Creationists, what's up with two creation stories?

[busterdog]

Tiamat was before the creation of even the gods. When you look closely at these pagan mythologies you begin to realize that the elementals are precursors to the pagan pantheon, they are in fact, more powerful. It is essentially a materialistic philosophy not unlike the Darwinian mythology that is so often mistaken for the theory of evolution.

Just popped in for a brief comment on an interesting post. Now on with the previously scheduled discussion.

Grace and peace,
Mark

"A materialist philosophy not unlike Darwinian mythology." That is a mouthful. Not sure I am done chewing. But, it has a catchy ring to it!

The "elementals" you mention seem to avoid, but not solve, the whole question of a beginning.

I can't quite see what God does in a TE world. Neither can I see a "beginning" of anything in a Babylonian world or in a "when God began to create" theology. I mean that literally. I can't see whatever is there. It is opaque.

 

[gluadys]

I can't quite see what God does in a TE world.

God speaks. Creation happens.

Where's the problem?

 

[Vance]

God speaks. Creation happens.

Where's the problem?

Exactly, and the method of that "happening" has no impact on God's decision to have personal relationships with us humans, in how and when He chooses to intervene into our lives.

And that is why all of those millions of Christians who accept that God used evolutionary processes as part of His creative work do not differ in their Christian beliefs from those who do not accept this (other than the wide variety of beliefs among Christians in general).

 

[busterdog]

God speaks. * * *

Where's the problem?

Because he seems to have so little to say.

But,

Creation happens.

So do lots of disconnected things.

The connection remains opaque.

 

[gluadys]

Because he seems to have so little to say.

So it is a disappointment if all God needs to say is "Be!"?

Is not creation itself the content of what he says?

So do lots of disconnected things.

Sure, but we are not talking about disconnected things. We are talking about a creation that happens because God speaks.

 

[busterdog]

So it is a disappointment if all God needs to say is "Be!"?

Is not creation itself the content of what he says?


Sure, but we are not talking about disconnected things. We are talking about a creation that happens because God speaks.

My point is that saying "be" is saying very little. But, in essence, you need to reduce what God says to just "Be" in order to make it square with convention in evolution and cosmology. Similarly, so many of the merely metaphorical readings bear just about no correlation to anything recognizeable in creation.

For example, Apsu and Tiamat contributed to creation by sex. Illuna of the Columbian Indians created several worlds by menstrual bleeding. Now we could simply say, well, all these things bear so little resemblance to real science, these must just be another way of saying "make" or "be", which is exactly my point. When you strip the meaning down that radically, what exactly is being said? Very little. It is opaque.

 

[gluadys]

My point is that saying "be" is saying very little. But, in essence, you need to reduce what God says to just "Be" in order to make it square with convention in evolution and cosmology. Similarly, so many of the merely metaphorical readings bear just about no correlation to anything recognizeable in creation.

For example, Apsu and Tiamat contributed to creation by sex. Illuna of the Columbian Indians created several worlds by menstrual bleeding. Now we could simply say, well, all these things bear so little resemblance to real science, these must just be another way of saying "make" or "be", which is exactly my point. When you strip the meaning down that radically, what exactly is being said? Very little. It is opaque.

OTOH, the Qur'an extols the greatness of God in that he only needs to say "Be" and it is. (And it didn't need any theory of evolution to come to that conclusion.) The fact that the creator God did not need to engage in mechanics like sex to create is what makes the one God greater than the gods of polytheism.

I think too that you are overlooking the relationship between God's speech and creation. You are looking for a mechanism that links the two: you want something that says what happens when God speaks in order to make creation happen. Rather like--when I speak into a telephone, certain digital circuits are activated which carry my voice to another phone and the person on the other end responds. You see creation as a response at the other end of the transmission and it bothers you that you can't see the nature of the transmission.

The point is that there is no transmitting factor. We know what happens when God speaks. Creation happens. Creation IS God's speech. Creation is what God speaks. So if you want more than "Be!" look around you. What you see, the lakes, the trees, the ocean, the mountains, etc. those are God's words.

 

[Vance]

Remember, even the most literal account of Genesis does not have God manufacturing the universe, but merely speaking it into existence: "and God said . . .". The only thing that Genesis does is state this in a series of stylized "days" for a number of reasons, but it all still comes down to God speaking everything into existence.

 

[busterdog]

Exactly, and the method of that "happening" has no impact on God's decision to have personal relationships with us humans, in how and when He chooses to intervene into our lives.

And that is why all of those millions of Christians who accept that God used evolutionary processes as part of His creative work do not differ in their Christian beliefs from those who do not accept this (other than the wide variety of beliefs among Christians in general).

Well, to take the latter point, no one is suggesting that the a decision on creationism is a salvation decision. Now, deception about origins can certainly cause some to turn away from the Gospel, but so can any number of things like being tough on the lady at the DMV on that one day when she might have been ready to accept Jesus (we are all guilty of such things). The criteria for salvation are clear in the NT.

On the former point, I beg to differ about the impact in our lives and its relevance to our lives. My last thread in creationism is about the relevance of the loaves and fishes story to the calming the seas story. Jesus chastises the disciples for not connecting the dots. Quite honestly, I would have to say that ordinary logic suggests the two events are quite dissimilar -- distinguishable, if you will, counselor. Yet, the boys get a talkin' to for being dense about them NOT being distinguishable. So, what makes origins so especially distinguishable as being something impactful? The question about origins is not whether it has an impact, its whether you are right about what God is saying.

 

[busterdog]

Exactly, and the method of that "happening" has no impact on God's decision to have personal relationships with us humans, in how and when He chooses to intervene into our lives.

And that is why all of those millions of Christians who accept that God used evolutionary processes as part of His creative work do not differ in their Christian beliefs from those who do not accept this (other than the wide variety of beliefs among Christians in general).

Well, to take the latter point, no one is suggesting that the a decision on creationism is a salvation decision. Now, deception about origins can certainly cause some to turn away from the Gospel, but so can any number of things like being tough on the lady at the DMV on that one day when she might have been ready to accept Jesus (we are all guilty of such things). The criteria for salvation are clear in the NT.

On the former point, I beg to differ about the impact in our lives and its relevance to our lives. My last thread in creationism is about the relevance of the loaves and fishes story to the calming the seas story. Jesus chastises the disciples for not connecting the dots. Quite honestly, I would have to say that ordinary logic suggests the two events are quite dissimilar -- distinguishable, if you will, counselor. Yet, the boys get a talkin' to for being dense about them NOT being distinguishable. So, what makes origins so especially distinguishable as being something impactful? The question about origins is not whether it has an impact, its whether you are right about what God is saying.

 

[Vance]

Well, to take the latter point, no one is suggesting that the a decision on creationism is a salvation decision. Now, deception about origins can certainly cause some to turn away from the Gospel, but so can any number of things like being tough on the lady at the DMV on that one day when she might have been ready to accept Jesus (we are all guilty of such things). The criteria for salvation are clear in the NT.

On the former point, I beg to differ about the impact in our lives and its relevance to our lives. My last thread in creationism is about the relevance of the loaves and fishes story to the calming the seas story. Jesus chastises the disciples for not connecting the dots. Quite honestly, I would have to say that ordinary logic suggests the two events are quite dissimilar -- distinguishable, if you will, counselor. Yet, the boys get a talkin' to for being dense about them NOT being distinguishable. So, what makes origins so especially distinguishable as being something impactful? The question about origins is not whether it has an impact, its whether you are right about what God is saying.

Yes, it is very much about whether we are right about what God is saying. But the question is whether we need to have the correct view of the HOW and WHEN of God's creative work, and still get it "right" about what God is saying regarding the WHO and WHY.

Do you think that it made much of a difference to God's true message that every believer from the time the Scripture was written until the 1500's (including the human authors themselves!) believed that the text was describing a geocentric solar system, when we now know it is a heliocentric solar system? Does it speak badly of God's communicative ability that so many believers over all those centuries got it wrong, or do we recognize that God's essential and true message was being made regardless of the fact that the writers and readers of Scripture all got that bit wrong?

 

[busterdog]

Do you think that it made much of a difference to God's true message that every believer from the time the Scripture was written until the 1500's (including the human authors themselves!) believed that the text was describing a geocentric solar system, when we now know it is a heliocentric solar system? Does it speak badly of God's communicative ability that so many believers over all those centuries got it wrong, or do we recognize that God's essential and true message was being made regardless of the fact that the writers and readers of Scripture all got that bit wrong?

If I ax murder my neighbor for no reason, it makes no difference after I am saved. Scriptural error is error. Its sin. There is grace for sin, but I think it a bit much to presume to rank sin by severity. Do you think it is possible to distinguish between ordinary sin and mortal sins? I know the Catholic Church thought so, but by doing so, it has confused a "scale" for sin with grace that washes sin.

There is a great long list of error in theology about the Bible. I wouldn't bother to grade them by severity, except for the one which teaches that Christ did not come in the flesh and did not rise from the dead. There is a such a great mean screw ups, historically, I just don't see how history tells us anything at all about what God thinks.

 

[Vance]

If I ax murder my neighbor for no reason, it makes no difference after I am saved. Scriptural error is error. Its sin. There is grace for sin, but I think it a bit much to presume to rank sin by severity. Do you think it is possible to distinguish between ordinary sin and mortal sins? I know the Catholic Church thought so, but by doing so, it has confused a "scale" for sin with grace that washes sin.

There is a great long list of error in theology about the Bible. I wouldn't bother to grade them by severity, except for the one which teaches that Christ did not come in the flesh and did not rise from the dead. There is a such a great mean screw ups, historically, I just don't see how history tells us anything at all about what God thinks.

But the question is whether it is Scriptural error at all. If God wrote the text in such a way that the actual TRUTH of His message is received whether it is read one way or another way, is it an "error" to read it incorrectly, but get the message God intended?

If you say that getting the geocentrism bit wrong was "Scriptural error", then that means every believer got that wrong, and thus "sinned" until the 1500's, including *every Apostle*. I am not sure that is the right way to look at it.

Where I think you could be right about getting it wrong being a sin is NOW, when we DO know better and, then insisting on holding to a false reading. Do you agree that the modern day geocentrists are in error when they say that Scripture clearly describes a geocentric solar system and that those of us who accept the heliocentric scientific explanation are just denying Scripture in favor of "Man's science"? Is that error of theirs a sin, because it could damage the faith of many?

 

[Tinker Grey]

It is not a sin to be wrong about something.

It is a sin to do wrong.

 

[busterdog]

It is not a sin to be wrong about something.

It is a sin to do wrong.

IMHO, I can't see that it is possible not to act on the basis of belief. I just don't see that there is any such thing as "knowledge" that exists in isolation.

Rev 22:18¶For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
David prayed that the meditations of his heart would be acceptable.

He said, I have hidden your word in my heart that I might not sin against thee.

All of the foregoing suggest that indeed there are "thought crimes" that define sin.

 

[gluadys]

IMHO, I can't see that it is possible not to act on the basis of belief. I just don't see that there is any such thing as "knowledge" that exists in isolation.

Rev 22:18¶For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
David prayed that the meditations of his heart would be acceptable.

He said, I have hidden your word in my heart that I might not sin against thee.

All of the foregoing suggest that indeed there are "thought crimes" that define sin.

Indeed, we confess our sins of "thought, word and deed". But when we consider the nature of sins of thought are they not those that intend what is sinful in deed, such as the lust for a woman that is the origin of adultery with her, or the anger that leads to murder?

How does an error in scientific reasoning fit into such a scenario?

It is a common enough creationist allegation that accepting modern science is a moral and not just a rational error. But even so, that is usually linked to a rejection of theism which is alleged to be the purpose of accepting the science. So the moral error actually precedes the rational error and is the basis for accepting it.

Can one really show that a rational error based on inadequate data, such as geocentrism was, is a ground of moral error, even in thought?

 

[Tinker Grey]

IMHO, I can't see that it is possible not to act on the basis of belief.

I agree with what gluadys said.

But, I also want to address this selected sentence.

I believe that Jupiter is a gas giant. However, none of my actions stem from that belief. So, I would argue that it is quite possible to not act on the basis of belief.

AFAIK, there are approx. 7 theories of gravity; that is, theories as to how gravity actually does what it does. I have NO belief in any of them since I don't actually know what they are. Does this affect how I act? If I did know them and selected one of them ... is this a moral act? Would it affect my actions? Suspose, I discover I was right (I am now 200 yo!). Does that demonstrate moral superiority over those that disagreed?

Surely, beliefs about facts can be distant to our behavior. The fact that Beijing is the capitol of China (and the yuan is the capital of China) has no impact on my life whatsoever. The Government could move to the Sichuan provence and nothing would change for me.

For me, belief in (or more properly "acceptance of") evolution is no different than belief that the Sun is made of hydrogen. I can't imagine how either of these is a moral issue or a measure of moral character.

 

[theFijian]

I believe that Jupiter is a gas giant. However, none of my actions stem from that belief. So, I would argue that it is quite possible to not act on the basis of belief.

I'm sure busterdog doesn't want me speaking on his behalf but I think what he means (in which case I agree with him) is that what we believe determines how we behave, however not all our beliefs impact on our behaviour all the time. If someone suggested Jupiter as a good holiday destination your knowledge would probably determine your behaviour in that case, but as to whether you should go to the theatre or the cinema on satuirday night, probably not.

 

[gluadys]

I'm sure busterdog doesn't want me speaking on his behalf but I think what he means (in which case I agree with him) is that what we believe determines how we behave, however not all our beliefs impact on our behaviour all the time. If someone suggested Jupiter as a good holiday destination your knowledge would probably determine your behaviour in that case, but as to whether you should go to the theatre or the cinema on satuirday night, probably not.

Even when factual knowledge (or presumed knowledge) affects behaviour, there is still the fact that not every behavioural choice is a moral choice.

In and of itself, the choice to go to the cinema rather than the theatre is not a moral choice. However, if we knew the nature of the entertainment provided at each, then, there might be a matter of morality involved.

As I understand it the creationists' argument against evolution (and by extension the age of the earth/universe, etc.) on moral grounds consists of two parts.

1. On the assumption that evolution "proves" the non-existence of God, those who were already immoral in thought and behaviour gladly accepted it as consistent with their existing inclinations, since is relieved them of any vestige of guilt or fear of judgement.

2. The assumed implications of evolution (esp. that we are "just animals") encourages immoral behaviour in those who accept the theory, as there is no justification for behaving otherwise.​

So immoral behaviour is both a ground for accepting evolution in the first place and is further spurred by accepting evolution.

However, if evolution is simply the fact of nature that TEs presume it to be, then it is no more immoral to accept it than to accept gravity.

The question rises again when we look back to the geocentric/heliocentric controversy.

Here we can at least do away with the notion that either theory contested the existence of God.

So, was geocentricity in any way grounded in immoral inclinations? Did it lead to immoral behaviour?

If the answer to both is "no", in what sense was believing this error of fact a sin?

If the question of the age of the earth falls into the same category of knowledge as the position of the earth in the cosmos, what makes holding the erroneous view (whichever you think it is) a sin?

 

[intricatic]

This is from a link given by answersingenesis, and it does amuse me:



Note that, all of a sudden, it's ok that things are out of order. The order is strictly enforced in Genesis 1, but you hit Genesis 2 and you can fudge a little. Note in the article that it never explains exactly why we shouldn't take it sequentially - only that we don't have to. It's another example of them taking scripture allegorically when they have no other choice.

The funny thing is, they probably get it right. For those of us who accept that neither account is attempting to give a blow-by-blow recounting of what actually happened but to communicate a message in the best way possible, it makes perfect sense.

How is that taking scripture allegorically? Through understanding of how the Hebrew people constructed these documents, it's not difficult to see that they can speak about a true event in such a way that it demonstrates a point, and that point is the sole core of the message intended to be given in the text. In other words, the first creation account is intended as a historical view of creation, while the second is intended as an outline on the making of mankind.

If you look closely at the context of the second chapter, it's also clear that it doesn't speak in terms of linear progression;

19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.
(gen. 2)

Does this say that God, upon realizing Adam needed a companion, created all of the beasts of the field and every bird in the air? Or is it simply stating how God had created the beasts of the field, and the birds of the air, whom He then presented to Adam? It doesn't make a distinction regarding the format of time because that's an unnecessary fixture towards the goal of the overall chapter.