Task: Sentiment Analysis
Input (English): Violates the False Claims Act . Wow. I was shocked. Legitimate statements of liberal Christianity include ones like, 'Transubstantiation is mistaken', 'The Vatican does not have a direct pipeline to God', 'Homosexuality is not a sin', 'Condoms and birth control are morally defensible', NOT 'Jesus never performed miracles', 'The trinity does not exist', 'Jesus is not the Son of God.' It is disingenuous for Spong to assert he is a Christian when he disavows ALL the major tenets of the religion - virgin birth, miracles, incarnation, atonement, resurrection, ascension, the trinity, and the deity of Jesus. He believes less in a religion per se and more in a code of ethical conduct like, say, Confucianism, and the "patronizing nonsense" (a la C.S. Lewis) that Jesus was simply a great moral teacher. He even says on page 229, "...a religionless Christianity must be born." Religionless Christianty?! That's a contradiction in terms. Mr. Spong sounds like an ethicist, not a religionist. He also owes Saint Paul an apology for rumor-mongering when the man has long been absent and not around to defend himself.    I do admit though, I liked a lot his discourse on the plight of women and mens' subconscious fear of them. I also liked his observations on homosexuality. What he had to say about Judas was also interesting (but misleading as it is based solely on his own suppositions, not evidence). The section on anti-semitism was informative but that whole subject has always struck me as odd to begin with, i.e., that a Christian could hate or resent a Jew. Very odd.    I'm sure we've all noticed that bible-interpetation discussions are on the same road as capital punishment, birth control, gun control, and abortion: I'm Right and You're Wrong Avenue. Especially with bible interpretation, words and phraseology are open to diverse translations, and theologians themselves disagree.    Oh, and here's my two cents on the Council of Nicea. Of course the Christian theologians had to discuss Christian doctrine and record it for posterity. Of course Christianity had to be, dare I say, 'corporatized' in a way. How can the Word spread without an efficient distribution channel? The remarkable thing is that it did not happen much sooner. You see now, though, how it is very easy for anyone with an advanced intellect (such as Spong) to take the very (true) words I have just said in this paragraph and make it sound convincingly like, "You see!..he admits it..corporatized!..distribution channels!..surely there was wheeling and dealing...these people were not serious...blah blah blah."    I offer one piece of advice. However, I admit I base this advice on my belief that: 1) An all-loving God exists, 2) the gospels are historically accurate, 3) Jesus is the incarnated Son of God and 4) the bible is divinely inspired. Whenever a bible passage irks you, enrages you, or just generally creates any type of irritation in you, remember that YOU are the one thinking about it. And you're not God.
Output (English): NEG