This is the statement from JohnR7 which prompted me to start this poll.
It would be helpful for people to explain their answers.
JohnR7 said:
It would be helpful for people to explain their answers.
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Are TEs Creationists?
- Thread starter Mocca
- Start date
why would they be creationists. creationists hold to what the bible says as true which is the way our lord intented. why would they accept evolution which goes against the teachings ofchrist as fact??? it doent add up
Upvote
0
Why would you not break forum rules whenever discussing the "true" Christian?
Wait, you would.
Wait, you would.
Upvote
0
The answer is not that easy.
To me, people who accept a literal 6 day creation, the Adam and Eve story, Noah's flood, the Tower of Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah etc.. are YECs.
There are also Christians who accept "gap theory", in that the bible, while correct in essence, is not complete and that things happened that are not recorded in the Bible and that the creation was not a literal "6 days" These are creationists also.
Then there are Christians who take the pre-history part of the Bible (say, up to Abraham) as myth or allegory, and do not accept it in a literal factual sense. They accept an "old earth" and evolution. These are creationists as well, ie, they believe that a God created everything.
Then there are deists.....
There are other groupings within this set of course, but even as an atheist, I cannot see why the Christian God could not have created the Universe and also use the natural laws he must have created (otherwise the universe could not function) for his purpose, ie man and worship.
I just have not been given evidence to support this idea (or any of the earlier ones I have cited).
This idea, of course only knocks out the idea that group one above is wrong. The main problem that people like me have is with YECs who continually want their fiction included as fact in science classrooms.
Science is Science. It belongs in Science classrooms.
Religion is Religion. It belongs in Churches, Religious or Metaphysics classrooms. It has nothing to do with science.
Norm
To me, people who accept a literal 6 day creation, the Adam and Eve story, Noah's flood, the Tower of Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah etc.. are YECs.
There are also Christians who accept "gap theory", in that the bible, while correct in essence, is not complete and that things happened that are not recorded in the Bible and that the creation was not a literal "6 days" These are creationists also.
Then there are Christians who take the pre-history part of the Bible (say, up to Abraham) as myth or allegory, and do not accept it in a literal factual sense. They accept an "old earth" and evolution. These are creationists as well, ie, they believe that a God created everything.
Then there are deists.....
There are other groupings within this set of course, but even as an atheist, I cannot see why the Christian God could not have created the Universe and also use the natural laws he must have created (otherwise the universe could not function) for his purpose, ie man and worship.
I just have not been given evidence to support this idea (or any of the earlier ones I have cited).
This idea, of course only knocks out the idea that group one above is wrong. The main problem that people like me have is with YECs who continually want their fiction included as fact in science classrooms.
Science is Science. It belongs in Science classrooms.
Religion is Religion. It belongs in Churches, Religious or Metaphysics classrooms. It has nothing to do with science.
Norm
Upvote
0
truth above all else
Senior Member
this thread appears to invite forum rule-breakers, in any case evolutionary theory makes more sense to normal human reason if one has faith in at least some entity who put the process in motion, the philosophy of the world as a chance play of atoms which themselves came into existence by chance is satisfying only to the most limited and unsophisticated minds
Upvote
0
Hydra009
bel esprit
- Oct 28, 2003
- 8,593
- 371
- 43
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
No, TEs are not creationists. Creationism entails special creation - that human beings were created without biological evolution. TEs do not fit that category.
Simply believing in God makes one a theist, but does not necessarily make one a creationist, though conflating these two terms is a mistake which is often made.
Simply believing in God makes one a theist, but does not necessarily make one a creationist, though conflating these two terms is a mistake which is often made.
The two terms are not always interchangeable, but imo, the two are rarely found apart. I'd wager that YEC creationists vastly outnumber OEC and GAP in the United States. Anyone have the numbers on that?
Upvote
0
rmwilliamsll
avid reader
the fact that God created the heavens and the earth is of more importance me than how He did so. that is why i appreciate the term: evolutionary creationist in preference to theistic evolutionist.
Upvote
0
corvus_corax
Naclist Hierophant and Prophet
Likewise, jesus never mentions gravity in the framework of general relativity, and he never disabuses the geocentric universe.fromdownunder said:
Regarding AngryNotice....
I would never say that someone is a troll, as I can not differentiate between trolls and people who actually "mean it".
Either way, I do assert that there are some types of forum members that one should not "feed".
Do not feed the AngryNotice (a lesson I have only lately learned)
Much like I think of the forumite dad, I think that AN is a parody, an atheist (or at least a non-believer of Chritianity) who is trying to make christians look bad.
EDITED- Clarification
Upvote
0
tocis
Warrior of Thor
Very strictly speaking, TEs would be creationists too, as they assume supernatural intervention. This definition, however, can be horribly mutable... so I'll assume that "creationist" here means people of the kind we commonly see in this forum et al. In that context, I vote "no".
Upvote
0
corvus_corax
Naclist Hierophant and Prophet
I would agree that I am, in the sense you proposed, a Creationist.tocis said:
I believe that God set the universe in motion, and through His/Her intent, "put the balls in the pocket", so to speak.
I dont, however, believe that He directly placed the balls in their pockets, as we have evidence of the balls moving around the billiard table (a very broken metaphor, yes, but Im sure anyone with any reading comprehension will get the point).
Of course, this thread doesnt appear to exist to tear apart anybody's personal beliefs, including mine, so I will leave my theistic evolution beliefs at that.
"Creationist", as it is commonly used on this forum, is usually applied to one who holds to a "special creation" of humans (ie- no evolution involved).
Definitions mutate and change over time in any language, and sometimes they do so within a relatively small group of people.
I think, as it seems to be commonly used on CF, "Creationist" (ie- one who believes a deity directly created humans sans evolutionary processes) applies rather well.
EDITS- Clarification
Upvote
0
DJ_Ghost
Trad Goth
- Mar 27, 2004
- 2,737
- 170
- 55
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Engaged
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
No TEs are not creationists, creationists go beyond just the beleif that a supreme being is responsible for creation.
noun
1 creationism
the literal belief in the account of creation given in the Book of Genesis; "creationism denies the theory of evolution of species"
Source;- Wordrefrence.com
n.
Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.
Source Answers.com
noun
1 creationism
the literal belief in the account of creation given in the Book of Genesis; "creationism denies the theory of evolution of species"
Source;- Wordrefrence.com
n.
Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.
Source Answers.com
Upvote
0
Willtor
Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
- Apr 23, 2005
- 9,713
- 1,429
- 44
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I consider myself a creationist. I am using semantics that differ from Wordreference.com and Answers.com, but if you go to the Origins Theology forum, I don't think that you'll find my semantics so out of place among us TE's, ourselves. ChaosChristian has actually coined the term, neo-creationist that refers to YEC's in general.
But I do think God created the cosmos from nothing. I'm not convinced this is the Big Bang, or branes transferring energy, or whatever else. These things all discuss changes in "something." That something may not be material, but there are natural laws that regulate what happened in these instances. Now, I'm afraid I'll sound woefully undereducated in astrophysics (not without good reason
as Computer Scientists are not known for our astrophysical prowess), so let me point out that my theology of creation, itself, doesn't deal with the content of physics. At any point, if someone identifies a particular thing in nature and says, "Goddidit," I think the statement is correct, but I don't think he means what I mean.
Back to the OP, if one is looking for a temporal moment of creation with respect to our cosmos, one is asking the wrong question. It assumes that temporality enters into it.
But I do think God created the cosmos from nothing. I'm not convinced this is the Big Bang, or branes transferring energy, or whatever else. These things all discuss changes in "something." That something may not be material, but there are natural laws that regulate what happened in these instances. Now, I'm afraid I'll sound woefully undereducated in astrophysics (not without good reason
as Computer Scientists are not known for our astrophysical prowess), so let me point out that my theology of creation, itself, doesn't deal with the content of physics. At any point, if someone identifies a particular thing in nature and says, "Goddidit," I think the statement is correct, but I don't think he means what I mean.Back to the OP, if one is looking for a temporal moment of creation with respect to our cosmos, one is asking the wrong question. It assumes that temporality enters into it.
Upvote
0
chaoschristian
Well-Known Member
All Christians are Creationists by definition.
Christians accept that God is the Father-Creator, Word-Speaker, Light-Bringer, Chaos-Binder, Life-Breather.
That is orthodox Creationism.
However, not all Christians are creationists (note small c)
creationists, or neo-creationists as I like to call them, insist on an interpretation of the Genesis account that yields an indicative historic and scientific fact. There's more to it, but that's the short-hand account. But as a result of this, neo-creationists (and YECs, but not all YECs are neo-creationists and that's been explained in a different thread, and to a certain extent OECs) reject evolutionary theory.
So, Christians TEs are Creationists, but they are not creationists (which is why we all need to start using neo-creationist as a term so that we can avoid this confusion in the future.)
Christians accept that God is the Father-Creator, Word-Speaker, Light-Bringer, Chaos-Binder, Life-Breather.
That is orthodox Creationism.
However, not all Christians are creationists (note small c)
creationists, or neo-creationists as I like to call them, insist on an interpretation of the Genesis account that yields an indicative historic and scientific fact. There's more to it, but that's the short-hand account. But as a result of this, neo-creationists (and YECs, but not all YECs are neo-creationists and that's been explained in a different thread, and to a certain extent OECs) reject evolutionary theory.
So, Christians TEs are Creationists, but they are not creationists (which is why we all need to start using neo-creationist as a term so that we can avoid this confusion in the future.)
Upvote
0
JohnR7
Well-Known Member
AngryNotice said:
The question is, does the theory of evolution go against the teaching of the Bible? Is evolution a sin of commission or a sin of omission? I think it is more a problem of what evolutionary theory leaves out and does not talk about, than anything else.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
