles who became followers of Christ. John's Gospel is on the hostile side. This is because at the time John wrote, many of the followers of Christ were being expelled from the Jewish places of worship. And John wrote in a hostile manner to show the early Christians that God would not be angry at them for leaving their former places of worship. All in all, this is a great book that belongs in the library of any Christian. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Lots of truth in this little book |
Date: 2006-07-23 |
|
|
| |
|
Details: Bishop Spong does a great job in this book leading the reader out of blind faith fundamentalism into a more educated and thoughtful truth. He discusses the impact the Apostle Paul had on the Christian Myth, how each of the 4 gospels was written for a a specific purpose and the the real origins of Easter and Christmas and how Chrisitianity was made to fit into them. This is one of the main books that finaly lead me out of 10 years of ignorant Christian Fundamentalism. I highly recommend reading this book if you would like to know the true value of the Bible with out the mythology. |
| |
|
Review Summary: will not please the fearful and ill-educated |
Date: 2006-03-06 |
|
| |
Details: Spong's thoughtful analytical approach frightens and angers people who want to believe in miracles and a literal reading of the bible. Sadly, many of these folks prefer to ignore the genocidal God of the OT who commands the Israelites to wipe out entire peoples who do not worship JHWH. And they would rather not see the starkness of the NT God the Father whose anger with the human race can be appeased only through human sacrifice---of Jesus. Most of the same fundamentalists also prefer to ignore the social gospel of Jesus Christ, most clearly articulated in Matthew 25, where he says that those who neglect the wretched, the sick, and the poor can never please God. And of course the book of Luke which repeatedly condemns the pursuit of wealth is a nonstarter for many of those who think that they are Christians yet pursue the mammon of righteousness.
At the moment, this kind of evangelical Christian dominates the political scene, electing a president whose social policies show great concern with helping the rich (the Bush tax cuts targeted at the wealthiest 2%) and major tax breaks for big oil, even though it is the most profitable industry in America.
Jesus Christ's gospel is not a gospel of greed, yet one might think so, judging from the way so many evangelicals vote. |
| |
|
Review Summary: not complete |
Date: 2006-02-28 |
|
|
| |
|
Details: Have started reading. Planning to browse the book. Impressed by the presenting of long known facts. |
| |
|
out of 132 Reviews
