Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[BNR32FAN]

If you have faith, you can trust that God wasn't deceptive when creating the universe.

Is your faith in science or in God’s word?

 

[pitabread]

Wow if that were true then there would be literally billions of different beliefs on the 6 day creation. I honestly don’t see how anyone could possibly make such a presumptuous claim seeing how there’s absolutely no way to substantiate it.

I'm just going by personal experience with discussions with creationists over the years on this (and other) forums. My experience of late is that creationism seems to be largely down to personal interpretations. Granted, that could be a result of sample bias given the creationists that hang out in this forum.

At any rate, my general view is that overly literalist Biblical interpretations seem to do little else than cause a conflict between the Bible and God's Creation. To what end, I'm really not sure. Literalistic Biblical interpretations are baffling to me.

 

[BNR32FAN]

If you have faith, you can trust that God wasn't deceptive when creating the universe.



When we examine the stars, we find a universe that is vast and billions of yeas old. Therefore, God made it that way.

I find it much easier to believe that many verses in the Bible are not meant to be literal, but rather allegory and metaphor, than to believe that God planted billions of years of false history in the universe that never happened. But that's just me.

The way I see it I might be wrong in believing what the Bible actually says or I might be wrong believing what science says. Personally for me, I’d rather be wrong believing what the Bible says rather than what some scientists say.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would surmise that is a statement of opinion not a statement of fact.

It is actually a fact. I see too many creationists trying to abuse the Bible to make personal attacks against each other.

Also I find it strange that I am actually defending Christianity from creationists. Too many creationists take the "all or nothing" approach. Either all of the Bible is right or it is all wrong. There is a reason that many branches of Christianity take that to be heresy since the Bible itself disagrees with itself too many times for that to be true. My position has been Christianity can still be true even if the early books of the Bible cannot be taken literally.

 

[Speedwell]

Wow if that were true then there would be literally billions of different beliefs on the 6 day creation. I honestly don’t see how anyone could possibly make such a presumptuous claim seeing how there’s absolutely no way to substantiate it.

Well, there's day-age theorists, gap theorists, and we even have one or two outright Last Thursdayists who show up here from time to time.

 

[Speedwell]

The way I see it I might be wrong in believing what the Bible actually says or I might be wrong believing what science says. Personally for me, I’d rather be wrong believing what the Bible says rather than what some scientists say.

You could also be wrong about what the Bible says whether you believe it or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The way I see it I might be wrong in believing what the Bible actually says or I might be wrong believing what science says. Personally for me, I’d rather be wrong believing what the Bible says rather than what some scientists say.

The problem is that one must then choose which parts of the Bible to believe.

By the way it is much more than "what some scientists say". It is what the vast majority of what all scientists say and can defend with evidence. There is no theology in the sciences, beliefs in the sciences are based upon evidence and evidence only. Since the evidence tells us that creationism is in error scientist do not accept it regardless of their beliefs. There are only a very small percentage of scientists that oppose evolution and even they cannot support their opposition with evidence.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I'm just going by personal experience with discussions with creationists over the years on this (and other) forums. My experience of late is that creationism seems to be largely down to personal interpretations. Granted, that could be a result of sample bias given the creationists that hang out in this forum.

At any rate, my general view is that overly literalist Biblical interpretations seem to do little else than cause a conflict between the Bible and God's Creation. To what end, I'm really not sure. Literalistic Biblical interpretations are baffling to me.

Well I tend to strive not to add any of my personal thoughts to what the Bible actually says. I’m not completely opposed to speculation but I do refuse to hold to it as truth or to pass them on to others as being truth.

 

[Speedwell]

Well I tend to strive not to add any of my personal thoughts to what the Bible actually says.

But that's exactly what you have done. You've added your thoughts that Genesis must be literal history.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The problem is that one must then choose which parts of the Bible to believe.

By the way it is much more than "what some scientists say". It is what the vast majority of what all scientists say and can defend with evidence. There is no theology in the sciences, beliefs in the sciences are based upon evidence and evidence only. Since the evidence tells us that creationism is in error scientist do not accept it regardless of their beliefs. There are only a very small percentage of scientists that oppose evolution and even they cannot support their opposition with evidence.

Which brings us right back to the resurrection and as well as a huge percentage of the scientists that a person can’t believe because scientists say it’s impossible. Now all the sudden God doesn’t seem so omnipotent anymore. Which brings the question can God even be omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent according to science?

 

[pitabread]

Well I tend to strive not to add any of my personal thoughts to what the Bible actually says. I’m not completely opposed to speculation but I do refuse to hold to it as truth or to pass them on to others as being truth.

The act of interpreting the Bible literally is adding your personal thoughts to the Bible. You're choosing how to interpret it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is your faith in science or in God’s word?

This is a problem with many creationists. They tend to elevate the Bible to a position almost equivalent to their God instead of looking to it as a guideline on how God wants people to behave and live. If one takes the Bible very literally it only describes the Earth as being at the center of the universe, immobile, everything rotates around it. Even as being flat. The Bible never describes the Earth as a sphere but instead describes it as a flat disc at best in both word and deed. Very very few creationists go that far.

And @Hammster brought up the Ten Commandments. There is only one place in the Bible where the Ten Commandments are referred to as such within the text itself. The others that you see are passage headings added relatively recently. In Exodus 34 you can read how Moses went back up the mountain to recarve the Commandments that God gave him. It clearly states that they are the same Commandments that were on the stone tablets that Moses took down from the mountain. They are quite different from the other Ten Commandments, and it is in that chapter that they are called the Ten Commandments in the text of the Bible itself. So which "Ten Commandments" does one follow? This is just one example of how Bible literalism is destructive to the faith.

 

[Speedwell]

Which brings us right back to the resurrection and as well as a huge percentage of the scientists that a person can’t believe because scientists say it’s impossible. Now all the sudden God doesn’t seem so omnipotent anymore. Which brings the question can God even be omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent according to science?

Yes, the theology is well-established for Traditional Christians--which is why evolution is a problem mostly only for Protestants, I think. But give up the "dead guy" argument. It is a logical fallacy and implies an heretical Christology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which brings us right back to the resurrection and as well as a huge percentage of the scientists that a person can’t believe because scientists say it’s impossible. Now all the sudden God doesn’t seem so omnipotent anymore. Which brings the question can God even be omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent according to science?

I like to keep the discussions to the sciences since if one is successful in showing that certain Christian beliefs besides evolution have problems the thread tends to get shut down. I have gone far enough afield and would like to try to keep this discussion on evolution. How you personally handle the conflicts between the fact that life is the product of evolution and your religious beliefs I will leave to you.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No, more the direct line version--half a limb, half a wing, useless for either function, creatures dragging around useless partly-finished appendages waiting for just the right mutation to come along and complete the job..

Oh brother!

No wonder they can't grok evolution. So sad to be so uniformed.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The problem is that one must then choose which parts of the Bible to believe.

Why?

 

[BNR32FAN]

There is no theology in the sciences, beliefs in the sciences are based upon evidence and evidence only. Since the evidence tells us that creationism is in error scientist do not accept it regardless of their beliefs.

So there’s no faith in God’s word in science?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why?

Because of the endless self contradictions in the Bible.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The act of interpreting the Bible literally is adding your personal thoughts to the Bible. You're choosing how to interpret it.

That’s not true at all. Why can’t a person simply accept what it literally says?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So there’s no faith in God’s word in science?

Why should there be? Faith is not a pathway to the truth. A Muslim has the same faith as a Christian does. The sciences answer other questions than religious ones.