Wednesday, August 02, 2006
AGE OF AQUARIUS 2
Tibet just sent a friendly and as always charming email regarding my original AoA posting, this is the relevant bit here: 'I must say I NEVER said that AIDS was a message from God (Tiny Tim did, maybe they are confusing us!); I just said that increasing disasters everywhere are a sign of apocalypse (or, from your angle, a sign we are in for lots of sunshine!)'. Fair enough, even though 'sign of apocalypse' or 'message from God' seems to me like a minor semantic difference, I do know that magazines can misquote, or take things out of context, and things get even worse when bits are sloppily retranslated and recycled on blogs like this one. Heathen that I am however, I can't resist adding that since religious believers are the ones traditionally responsible for the disasters that have caused most human bloodshed, agree with me or not on the premise, might it not therefore behove them to follow the original advice?!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
I agree with the basis of all your points - the Catholic church still essentially clings onto the twisted and patriarchical Augustine tradition, while making minor adjustments according to the prevailing climate; and I also believe you, perfectly naturally, are also buying into the widespread phenomenon of Jesus being what we want him to be, to fit neatly into our own worldviews and agendas. And interestingly, I aver this is how the gnostic Christians understood the purely spiritual entity that Jesus symbolically represents: Jesus is IN you (and by definition not outwith). There's clearly a big difference to what we hold as beliefs and what in fact happened, happens or will happen. Therefore I'm curious to know where you see the evidence lies and how likewise you go about presupposing the historicity of ANY Biblical character. To me, it's primarily a (patch)work of allegory, not of history.
Post a Comment