Creationist Philosophy

[Fencerguy]

One of the problems that I find with Creationism is it puts the meaning behind who we are, who God is, what his creation is, to ourselves being happy. This is a blatant heresy, God didn't make us that we might be happy, he made us that he might be happy, so saying that God must have made the universe in six days to make us is only an argument for the reason behind God being the happiness of man.

I don't know who you have been talking to, but I don't see any such idea in the Creation account, or in any creationists that I have ever met.....

Creation was not to make Man happy, but to make God happy........Mankind was the culmination of Creation because Mankind was the one species that God could have a relationship with...

 

[Fencerguy]

As we can see in Genesis plants and animals existed long before mankind came along, and both plants and animals suffer from many diseases and disorders. Dinosaurs bones show signs of tumours. Both of us also acknowledge the fact that animals cannot be evil, therefore when Adam brought sin (evil) into the world the animals were not affected.

This is a really interesting point that deserves further study.....I was relating what I was broght up to understand, that pain and suffering did not exist at all before the Fall.......outside of the fossil record (which i know you and i would debate about ) I wonder if there are other evidences of pain and suffering "before" the Fall of man......

Even if we believe the there was a literal snake who was literally cursed, that's only one particular species. Why would any other organism by cursed? What about dogs, cats or monkeys?

I would still say that they were included in the curse after the Fall of man, that God made a general curse on the earth, requiring man to have pain and harship in the working of the ground and in his interations with animals....

The fact that something is painful does not automatically make it bad. There is a condition known as 'congenital insensitivity to pain' which, as the name suggests, is a genetic condition which leaves it's victim completely unable to feel pain. It sounds like a medical condition anyone would want (it would save me a fortune in asprin) but it's a disaster. The victims injure themselves terribly because they don't know when their bodies are being damaged.

Which is why pain is not just physical, but it can be mental or emotional or spiritual.....It makes sense that even the absence of a painful sensation can still lead to suffering....

Without pain and suffering we wouldn't known when to stop. It's unpleasent for a reason, but not because it has anything to do with sin.

I think we are referring to pain in two different ways, I would say that the sensory perception (oo thats hot don't touch) isn't bad, so that could very well have existed before the Fall, but pain such as emotional or mental or spiritual pain was not introduced until after the Fall...

I would say that it is, for two reasons - first because, as I have been arguing, medical conditions are not a direct result of immorality.
Second, because if diseased were a result of immorality it would be a very important thing to leave out. If for example someone told you breaking the speed limit would result in a £50 fine, and after breaking the speed limit you recieved a £500 fine instead, wouldn't you be furious? You'd think they'd mention something that severe.

Even in dollars, i would be mad.............But don't you think that medical conditions are a part of becoming imperfect? God said that we would survive by "painful toil..."

No doubt some people are far more evil than others but their sinfulness does not relate to their genes. If it did we would expect incredibly evil people to have more serious genetic disorders than the common man. We would also expect the families of people with autism, Down's syndrome, hydrocephalus, fragile X syndrome, inherited blindess etc. to be more immoral than average, but this doesn't seem to be the case.

I don't think i was trying to argue that it was; evil is independent of biological condition.... I wouldn't expect people with biological conditions to be inherently more evil or good than anyone else....

There are some cases where evil people had undesireable genes but it seems that it was the gene which turned them bad, rather than the other way around.

Do you mean people who have like, a chemical imbalance that causes them to kill others or something like that? I would say that those people couldn't help being the way that they were, but they would not be absolved of all responsibility unless they really had no grasp of reality whatsoever. Even conditions like that would lead me to believe that our bodies, and the world that they exist in, are seeing the effects of the curse God placed on them after the Fall...

 

[Fencerguy]

Hey Fencerguy, here's a question that, funnily enough, relates to your nick.

except that fencing is swordfighting, but I get jokes like that a lot

In the account of the Garden of Eden, it says that: The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. (Gen 2:15, ESV) That word keep there is interesting, from what I know / look up in Strong's it means to put a fence or hedge around something to protect it.

You might have more experience in matters of fencing than I, perhaps, Fencerguy, so I gotta ask: How do you work a perfect garden? And why would you fence it off from a perfect world?

That's a good question though, I'm not sure what Adam's work was before the Fall, but whatever it was, we have no reason to assume that it was "hard work." Adam did not have to toil or sweat to keep the garden.....Maybe his work was as simple as picking up fruit that fell from the trees? The curse that God placed on the earth caused Man to have to work hard for his food, and that obtaining food would no longer be a simple (blissful?) task.....

 

[Keachian]

I don't know who you have been talking to, but I don't see any such idea in the Creation account, or in any creationists that I have ever met.....

Creation was not to make Man happy, but to make God happy........Mankind was the culmination of Creation because Mankind was the one species that God could have a relationship with...

That's the thing, mankind is the culmination in your eyes! You have put the whole bustle and meaning behind creation to yourself and to those around you of the same species, you've decided that the end of creation is Man. I don't believe that Mankind is the one species that God could have a relationship with, I instead believe that they are the first on this planet. Everything has not come to a grinding hault just because now God has someone to communicate with to fellowship with. No through his refining love we are constantly being changed mentally, physically and spiritually. God breathed out the universe and God calls all back to be right with him!

 

[Assyrian]

except that fencing is swordfighting, but I get jokes like that a lot

That explains the phrase "Good fences make good neighbors."

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I would still say that they were included in the curse after the Fall of man, that God made a general curse on the earth, requiring man to have pain and harship in the working of the ground and in his interations with animals....

I think there is a slight but important difference between the way you and I interpret the Fall. See, I think that when Adam sinned he brought evil into the world; they did after all eat from "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil":

Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil.​

- Genesis 3:22 (ESV)​

I think that even though there was pain and suffering before the Fall, there was no evil. You however seem to think that was no evil and no pain or suffering either. In other words Eden was a place without anything unpleasant whatsoever, which I and some of the other users disagre with.

We both seem to agree that a) not everything that is unpleasant is evil and b) animals cannot be evil. In which case what makes us think animals or medical conditions have anything to do with the Fall?

I also suspect animals cannot suffer mental or spiritual pain in the same way humans can.

I don't think i was trying to argue that it was; evil is independent of biological condition.... I wouldn't expect people with biological conditions to be inherently more evil or good than anyone else....

Ah, you see this is what I've been arguing against. My first argument was that Creationism gives the impression that medial problems are the result of sin (because apparently there was no diseases or disorders before the Fall).

So after writing that comment - do you think biological conditions have anything to do with sin or the Fall?

Do you mean people who have like, a chemical imbalance that causes them to kill others or something like that? I would say that those people couldn't help being the way that they were, but they would not be absolved of all responsibility unless they really had no grasp of reality whatsoever.

That's, erm, a really tough topic. How much is a person to blame if they have a mental problem? I dunno.

 

[Fencerguy]

I think there is a slight but important difference between the way you and I interpret the Fall. See, I think that when Adam sinned he brought evil into the world; they did after all eat from "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil":

Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil.​

- Genesis 3:22 (ESV)​

I think that even though there was pain and suffering before the Fall, there was no evil. You however seem to think that was no evil and no pain or suffering either. In other words Eden was a place without anything unpleasant whatsoever, which I and some of the other users disagre with.

The only point that I would make is that you may have forgotten about the Serpent. For the sake of argument, lets just assume that it was Satan possessing a snake... Satan's presence (in the world and in the Garden) indicates (in my mind) that evil was present before the Fall, but that humans were not aware of the concept of evil. That was why the Tree was called the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil....Once humans rebelled against God and ate the fruit; they became aware of "evil." This knowledge, combined with Man's free will, made him "like God," Suddenly man knew what it meant to go his own way and had a fuller understanding that there was a way of doing things apart from God. Such knowledge will only allow for more evil and more suffering....
I would say that Eden was a place devoid of evil and pain/suffering (for humans at the least). Whenever the Bible describes Heaven, it is described as a place where there is no pain and no sorrow. If the heaven that we are headed for is a place without evil (obviously lol) and without pain and sorrow, it is difficult for me to think that God would not have fashioned His original "heaven" in a similar manner.

We both seem to agree that a) not everything that is unpleasant is evil and b) animals cannot be evil. In which case what makes us think animals or medical conditions have anything to do with the Fall?

As far as animals, I really don't know.....
But for medical conditions, I think it just goes back to what I mentioned above about heaven. I don't see why God would have created Eden in a different way (relative to the human condition) than He has created heaven. So at least for humans, if we will not be subject to pain or sorrow in heaven (logically the pain and sorrow of medical conditions would be absent as well) then it makes sense to me that they did not afflict humans before the Fall either....

I also suspect animals cannot suffer mental or spiritual pain in the same way humans can.

I agree with that.....I would also say that they are not aware of "evil" either...

Ah, you see this is what I've been arguing against. My first argument was that Creationism gives the impression that medial problems are the result of sin (because apparently there was no diseases or disorders before the Fall).

So after writing that comment - do you think biological conditions have anything to do with sin or the Fall?

I would say that there is a correlation, if not causation. As you said, if biological/medical conditions were a direct result of the Fall, then we stray into a Karmic philosophy which is not necessarily Biblical. But I will still say that there is a correlation, they are connected, if not in a case/effect manner....

That's, erm, a really tough topic. How much is a person to blame if they have a mental problem? I dunno.

yeah, heavy stuff my friend.....who knows. I hope I will never have to make such a judgement....

 

[Fencerguy]

That's the thing, mankind is the culmination in your eyes! You have put the whole bustle and meaning behind creation to yourself and to those around you of the same species, you've decided that the end of creation is Man. I don't believe that Mankind is the one species that God could have a relationship with, I instead believe that they are the first on this planet. Everything has not come to a grinding hault just because now God has someone to communicate with to fellowship with. No through his refining love we are constantly being changed mentally, physically and spiritually. God breathed out the universe and God calls all back to be right with him!

Why then is God going to destroy all of Creation (except humans) in a fiery doom at the end of time? The New heaven and New earth are the final residence of humanity and God.

How can God truly have a relationship with any other organism that was not created in His image? God did rest after creating people.....And Jesus came to save people, not dogs or cats or lizards....

 

[mark kennedy]

Caution: Droning post ahead.

It seems that as more is discovered about how life works (particularly when it directly involves evolution) the more depressing the thinking behind Creationism becomes. Does Christianity really support the following:


1. All living beings, even the Earth itself, is slowly atrophying. This is either because Adam brought sin into the world or because God created everything in its perfect, complete form which is gradually 'winding down'. Evolution cannot happen because nothing is getting better.

That's not droning, that's depressing. Yes the created universe is subject to entropy but it's partly because the original creation was 'very good' not perfect. No one is seriously arguing that evolution isn't or can't happen, where do you guys get this. Creationism simply affirms that everything evolved from a handful of originally created kinds.

Adam's sin affected us and, to some degree, the rest of creation. that does not mean that the whole thing is hopeless when creation is inextricably linked to the resurrection and the new birth. You should really learn to take some of this in perspective.

This is basically a very pessimistic idea as it suggests that God has abondoned us; indeed many evolutionists accuse creationists of being 'deists'. I would even say that according to this argument Jesus did not come down here teach us how to make the world a better place (what's the point? Everything's just getting worse) but is simply offered as a sort of 'get out of jail free' card. Believe in him and when you die you'll leave this miserable world forever.

Creationists never claim that God has abandoned us and it's absurd to claim we are deists. Creationists believe God is living and active in our world and in our lives, all fundamentalists do. Jesus didn't come to tell us that we are going to make a better world, he said, 'in the world you will have trouble, but be of good courage, I have overcome the world.

There is nothing pessimistic about the Gospel

2. Evolution teaches us 'survival of the fittest', where you survive by killing the weak and favouring the strong. Death and disease is everywhere. Our genes break down with age. How could a loving God make such a cruel world? This probably relates to the first argument: God made the world perfect, we cheesed him off, he's now abandoned us to our fate. He offers Jesus to those who can't stand this planet and want to get off. I also suspect this line of reasoning it what turns many Christians into atheists.

And you have the nerve to call creationists deists? The survival of the fittest is not the strongest, it's the best adapted. If your a creationists take a wild guess who programed the genome for living systems to have what they need to evolve?

3. In order to prove Creationism true, God must have created the everything in such a specific way that any slight variation would cause it to go wrong. Whether or not they intend it this idea suggests variety is a bad thing. Things have to be done this way or else. It also suggests that living things are not independant of God, that they can't possibly do anything without him. Our relationship to Him is a clingy, parasitic one.

Do you even own a Bible? You can't possible understand what a creationist believes unless you learn what the New Testament teaches about creation and the new birth.

Even worse, if all things are guided by God does this mean he made people deformed / disabled / retarded on purpose? This doesn't seem to be the case, as Jesus healed people on many occasions.

Does the Christian practice of prayer seem ineffective to you?

This doom-and-gloom philosophy isn't central to Creationism, but seems to have been inferred by various individual creationists until it became the norm. If we were to travel back a few centures, when creationism was a genuinely valid theory, I doubt many of it's supporters would have agreed with them.

Creationism has never been a theory, it's a conclusion based on the clear testimony of Scripture and sound reason. Doom and gloom is believing that life evolved through wave after wave of the extinction of the 'less fit'

This is the philosophy and theology of the alternative to creation? No thanks, not interested.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

The only point that I would make is that you may have forgotten about the Serpent. For the sake of argument, lets just assume that it was Satan possessing a snake... Satan's presence (in the world and in the Garden) indicates (in my mind) that evil was present before the Fall, but that humans were not aware of the concept of evil. That was why the Tree was called the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil....Once humans rebelled against God and ate the fruit; they became aware of "evil." This knowledge, combined with Man's free will, made him "like God," Suddenly man knew what it meant to go his own way and had a fuller understanding that there was a way of doing things apart from God. Such knowledge will only allow for more evil and more suffering....
I would say that Eden was a place devoid of evil and pain/suffering (for humans at the least). Whenever the Bible describes Heaven, it is described as a place where there is no pain and no sorrow. If the heaven that we are headed for is a place without evil (obviously lol) and without pain and sorrow, it is difficult for me to think that God would not have fashioned His original "heaven" in a similar manner.

This is a mistake a lot of creationists seem to make. They equate Eden with the New Heaven and a New Earth and see the new creation as a restoration of Eden. In fact the bible say they are very different. Rev 21:4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away." but look at what it actually literally says LITV for the first things passed away. This is the first creation passing away. Tears, pain and death are wiped away because they are part of the first things not the new creation.

Look at the contrast between the new creation and the old in
1Cor 15:46 ESV But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.
47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.
48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.
49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.
50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.
53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.
54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory."
The old creation is natural, of dust, flesh and blood, perishable, mortal
The new creation is spiritual, in the image of the resurrected Christ, imperishable and immortal. The old flesh and blood creation could never have inherited the kingdom of God. God’s first creation was very good and right for the time, but it is a long way from the perfection God has planned to come in the fullness of time

 

[Assyrian]

Creationism simply affirms that everything evolved from a handful of originally created kinds.

Charles Darwin: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

 

[Fencerguy]

This is a mistake a lot of creationists seem to make. They equate Eden with the New Heaven and a New Earth and see the new creation as a restoration of Eden. In fact the bible say they are very different. Rev 21:4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away." but look at what it actually literally says LITV for the first things passed away. This is the first creation passing away. Tears, pain and death are wiped away because they are part of the first things not the new creation.

I also notice how all of this relates to human pain and suffering, but doesn't really talk about how earth was originally created. The problem here is that everything is related to Man, and how Man is affected in heaven....

Look at the contrast between the new creation and the old in
1Cor 15:46 ESV But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.
47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.
48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.
49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.
50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.
53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.
54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory."
The old creation is natural, of dust, flesh and blood, perishable, mortal
The new creation is spiritual, in the image of the resurrected Christ, imperishable and immortal. The old flesh and blood creation could never have inherited the kingdom of God. God’s first creation was very good and right for the time, but it is a long way from the perfection God has planned to come in the fullness of time

This passage is about the resurrected body of the Believer....It really has nothing to do with how Eden was or how the earth was before the Fall......Man's body became perishable after the Fall, so of course that flesh and blood could not inherit the kingdom of God......This passage is addressing the current state of man, not his originally created state.....That would just be irrelevant for anyone living after.....Adam....

 

[Fencerguy]

Charles Darwin: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

Evidence of Darwin's christian upbringing.....Even though he rejected religion, he still could not see any mechanism for the random origin of life, or a single common ancestor for all organisms....

 

[Mallon]

Evidence of Darwin's christian upbringing.....Even though he rejected religion, he still could not see any mechanism for the random origin of life, or a single common ancestor for all organisms....

The concept of "created kinds" wasn't floating around Christianity until long after Darwin was gone, so I doubt if that's evidence for his Christian upbringing.

 

[Fencerguy]

The concept of "created kinds" wasn't floating around Christianity until long after Darwin was gone, so I doubt if that's evidence for his Christian upbringing.

I meant how he would have been brought up with the understanding that God created the world......he came to develop the concept of evolution based on his scientific studies.......and the reason that its surfacing recently among Christianity is that Christians are finally starting to realize that science and faith do not have to be mutually exclusive....

 

[mark kennedy]

Evidence of Darwin's christian upbringing.....Even though he rejected religion, he still could not see any mechanism for the random origin of life, or a single common ancestor for all organisms....

His Dad and his brother were both atheists. His Mom was a Christian but I doubt seriously he had anything remotely resembling a 'religious' upbringing.

 

[Assyrian]

Mark Kennedy: Creationism simply affirms that everything evolved from a handful of originally created kinds.

Charles Darwin: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

Evidence of Darwin's christian upbringing.....Even though he rejected religion, he still could not see any mechanism for the random origin of life, or a single common ancestor for all organisms....

My point was more how close Mark Kennedy's description of creation fits to Darwin's description of evolution. Probably evidence of Mark's Christian upbringing too.

Welcome to the dark side Mark. Have a cookie

 

[Assyrian]

I also notice how all of this relates to human pain and suffering, but doesn't really talk about how earth was originally created. The problem here is that everything is related to Man, and how Man is affected in heaven....

I would have though, for the first things passed away, referred to just that. We are living in the original creation.
We see the same thing in 1Cor 15...

This passage is about the resurrected body of the Believer....It really has nothing to do with how Eden was or how the earth was before the Fall......Man's body became perishable after the Fall, so of course that flesh and blood could not inherit the kingdom of God......This passage is addressing the current state of man, not his originally created state.....That would just be irrelevant for anyone living after.....Adam....

The passage certainly is talking about the resurrection in contrast with our present bodies, but it is not that our present bodies are fallen but that they are fundamentally made of the wrong stuff to inherit the kingdom. There is no reference to the fall here, Paul traces it back to the original creation, being created from the earth, from dust. Notice how he says 1Cor 15:48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust. This not only tells us we are like Adam when he was created from dust, but that Adam was like us, natural, flesh and blood perishable and mortal.

 

[Fencerguy]

The passage certainly is talking about the resurrection in contrast with our present bodies, but it is not that our present bodies are fallen but that they are fundamentally made of the wrong stuff to inherit the kingdom. There is no reference to the fall here, Paul traces it back to the original creation, being created from the earth, from dust. Notice how he says 1Cor 15:48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust. This not only tells us we are like Adam when he was created from dust, but that Adam was like us, natural, flesh and blood perishable and mortal.

The NIV says, "As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven." (1 Cor. 15:48). This doesn't seem to be referring to our created state, but that we are of the world (fallen, depraved)... This interpretation makes more sense when passages such as "Be in the world, not of it" are also considered.....

 

[Assyrian]

The NIV says, "As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven." (1 Cor. 15:48). This doesn't seem to be referring to our created state, but that we are of the world (fallen, depraved)... This interpretation makes more sense when passages such as "Be in the world, not of it" are also considered.....

Verse 47 and 48 tell us two different things, Verse 48 says that Adam was the same as us, it is verse 47 that tells us Paul is talking about the creation of Adam 1Cor 15:47 NIV The first man was of the dust of the earth. And as we have seen, two verse before that Paul is quoting from the creation of Adam in Gen 2:7.