Evolution, creation and other silly topics

[_ID_]

Tom, thanks for the enlightenment. I always thought being Christian meant you had to believe that Jesus Christ (ergo the term Christianity) was your everlasting savior/redeemer/god... something along those lines. I've never claimed to be a theologian, so I can very well be off, and appreciate the lesson.

[Ozme52]

Tom, thanks for the enlightenment. I always thought being Christian meant you had to believe that Jesus Christ (ergo the term Christianity) was your everlasting savior/redeemer/god... something along those lines. I've never claimed to be a theologian, so I can very well be off, and appreciate the lesson.

That's true and Tom wasn't denying that... he was (and I am) refuting the correlation you made between Christianity and Creationism.

Creationism is not a tenet of Christianity per se and has nothing to do with Jesus Christ per se. It's a (relatively) modern invention of "scholars" who think the bible is literal in it's descriptions of how God made heaven and earth... It's the seven days issue. I would venture that most christians are not creationists.

----------------------------------

To put an answer to Lion's question, such things are important if you believe that the person being elected is going to base other decisions and propose legislation based on his beliefs, rather than knowledge.

It's the basic problem that I see with Bush. He acts on what he believes to be true regardless of evidence. So if something isn't a proven given, he seems more than willing to ignore the "preponderance" of evidence and will go with his ill-informed gut.

We end up not supporting the Kyoto accords.
Limited stem cell research.
An ill-advised war.
An ongoing attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade with regard to abortion rights.

Those who espouse to be on the far left or the far right rarely have a lot of compromise in them, in my opinion. And as Tom points out, if the candidate is more willing to be guided by belief than information, that's what we end up with. Right now we're suffering with the conservative side of that. I'd be no happier with the liberal equivalent.

[jeanne]

Warning: This is my opinion only. Unsupported by facts.

Most people in this country are irrational and not nearly as intelligent as they think they are (myself included). Rather than think it through, they make big decisions about candidates based on party affiliation or a single issue, such as those stated above. It's simply easier...and then they can go about the far more important business of deciding who should win "American Idol". Yes, that was sarcasm.

I do the same to a certain degree. I will never vote for a candidate who publicly proclaims their intention to overturn Roe v. Wade. I simply can't do it.

[TomOfSweden]

Tom, thanks for the enlightenment. I always thought being Christian meant you had to believe that Jesus Christ (ergo the term Christianity) was your everlasting savior/redeemer/god... something along those lines. I've never claimed to be a theologian, so I can very well be off, and appreciate the lesson.

I understand where you're comming from. A year ago I'd be as surprised as you. My discussions with Rhabbi and Cariad made me realise I had more to learn. Christianity is a vast subject on many levels. And since this is such a major part of our western cultural tradition, I thought it was important to study it. The "History of God" by Karen Armstrong I've mentioned before here. It's a truly great book. It's won a massive pile of awards from various religious communities for a reason. She steers clear of myth and makes scientifically supported theories on the origins of the various beliefs that stem from the Jewish/Bablonian tradition. This book cleared a lot of it up for me and is a great way to get a brief crash course into this truly monumental subject.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/History-God-...4703916&sr=8-1

After this I went back and did some more studying on the origins or Christianity. I even re-read the Bible. But now with my new eyes, I could actually see and understand what was written. Without correct historical context, the two Bibles make very little sense. This was quite an eye opener for me.

There's some great Gnostic quotes rediscovered in the Nag Hammadi library which date back to 2nd century AD. I'll try not to turn this into another religious discussion but they where an early major sect of Christianity, and quite possibly the original source of Christianity. Anyhoo, Gnostics are very candid about Jesus not being real and only being a philosophical invention. They restate it many times. They still think we should follow the example of Jesus, which is the whole point of having Jesus in the Bible at all. For them the Bible is a manual for how to live, and not a historical document. And they very much believe in God.

Anyway. My point isn't to argue for a Gnostic interpretation of the Bible but to exemplify how extremely wide the basic philosophical ideas of the Christian faith are. This I think is Christianities most positive feature. It is a very open religion to interpretation. One cannot simply be Christian and a mindless drone... well actually one can... but that isn't the fault of Christianity.

I personally choose to see modern philosophy and science as a natural continuation of the Christian tradition and teachings. Christianity is probably the first religion where spiritual matters is a personal matter, (ie the holy ghost). Sure, in Paganism one could switch gods depending on needs, but the followers were always dependent on the interpretations of priests and the words of the priests were not to be questioned. Christianity quickly slipped into this Pagan tradition, ie the Pope, (which is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible). So it's not surprising the Gnostics where labelled heretics.

That last bit is purely my own interpretation of my studies of Christianity. I used to be on the Dawkins bandwagon of equating religion with evil. Not any more. I think my eyes have been opened a bit. I'm still very much atheist, but I've stopped looking for a Devil to blame the faults of humanity on.

Sorry about the possible thread derail.

edit: to reconnect somewhat. The only thing we can say of candidates claiming to be Christian, (and Christians in general) have in common is their beliefs in moral absolutes. The idea that finding out which morals to be guided by isn't so much a question of debate as it is of research. The idea that once you find the source it will all be obvious.

This is Plato. He was the one who first came up with this idea. Modern genetics are proving him right. There really does seem to be basic human rights we're all compelled to follow. Instincts is another word.

Christians don't really have to believe in the omnipotent God either. Christianities foundation is Aristotle's' solution to Plato's problem. He imagined the "unmoved mover". But Aristotle's God, doesn't do anything but simply move. And this God only need to do it once. Aristotle didn't believe God had feelings or opinions. All it did was to start it all. Be the originator of everything. Sound familiar? Big Bang, perhaps?

It's quite possible to be Christian and adhere to all the most modern and cutting edge scientific theories. The core of Christianity is this open. I sincerely doubt that any Christian today makes my radical interpretation. I mean, why bother calling oneself Christian? What western atheist today doesn't celebrate Christmas? Stephen Weinberg has a great quote which goes something like this, "if you only choose to follow the selected passages from the Bible, that correspond to your moral values, and of course interpreted to match, then what do you need the Bible for?" I think this is Constantin's major critique against the Gnostics and why he branded them heretics. Gnostic Christianity is free from connotations. The label is empty. There is no box that fits a Gnostic. They are free to think and feel what God is to them, and formulate their faith to fit them, rather than the other way around. Who could possibly not like that?