Zach Christensen > Recent Status Updates

I largely ignored the works of the so-called “new atheists” during my younger years in religious academia, as I was quite content to read David Hume, J.L. Mackie, Nietzsche, and other atheist philosophers or figures.

However, I recently stumbled upon some of Hitchens’ debates, lectures, interviews, and the like. I found him to be a very entertaining orator who made cogent points with great wit. So here I am.

I do not understand Ayn Rand’s argument against Medicare. She explains that the cost was repeatedly doubling over the years since it was created in 1965, contends that doctors will become enslaved by the state, and that the federal funding that pays for Medicare is en route to bankruptcy.

But, in 2020, the American tax payer only gives 1.45% of their earnings to Medicare.

*shrugs shoulders*

Yes, I’m still reading it, and I still hate it. But it is enjoyable for me to interact with things that I know I already disagree with. Or am I just a glutton for punishment? Let’s read on.

While I think Ayn Rand is a monster, her material on religion and capitalism is spot on. If capitalism entirely revolves around self-promotion, and religion requires altruism, the two cannot meaningfully interact with each other.

This sort of like an anti devotional, devotional type book. I’m having fun with it.

Enjoyable so far. Comparable to Narnia, except Pullman is obviously not religious, and that shows in the way he advances the plot and formulates conflict between characters.

Comprehensive, surprisingly conservatively argued. Great use of the patristics as well as modern scholarship.

As I come to the end of things book, I am bummed that Spong wrote almost nothing about Revelation. I think Revelation will be one of the most important books for American Christians, particularly due to its political criticism against the domination system.

Spong’s treatment of the Gospels is similarly explained in other works of his. He makes the case the Synoptics all reflect the Jewish liturgical calendar, as these gospels were written within the synagogue. I find this to be quite convincing. Spong then basically asserts that the Gospels contain very little history. I do not see this as a necessary conclusion, although I do not think the Gospels are pure history.

Spong’s treatment of the Gospels is similarly explained in other works of his. He makes the case the Synoptics all reflect the Jewish liturgical calendar, as these gospels were written within the synagogue. I find this to be quite convincing. Spong then basically asserts that the Gospels contain very little history. I do not see this as a necessary conclusion, although I do not think the Gospels are pure history.

Probably some of Spong’s best writing in Paul. Rather than just saying he was a primitive and misogynistic lunatic, there is actually a fair treatment here (for the most part).

Upon getting to the section dedicated to the Pauline epistles, there is one of Spong’s ideas that I think is perhaps his silliest: St. Paul was a repressed gay man. In Romans 7:23, Paul states that the law of sin “dwells within my members.” The Greek noun for “members” (melos) means bodily appendage. Spong takes this to mean “the male organ.”

At the very least, it is entertaining.

“The book of Ruth, like the book of Jonah, was written to protest all of the limits that human prejudice forever tries to place on the love of God.”

“It was largely through the contribution of Amos that from henceforth in Judaism worship and justice would never again be separated. Worship, rather, came to be views as human justice being offered to God, while justice began to be seen simply as divine worship being acted. In this context, justice became another name for God.”

Spong’s exposition of Hosea is simply beautiful.

This book is riveting. If you want to know one thing that Spong does well, he writes about the prophets with the utmost excellence.

This one of Spong’s better books. I’m enjoying it so far.

Not really impressed so far. In essence, he argues “Anything other than religious fundamentalism is intellectual retreat.”

I’m sorry, but that’s wrong. Fundamentalism always emerges as a reactionary schism in response to rapid social change. It never represents a historic expression of any religion.

My church had this book in their library. I would never pay money read the New Atheist drivel.

Really fun to read, but many arguments are one-dimensional abstractions of literalism. Pages are spent explaining why Genesis chapter 1 makes no literal sense. Of course not - it was written as a mythical, non-violent alternative way of seeing the cosmos in contrast to the Babylonian myth, the Enuma Elish. This is silly.

My enthusiasm is waning.