Christian without creationism

It seems that Pope John Paul II and the Vatican don't see a conflict between the Bible and ToE.

http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html

I get the impression that the creationists are a very small sub-set of the Christian viewpoint on this subject. 


 

Originally posted by Reckless Abandon
Because it says, this is what happened. "God created..." it doesn't mention that this is a parable in any way. (as I show below, the Bible mentions when it is about to, or has mentioned a parable...)



Like I said above, the Bible says "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth," And it doesn't say anywhere later that this is a parable or that this is just an example to teach us something. As you see here, the Bible tells us that the "Parable of the Tenants", that you mentioned, that it is a parable:

Matthew 21:33
"Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey."

Here are some more examples:

Matthew 13:3
"Then he told them many things in parables, saying: "A farmer went out to sow his seed."

Matthew 22:1
"Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying:..."

Mark 3:23
"So Jesus called them and spoke to them in parables:..."

Mark 4:2
"He taught them many things by parables, and in his teaching said:..."

Luke 5:36
"He told them this parable:..."

There are TONS more, but this shows us that these are parables, not something that actually happened. But in Genesis, when it tells of what God created and how He did it, it doesn't say anything about it being a parable. So, if it is not a parable, then it would be what literally happened.

Click to expand...

I didn't say that it was a parable. I merely used parables as the most obvious example of a text that should not be taken literally.

Genesis falls under the mythic literary genre. That does not mean that it is devoid of truth, merely that it describes in a context that should not be taken literally. The author took the Sumerian/Babylonian creation myth, the "science" of the time, and through the inspiration of God modified it so that it reflects God's nature rather than a pagan one. Through the myth, we learn that God created everything, Creation is good, God created humanity, and humanity is good. Unlike other religions, there is no dualistic good/evil division to the Universe, no evil diety or pantheon that has any power to defeat God. Compared to these truths, the actual history of the Universe is trivial.

Originally posted by Tinman
I get the impression that the creationists are a very small sub-set of the Christian viewpoint on this subject. 

Click to expand...

Over at religioustolerance.org, they have results of various survey's done on people's beliefs in that regard.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Apparently, about 45% of Americans are YEC.

I find this part of the survey very interesting.

Belief in creation science seems to be largely a U.S. phenomenon. A British survey of 103 Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant ministers/pastors showed that:

97% do not believe the world was created in six days.

80% do not believe in the existence of Adam and Eve.

Click to expand...

I find this part interesting...

College graduates
Creationist 25%
Theistic Evolutionist 54%
Naturalistic Evolutionist 16.5%

No high school diploma
Creationist 65%
Theistic Evolutionist 23%
Naturalistic Evolutionist4.6%

The more education one has the less likely to be a creationist...

And ofcourse that leads directly to this...

Income over $50,000
C 29%
T E 50%
N E 17%

Income under $20,000
C 59%
T E 28%
N E 6.5%

Well ofcourse the more education one has the higher the income potential.

So does this mean that Hovind and Chick are bilking their money out of those least able to afford it?

I'm glad to know the statistics. I sure hate it that the ignorant are so numerous, and that ignorance preys mercilessly on the poor.

Originally posted by fragmentsofdreams I didn't say that it was a parable. I merely used parables as the most obvious example of a text that should not be taken literally.

Click to expand...

Obvious because it tells us that it should not be taken literally. But when the Bible tells us, "God created..." and it says that this did actually happen, then it should be taken literally.

Genesis falls under the mythic literary genre.

Click to expand...

Why does it fall under this genre? Because someone, besides the author, says that it should? That's not very reliable when someone other than the author says that a book should be placed under a certain genre.

The author took the Sumerian/Babylonian creation myth, the "science" of the time, and through the inspiration of God modified it so that it reflects God's nature rather than a pagan one.

Click to expand...

Who do you think the author is?

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
I find this part interesting...

College graduates
Creationist 25%
Theistic Evolutionist 54%
Naturalistic Evolutionist 16.5%

No high school diploma
Creationist 65%
Theistic Evolutionist 23%
Naturalistic Evolutionist4.6%

The more education one has the less likely to be a creationist ...

And ofcourse that leads directly to this...

Income over $50,000
C 29%
T E 50%
N E 17%

Income under $20,000
C 59%
T E 28%
N E 6.5%

Well ofcourse the more education one has the higher the income potential.

So does this mean that Hovind and Chick are bilking their money out of those least able to afford it?

Click to expand...

Or possibly, "The more indoctrination one has..."

ern: Or possibly, "The more indoctrination one has..."

Click to expand...

Amazing. Proof that some evangelicals truly are hostile to education!