Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The Gospel according to Judas

  1. Apr 3, 2005 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    An unusual story... I had never heard about this until now, and assuming it's true...

    http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,12704755%5E663,00.html
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 4, 2005 #2
    Talk about ground-shaking stuff. The new Pope's gonna have plenty of fun stuff to talk about...
     
  4. Apr 4, 2005 #3

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I don't know if this is the right place to mention it, but it seems the best candidate. I can't help seeing the irony of coincidence keeping the religion/science debate on an even playing field. Pope dies today; yesterday I picked up the new Scientific American and saw the obituary of Ernst Mayr, who was the world's foremost proponent of Darwinism. :frown:
     
  5. Apr 4, 2005 #4
    All the inconsistencies of the gospels, such as the role of Mary Magdelon, and novels such as Dan Brown's "The DeVinci Code" has made the topic more public. Will it change religious dogma? It would take a long time if it does...
     
  6. Apr 5, 2005 #5
    speaking of religion and darwinism, i heard somewhere that the pope (JPII) said that darwinism did not confilct with Catholosism's Genesis. I always thought that darwinism was the 'anit-Christ'. :confused: Don't know if its true.

    Fibonacci
     
  7. Apr 5, 2005 #6

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    This is the first I've heard of it, but I bet he was referring to the 'survival of the fittest' part, not the physical evolution of a species. He's not likely to have admitted that animals existed before people.
     
  8. Apr 5, 2005 #7
    "Gospel according to Judas" :rofl: who is coming up with this stuff ?
    some forcess in the world are trying completelly discredit Christianity.
     
  9. Apr 5, 2005 #8
    Yea, what's up with this nonsense -- I'd rather spend my time in pursuit of weed and pretty women... :uhh: :smile:
     
  10. Apr 5, 2005 #9

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Not at all. The official position of the Catholic Church is that all of Darwinian evolutionary theory is compatible with Christianity. There are plenty of protestant churches that do not agree, however.
     
  11. Apr 5, 2005 #10

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Technically, all churches that claim the apostolic doctrines and sacraments of the 'original' church are considered Catholic, including Anglican and United, but I assume that you refer specifically to just the Roman variety. I don't know how they can claim no conflict, since Genesis clearly leaves no room for argument about the order of creation. (Although there are a couple of different versions in the same book.)
     
  12. Apr 5, 2005 #11

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Ahh, but you forget about The Catch: symbolism. Is a day really a day?

    Or perhaps its not even like that - do you know about the devious creator theory? God created the earth 4000 years ago to look like it was 4.5 billion years old.
     
  13. Apr 5, 2005 #12

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Oh yeah, I've heard 'em all. The 'day is a 10,000,000 years' thing still doesn't explain the discontinuity that they think people were the first living creatures, while all evidence proves the opposite. And that second thing is just too stupid to even laugh at.
     
  14. Apr 6, 2005 #13

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    No I've never heard of this...tell more.
     
  15. Apr 6, 2005 #14

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That's really all there is to it. Its actually a pretty common thing for a creationist to unwittingly stumble into when cornered. If they make any serious attempt at argument, sooner or later they have to deal with the fact that there is a mountain of evidence out there and that that evidence contradicts what is literally said in the Bible. The only way to reconcile those two facts is if that evidence was fabricated 4,000 years ago by a God who, for some reason, doesn't want us to know the truth.
     
  16. Apr 6, 2005 #15
    Well, it's not *too* difficult to loosely associate the days from Genesis to various eras, for example Day 1 'Let there be light' is the big bang, etc. There's even some historical support for this. The 'Book of Enoch' for example talks about seven days being seven thousand and the eighth being uncounted, an infinity. Of course the BoE isn't considered Canon, but it reflects what some of the ~2nd Century BC scholars may have been thinking. As Russ said, symbolism is the key.

    The 'Earth appears old' theory seems to have come about fairly recently (to me anyway.) The idea is basically that the reason Cosmology seems to say the Universe is 13 Billion years old and carbon dating tells us the Earth is 5 Billion years old is because they were 'old' when they were created. Basically, in 4004 BC, the Earth/Universe was created with Isotopic abundances, distances/speeds between galaxies/etc. so that it appeared much older.

    Take a look here and scroll down to the section on Young and Old Earth Creationists. You can get a much more detailed explanation there.
     
  17. Apr 6, 2005 #16

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There are two justifications for this idea that I know of. First, the "illusion" of science [not my opinion, just stating the idea] is a test of faith. And/or, Satan, aka the great deceiver, was given dominion over earth until the second coming. So by this notion, evil is what deceives us.

    I used to have a neighbor who was a "non-denominational fundamentalist", which translates as, "his minister has ALL of THE answers". After some sermon at church he got all worked up about Einstein and relativity - which was taken as the literal source of ethical Relativism! Truth is not relative, you know, so it seems that even our clocks deceive us.

    Could it be that Maxwell's Demon is more devilish than we ever imagined? :biggrin:
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2005
  18. Apr 6, 2005 #17
    The pope may have been a theological conservative, but he did not favor a literal translation of the bible(at least not as long as i've been alive).

    This is the pope who said that both galileo and copernicus were right, and decreed that BBT was 'in accordance with the scripture'.

    The enemies of evolution are the looney born agains, not the catholics. At least, in the US anyway.
     
  19. Apr 6, 2005 #18

    Because the Catholic Catechism does not include a literal interpretation of the bible.

    Try not to tell other people what they believe when you don't know what you're talking about.
     
  20. Apr 6, 2005 #19

    You are soooo right Franz.N . I have neve ever meeet catholic who was against theory of evolution .
     
  21. Apr 6, 2005 #20

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    As Franz points out, the Roman Catholic catechism was amended years back to teach biological evolution as the method of creation. They don't interpret the book of Genesis literally. John Paul II was actually a rather vocal proponent of accepting evolutionary theory and generally keeping religion current with a scientific worldview.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: The Gospel according to Judas
  1. In Honor of Judas (Replies: 34)

Loading...