Spong lost so much credibility with me in the first 37 pages that I can't read anymore. He goes off on a tangent about how the question of whether the Bible is the Word of God depends on the meaning of the verb "to be," but never explains why that is the crucial point. He says that none of the bad things described in the Bible (the flood, various battles) can be ascribed to God. He says that in a post-Newtonian world, it is impossible to believe that God performs or has performed miracles.

He says that "From the moment in which human beings achieved the dramatic step into self-consciousness, the evolutionary struggle to survive became primary, carrying with it enormous emotional consequences." No, the evolutionary struggle to survive was always there, and that's not a characteristic particular to humans. "To be human was always to be on guard against external enemies, both human and subhuman." Again, being on guard against enemies is a characteristic of all living things.

In talking about the Andrea Yates trial, he says that "It did not occur to the members of the jury, charged with rendering a verdict, that it was their responsibility either to judge the motive or to explore any extenuating circumstances." Yeah, that's because it's NOT the jury's responsibility to do that. Juries aren't there to decide whether they think a person is a bad person; their job is to decide whether someone broke the law. Another reviewer has pointed out that he refers to Andrea Yates as "Agatha Yarnell." Spong says in his endnotes that "Agatha Yarnell" is not the woman's real name, and even though her name was all over the news, he doesn't want to use it in order to spare her family further embarrassment. If that was his goal, he should have picked a better pseudonym. How dumb does he think we are?

I flipped through the rest of the book to look for better parts, and I came across this: "Far from women suffering from 'penis envy,' I think a case can be made for the fact that men suffer from menstruation envy. Through the ages men have yearned to capture that female life power that enables women to bleed from their genitals and not die." That has to be one of the weirdest things I have ever read.

Also, based on the description on the back of the cover, I thought this book was going to be an explanation of texts in the Bible that have been used for hateful purposes to show how those passages do not mean those things. Instead, Spong's thesis is that the Bible is not the Word of God (or the words of human authors inspired by God, or anything like that), and those passages are just evidence of prejudices at the times in which the Bible was written. I agree with him in very broad terms--that some parts of the Bible are specific to the time in which they were written, and that Christians have wrongly used the Bible to justify some horrific acts--but this book does not do a good job of promoting those arguments. ( )

Spong argues, per the title, that a large portion of Scripture is harmful and immoral—much of both the Old and New Testaments are “texts of hate.” (Wait, how was it that he was actually ordained a Bishop? Oh, right—he’s an Episcopalian.) This goes way beyond the usual tropes, such as citing the Biblical accounts of the destruction of Pagan cities etc. Among other things, Spong tells us that the commandment in Genesis to “be fruitful and multiply” should “now…be seen as a prescription for human genocide.” This, of course, is just his opinion (as they say), but as Boeflak points out, there are also myriad errors of fact--in history, textual interpretation, economics, psychology, population science, ethics, logic, theology, current events, philosophy, etc., etc., etc. I will not waste another minute of my precious earthly life detailing any of them here, but open to any page at random, and I guarantee one shall find, oh, I don’t know, let’s say at least three—even counting the short pages that end each chapter. For this silly book, Spong, in the charitable and tolerant opinion of your humble reviewer, should receive at least twenty-five tickles with the comfy pillow. (We reserve stoning for more consequential efforts.) Oddly, one of the positive back cover blurbs is from Bill O’Reilly. ( )

I like Spong. The retired Episcopal bishop does a fair job generally in trying to incorporate the explosion of 1st century knowledge in the past generation to correct and align Christian theology with some semblance of reality.

The problem with Sins of Scripture is that Spong either needs to be more careful with his research or he needs a better editor.

That errors of fact and ignorance that creep into his text are irritating. He repeatedly refers to Andrea Yates, the Texas woman who drowned her five children, as "Agatha Yarnell."

He writes that the world's population has doubled in 30 years; it hasn't. He believes there's a population explosion under way that threatens human survival; there isn't. The decline in birthrates worldwide since 1962 has begun to be felt. Population is falling in many countries and is expected to peak globally in 2040 before beginning a long and steep fall.

The errors of fact and subtance are embarrassing to read, and it undermines the credibility of his theological arguments.

His book also tries to make the case about the bible as a source of hatred, intolerance, discrimination, inequality and slavery. And he does as good a job as any, I suppose. But you have to dig through an awful lot of manure before you find the pony in this book. ( )