Jesus or Sin

Post Reply New Topic

In the book Science and Creationism published in 1984, one of the chapters is by someone who pointed out that the "controversy" between evolution and creationism is NOT between science and religion as some people mistakenly think. It is in fact a conflict between the science of 2000 A.D. with the science of 2000 B.C.

Of course "science" in the form we know it now was not around back then, but any spiritual work by and for any culture incorporates the cosmology of those people. When read literally the way anti-evolution people interpret Genesis, the Bible also clearly teaches that the earth is a flat immovable disk supported on pillars with a solid dome overhead in which stars are embedded. Most Christians nowadays don't think the earth is flat, but there are so many LIES being spread by creationist sources about evolution that many Christians don't yet accept that as the fact it is.

I keep coming back to the following question when I am addressing fundamentalist Christians who insist on reading Genesis literally: Since you are so very wrong about something like evolution that has so much evidence of so many different types I can see for myself that clearly shows you are wrong about that, how can I possibly trust your opinion on spiritual matters (God, heaven, hell, SIN, etc.) that are not so easily checked?

And IF your way of reading the Bible is the correct way (and so many different churches will all tell you that they are the only ones who have it right and all those other churches are not reading the Bible correctly), then why does your God say something different in the evidence of His creation compared to what you claim He says in His Book? If evolution is not true, and if the book of Genesis is supposed to be taken the way the fundamentalists say, then God is lying to us one way or the other, either in His Book or in His Creation. I know some Protestants don't consider Catholics to be "true" Christians, but at least the Catholic church recognizes "Truth cannot contradict truth."

Some people place far too much contemporary importance on a book that is 2000 years old that is largely just a mixture of mythology, legends, fables and historical anecdotes.

I didnt say I didnt believe ANY of it, just that the period in which it was written should first be taken into account.....

Everything in the wall of text after this statement is moot, as I do not agree with your basic premise here.

'Sin' is an artificial construct created by religion, for the purpose of exploiting human frailty for the benefit of the priestly class. It does not enter into my moral thought.



You are with us, or you are with the terrorists.



Works the same in any totalist belief system as well.