Online 100 datings sites from poland
He says: In Spong’s world, the findings of objective science continually chip away at our ‘pre-modern’ moral reference, the Bible.
For instance, science supposedly has proven that we must change our beliefs about homosexuality: Science, Spong believes, is a neutral sifter and accumulator of facts which produces conclusions based on observation and is untarnished by prejudice.
Spong approaches the Bible with his own politically correct spectacles.
This leads him to impose his political and social stereotypes upon the Bible with a crude dogmatism devoid of scholarly insight.
Scientific laws do not cause or forbid anything any more than the outline of a map causes the shape of the coastline.
The Christian philosopher Norman Geisler stated: Natural law is a description of the way God acts regularly in and through creation (Ps.
Dawkins is now ‘Chair of the Public Understanding of Science’ at the prestigious Oxford University and is responsible for shaping the minds of young scientists.
Spong labels the view that ethics, especially sexual ethics, can be derived from the Bible as ‘fundamentalist’ and ‘pre-modern’, whereas he claims his new framework is ‘modern’ and ‘scientific’.
We aimed to see whether his case against Christian orthodoxy is as persuasive as he claims. Words become the vehicles by which experiences are shared.
We also aimed to see whether orthodoxy has any solutions to the doubts he raises. Yet Spong wants us to believe that his words are true and that fundamentalists are most certainly wrong.
Belief in a literal Bible is primitive and produces such ‘mistakes’ as beliefs in Christ’s bodily resurrection and virginal conception, and the idea that homosexual acts are sinful. We know that Jesus neither rose from the grave nor was He born of a virgin, and that homosexual acts are just as valid as heterosexual acts.
But just how objective and neutral is Spong’s new god Science?