SPAG and the Liberal Christian
by the Avangelism Project
Because the bible is contrary, a Christian not only may, but must choose which parts to believe and which parts to reject. Those decisions will always reflect the Christian’s personality, predilections and proclivities.
It’s an arrogant syncretism of life and religion that we call Self Projection as God (SPAG). I published an article about it here a few weeks ago.
It’s a simple and obvious concept, but not always readily understood. One common misunderstanding (or maybe a regular misrepresentation) of SPAG is that it applies only to fundamentalist or ultraconservative Christians who attempt to harmonize the bible.
That’s not the case.
Faithfulness Is Meaningless
In some sense, SPAG depends on an incoherent bible. A true and cogent religious revelation would make faithfulness possible. Lacking one, faithfulness is a meaningless term and the Christian, to be a Christian, must construct a god and define faithfulness to it.
All Christianity is Self-Projection as God That’s the point of the confusion: Self Projection as God is necessary because the bible is unintelligible and false, but it doesn’t depend on the Christian’s effort to harmonize the bible. It only depends on the Christian’s decision to rationalize the bible.
Once that decision has been made, the methods of rationalizing the incoherency will vary just as the SPAGs’ contents will vary. They’ll vary with individual Christians, but they’re all Self Projections as God.
Remember that Christians agree only that some parts of the bible don’t count. They don’t agree what those parts are nor do they agree on what to do with those parts. All Christians won’t proceed in the same manner, but they will each proceed with the same purpose: to rationalize the bible in a way that’s personally pleasing.
Some Christians do that by attempting a biblical harmony. Most do not.
No Harmony Necessary
Of course, the fundamentalists’ preferences in harmonizing the bible are SPAGs. Some fundies try to harmonize the bible around the idea that God wants to save all humans. Others try to harmonize it around the idea that God arbitrarily saves some and condemns others. The bible says both, so it’s “harmonized” according to which sort of god a particular fundamentalist prefers.
But why is that different from the liberal Christian who SPAGs a universalist god and simply doesn’t believe the verses about hell and has no interest in harmonizing them?
How are either the fundy or the liberal unlike the moderate Christian that declares god chooses for salvation those he “foresaw” accepting his offer of salvation and explains away opposing verses with clever hermeneutics or nifty biblical criticisms?
Aren’t they all doing exactly the same thing—choosing which parts of the bible to embrace and how to deal with pieces that don’t fit?
If they’re not, why do they each have proof texts?
The difference between fundies and liberals and every Christian on the continuum between them isn’t the fact of SPAG. The difference is in the verses they choose to SPAG and what they do with the verses that don’t fit their SPAGs—whether forcing the pieces in (fundies), throwing the pieces away (liberals), or trimming the pieces to shape (moderates).
SPAG doesn’t depend on the Christian denying that the bible is rife with contraries and contradictions, but only upon her or his unwillingness to reject the bible and its (SPAGged) god because of that fact.
Resurrection Not Required
Let’s consider the most liberal thinking Christians among the confessing populace, the ones that not only accept and even embrace the errors, but also reject the physical and historical resurrection of Jesus Christ.
It would be gratuitous to name the bible verses and passages that say otherwise — from the legends of empty tombs, through claims of physical manifestations of the risen Jesus like the famous tale of Doubting Thomas, to Paul’s declaration that if Christ is not risen, then Christians are the most pitiable of all humans — yet the liberal Christian rejects the physical resurrection, choosing instead to believe a spiritual resurrection, a metaphor of social liberation, or simply no resurrection at all.
Still, that Christian (rejecting what the majority of Christians declares to be the central doctrine of faith) remains a Christian and does not reject the tales of Jesus as he or she rejects the tales of Zeus or Thor or Allah.
The resurrection-denying Christian still embraces as ultimately true both the bible and the god that it reveals. As does every other Christian, she or he does so precisely according to his or her own needs and preferences.
All Christianity is Self-Projection as God.
Because the bible is contrary, a Christian not only may, but must choose which parts to believe and which parts to reject. Those decisions will always reflect the Christian’s personality, predilections and proclivities.
It’s an arrogant syncretism of life and religion that we call Self Projection as God (SPAG). I published an article about it here a few weeks ago.
It’s a simple and obvious concept, but not always readily understood. One common misunderstanding (or maybe a regular misrepresentation) of SPAG is that it applies only to fundamentalist or ultraconservative Christians who attempt to harmonize the bible.
That’s not the case.
Faithfulness Is Meaningless
In some sense, SPAG depends on an incoherent bible. A true and cogent religious revelation would make faithfulness possible. Lacking one, faithfulness is a meaningless term and the Christian, to be a Christian, must construct a god and define faithfulness to it.
All Christianity is Self-Projection as God That’s the point of the confusion: Self Projection as God is necessary because the bible is unintelligible and false, but it doesn’t depend on the Christian’s effort to harmonize the bible. It only depends on the Christian’s decision to rationalize the bible.
Once that decision has been made, the methods of rationalizing the incoherency will vary just as the SPAGs’ contents will vary. They’ll vary with individual Christians, but they’re all Self Projections as God.
Remember that Christians agree only that some parts of the bible don’t count. They don’t agree what those parts are nor do they agree on what to do with those parts. All Christians won’t proceed in the same manner, but they will each proceed with the same purpose: to rationalize the bible in a way that’s personally pleasing.
Some Christians do that by attempting a biblical harmony. Most do not.
No Harmony Necessary
Of course, the fundamentalists’ preferences in harmonizing the bible are SPAGs. Some fundies try to harmonize the bible around the idea that God wants to save all humans. Others try to harmonize it around the idea that God arbitrarily saves some and condemns others. The bible says both, so it’s “harmonized” according to which sort of god a particular fundamentalist prefers.
But why is that different from the liberal Christian who SPAGs a universalist god and simply doesn’t believe the verses about hell and has no interest in harmonizing them?
How are either the fundy or the liberal unlike the moderate Christian that declares god chooses for salvation those he “foresaw” accepting his offer of salvation and explains away opposing verses with clever hermeneutics or nifty biblical criticisms?
Aren’t they all doing exactly the same thing—choosing which parts of the bible to embrace and how to deal with pieces that don’t fit?
If they’re not, why do they each have proof texts?
The difference between fundies and liberals and every Christian on the continuum between them isn’t the fact of SPAG. The difference is in the verses they choose to SPAG and what they do with the verses that don’t fit their SPAGs—whether forcing the pieces in (fundies), throwing the pieces away (liberals), or trimming the pieces to shape (moderates).
SPAG doesn’t depend on the Christian denying that the bible is rife with contraries and contradictions, but only upon her or his unwillingness to reject the bible and its (SPAGged) god because of that fact.
Resurrection Not Required
Let’s consider the most liberal thinking Christians among the confessing populace, the ones that not only accept and even embrace the errors, but also reject the physical and historical resurrection of Jesus Christ.
It would be gratuitous to name the bible verses and passages that say otherwise — from the legends of empty tombs, through claims of physical manifestations of the risen Jesus like the famous tale of Doubting Thomas, to Paul’s declaration that if Christ is not risen, then Christians are the most pitiable of all humans — yet the liberal Christian rejects the physical resurrection, choosing instead to believe a spiritual resurrection, a metaphor of social liberation, or simply no resurrection at all.
Still, that Christian (rejecting what the majority of Christians declares to be the central doctrine of faith) remains a Christian and does not reject the tales of Jesus as he or she rejects the tales of Zeus or Thor or Allah.
The resurrection-denying Christian still embraces as ultimately true both the bible and the god that it reveals. As does every other Christian, she or he does so precisely according to his or her own needs and preferences.
All Christianity is Self-Projection as God.
Comments
Most people don't know (and don't WANT to know) what is in it. They just eat it up because they like the taste.
I do think the mix should include both. I'll go for coffee while Condell smacks 'em around :)
I remember back when I stupidly became " born again ", my ultra-fundy sister-in-law gently warned me about reading the NT for the 1st time. She said that parts " could be upsetting "......ah, REALLY ??? What upsets me NOW is how people can dance around points in it, saying things like...... " Well, God just wants us to delve further into " his word" and someday we will understand it all ! "-------Yeah, just keep on brainwashing yourselves, and BTW a square peg will NEVER fit into a round hole, no matter how hard you shove!
Great observations in this post, AP.
I actually tried to determine what is Christianity's least common denominator and failed, because Christians want to consign other Christians to hell or at least to exclude them from the ranks of "True Christians". That makes minimal Christian common ground impossible.
Among the liberal mainstream that claims to worship the same god, I suppose that denominator would be that "Jesus was special" but isn't the real common ground simply that they agree to SPAG?
What I think's even more worrisome than people that admit it can be upsetting and hard to understand are the Christians that claim to understand it and project an arbitrary and despotic god that reflects the OT.
When they pan the audience, everyone there looks like they'd like to slit their wrists, the guy is so scary & so dour. I tune in once in a while, just to remind me of what I thankfully left !
Forget "which parts do you believe in?" In fact, how can ANYONE trust a book that was written by some evil and misguided men-the same type of men who poisoned bishops in order to secure the papacy or exhumed a dead pope and put him on trial. And let's not forget the fact that the Bible was written in several languages, lost much in translation or in omissions and that there were approximately over 600 books that were part of the Bible. (We now have 73 or 6 dependign on what you believe) That was before Constantine (formerly a pagan and the Holy Roman Emperor) decided "let's codify this." Did I mention that much of the Bible is based on ideas from Judaism which took ideas form Zoroastrianism, Egyptian mythology, etc? And we are supposed to believe this book is the word of God? THAT takes a lot of faith.
Sorry for the rant..I just wish Xtians would delve a little deeper sometimes.
Great observations in this post, AP.
http://www.evilbible.com for some enlightenment.
Most people don't know (and don't WANT to know) what is in it. They just eat it up because they like the taste.
You are certainly spot on correct. I love your website and your own story. Your desire to communicate with understanding is indeed positive. You might well enjoy these videos that seem take your approach of understanding the Christian and communicating with respect.
http://www.youtube.com/user/Evid3nc3#p/c/A0C3C1D163BE880A/6/qgLBLJE3P-c
Perhaps a good cop and bad cop like Pat Condell both have their place in the mix http://dotsub.com/view/user/patcondell
You would be a good cop (grin) http://avangelism.com/blog/
Forget "which parts do you believe in?" In fact, how can ANYONE trust a book that was written by some evil and misguided men-the same type of men who poisoned bishops in order to secure the papacy or exhumed a dead pope and put him on trial. And let's not forget the fact that the Bible was written in several languages, lost much in translation or in omissions and that there were approximately over 600 books that were part of the Bible. (We now have 73 or 6 dependign on what you believe) That was before Constantine (formerly a pagan and the Holy Roman Emperor) decided "let's codify this." Did I mention that much of the Bible is based on ideas from Judaism which took ideas form Zoroastrianism, Egyptian mythology, etc? And we are supposed to believe this book is the word of God? THAT takes a lot of faith.
Sorry for the rant..I just wish Xtians would delve a little deeper sometimes.
What I think's even more worrisome than people that admit it can be upsetting and hard to understand are the Christians that claim to understand it and project an arbitrary and despotic god that reflects the OT.
When they pan the audience, everyone there looks like they'd like to slit their wrists, the guy is so scary & so dour. I tune in once in a while, just to remind me of what I thankfully left !
I actually tried to determine what is Christianity's least common denominator and failed, because Christians want to consign other Christians to hell or at least to exclude them from the ranks of "True Christians". That makes minimal Christian common ground impossible.
Among the liberal mainstream that claims to worship the same god, I suppose that denominator would be that "Jesus was special" but isn't the real common ground simply that they agree to SPAG?
Post a Comment