=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
God V Science (again)
Log In to post a reply
63 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
stray
stray
2057 posts

Re: God V Science (again)
Sep 17, 2008, 11:28
Well tbh, the whole of the Old Testament is inconsistent (it gets even more completely out there if you throw in the book(s) of Enoch too), and its, of course, totally at odds with the New Testament (which is reasonable really).

The New testament itself is a complete mess, when not only are the gospels are split 2 against 2 with something as important as the Ascension (did he go see Mary, or go see Peter), but the acts of the apostles after that are completely at odds with the fundamental message of Christ. Its all interpretation, and a lot of the many branches of Christianity have formed a workable consistency out of it by cherry picking interpretation. The whole text cannot by any stretch be used as a consistent structure for a faith. The best bet is to go to the original Judaic text that were ripped off to make the Old Testament. However, it's the New Testament that should count for Christians really, which doesnt contain the creation myth. So, Christiantity it could be argued could/should function more like Taoism in regards the formation of the universe.

In the first two centuries after Christs death the schisms within Christianity were a lot more marked than they are now. There was also a group of faiths modern Thelogians describe as 'gnostic' who seem to be closer to the gospels than the acts, but even they had groups within them that were trying to crowbar in the many gods of the Hellenic myths. One of the main principles of the Gnostics though seems to be that the Holy Spirit is female, or at least the creator (mother) of God, and God, well, lies a lot.

In short what I'm saying is Christian disagrements with the text, and even going as far as rejecting entirely the creation myth therein is not a recent development. There are also the texts discovered in the Nag Hammadi Library that didnt make the cut into the accepted books (Gospel of Thomas, Mary, Apocryphon of John, Song of Sophia etc) of the bible we have today, a collection of texts that interestingly also included a fair chunk of Plato's Republic. There are even more alternative creation myths in those codex.

Sooo...? The faith works when, like other faiths, it is taken outside of the possible metaphor, metaphysical descriptions of how the universe was created. It's all moot. It's because that it functions as a tool of ethics that it continues to function today. Fairy stories are fairy stories, they were to some people in 2AD as they are now to some people in 2008AD.

I also think that the idea that the concept of the eternal soul is somehow diametrically opposed to evolution is well, dumb tbh. It shows a complete lack of understanding as to what the soul is to Christians (but it would take way too long for me to go into it properly). As for animals, plants etc, erm, what ? We have 'dominion over the animals' to quote the text on that one, Soul vessels or not.

It's the Holy Spirit, receiving it, listening to it and acting on it that should be the true form of a Christian. That is the only singularly consistent part of the faith. Also, its important for a Christian to accept that even people in Spirit can sin, it doesnt take away freewill after all (thats the current batch of evangelicals grave mistake, blasphemy if you like). As Christ was pretty clear, work in spirit, help those who ask for your help, aid them to receive the spirit if they ask for it. That's it, everything else is a distraction, irrelevance. Evolution, much like politics, or anything else 'of this world' are not things Christians should be involved in. When Christianity became a political, state system, or generally an agent of control, it ceases to be Christian. Those are thr proper arguments/issues to raise with the hypocritical forms that are attempting to push creationism. 'Spreading the word' means discussing, not enforcing (christ again is pretty fucking clear there, in 'the pray for them' and 'leave her alone' approach), and the creation myth of Genesis is not part of that word either tbh.
In reply to:
Re: God V Science (again) (Merrick)		 Replies:
Re: God V Science (again) (nigelswift)
Topic Outline:
U-Know! Forum Index