I just have to ask one question

The source of god and Jesus is obviously flawed to require so much explanation, cherry picking, and apologetics. So why continue the charade? If the underlying foundation is put into question and needs so much special interpretation (which never matches what anyone else interprets) why not recognize religion for what it really is? Fake. Made up. A fiction perpetrated to control and conquer.

I don't care how well the sales pitch is, the bottom line is that changing the description doesn't make god any more true or real. All I'm seeing here is people abandoning all the negative things in which religion gets busted for and continuing to ignore the real issue -...

I just have to ask one question

The source of god and Jesus is obviously flawed to require so much explanation, cherry picking, and apologetics. So why continue the charade? If the underlying foundation is put into question and needs so much special interpretation (which never matches what anyone else interprets) why not recognize religion for what it really is? Fake. Made up. A fiction perpetrated to control and conquer.

I don't care how well the sales pitch is, the bottom line is that changing the description doesn't make god any more true or real. All I'm seeing here is people abandoning all the negative things in which religion gets busted for and continuing to ignore the real issue - why should the claim be taken seriously?

Is there absolutely any proof to this new variation of god or Jesus? Why should they be taken as real over Allah, or Zues, or Isis, or Imenhotep, or any other myriad of gods made up by mankind over the ages?

If you cannot supply that proof, then this is nothing more than the ultimate cherry picking - Taking away all the bad stuff of religion so that one doesn't feel so hypocritical in their beliefs in the face of the obvious nonsense.

I do see a positive here. Maybe with enough religious evolution ALL of the supernatural ignorance and mumbo jumbo can be taken out and Jesus (or the conceptualized idea of him) can be simply celebrated as a wise/intelligent man, just as we do with Buddha, Einstein, Plato, Edison, or any other historical figures that provided advancement to humanity. Then we can all begin to live with one another with an acceptance to reality rather than bogus life after death fantasies.

Ironically, the author does not believe what even the Jews that persecuted and killed him did, that he performed many miracles, which is why they sought to remove him, under color of law, by force. Historical truth is determined by eye-witness accounts. That Jesus enemies acknowledge his miracles is fully documented, and can only be refuted, as in a court of law, by other historical witnesses.

Therefore, the author has sought to produce a book of fiction, upon his own bias presumptions, and for his own glory, while tickling the ears of many gullible to believe him, just because he himself says so! It is irrational to believe this author's "beliefs" or conclusions, without cross examinati...

Ironically, the author does not believe what even the Jews that persecuted and killed him did, that he performed many miracles, which is why they sought to remove him, under color of law, by force. Historical truth is determined by eye-witness accounts. That Jesus enemies acknowledge his miracles is fully documented, and can only be refuted, as in a court of law, by other historical witnesses.

Therefore, the author has sought to produce a book of fiction, upon his own bias presumptions, and for his own glory, while tickling the ears of many gullible to believe him, just because he himself says so! It is irrational to believe this author's "beliefs" or conclusions, without cross examination of both him, and considering both the biblical and nonbiblical historical witness through written testimony. It is "blind faith" beyond credulity to believe what this author writes upon his own arbitrary thinking alone.

Bishop Spong also wrote "the Sins of Scripture". I first borrowed it
from the library and I liked it so much I bought a hard cover copy of
my own. In a nutshell it's about how people twist the Bible to suit
theit own personal needs.

Certainly in the fractured denominational church this does indeed happen. Though usually not to the point of disavowing the essentials. In my view there really isn't anyhting wrong with that.
The problem is that is what Spong does exactly what you suggest Spong is critical of to a much more irrational degree. It least that is how it seems to me not being a Spong scholar rather a curious bystander and observer.

He seems to toss out highly scrutinize...

Bishop Spong also wrote "the Sins of Scripture". I first borrowed it
from the library and I liked it so much I bought a hard cover copy of
my own. In a nutshell it's about how people twist the Bible to suit
theit own personal needs.

Certainly in the fractured denominational church this does indeed happen. Though usually not to the point of disavowing the essentials. In my view there really isn't anyhting wrong with that.
The problem is that is what Spong does exactly what you suggest Spong is critical of to a much more irrational degree. It least that is how it seems to me not being a Spong scholar rather a curious bystander and observer.

He seems to toss out highly scrutinized and sound theology to make room for his own biases. In so doing he has cleared his own path to avoid textual criticism. His hermeneutics are almost entirely subjective in that he avoids unification of scripture and creates his own authority, nature, and interpretation out of thin air.