- Oct 30, 2003
- 8,898
- 476
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
gluadys said:
Obviously if God 'literally' created everything then the creation account in Genesis is also 'literal'!
Upvote
0
-
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.
God as creator
- Thread starter Keachian
- Start date
Obviously if God 'literally' created everything then the creation account in Genesis is also 'literal'!
- Oct 4, 2010
- 13,243
- 6,313
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
hi prog,
That seems kind of redundant. Wouldn't the inclusion of 'theistic' necessarily infer that one believed that some kind of god created?
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
That seems kind of redundant. Wouldn't the inclusion of 'theistic' necessarily infer that one believed that some kind of god created?
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
Upvote
0
BeforeTheFoundation
Regular Member
that does not follow. Technically speaking, if you affirm that God literally created everything, you could believe that he literally did it however he wanted.
Upvote
0
Assyrian
Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
What does God creating literally even mean? Literally refers to the description of the creation not the act of creation. You could ask progmonk if he was being literal or figurative in his op, but not if God was being literal when he created the world.
Upvote
0
I don't have a problem with that. There is very little figurative language in Genesis 1. (There is more in Genesis 2.)
What I have a problem with is people assuming that "literal" not only means "plain, non-figurative speech, to be understood in a common-sense way, without seeking out hidden allegories" but also means "scientific and/or historical actuality".
The second concept does not follow from the first.
And I don't see any literary or theological reason for conflating them.
Upvote
0
Yes the thread should be redundant, though its possibly also a bit more light-hearted than the other threads on here.
Upvote
0
I was being literal, literally all those who literally believe a literal God literally created the literal world.
Upvote
0
Leggomyegolas
I can haz popcorn?
As opposed to what? God as spectator who watched the universe spontaneously form through naturalistic means, and watched life slowly evolve on Earth as he sat back and munched on divine popcorn?
Upvote
0
Why do you assume that this is what theistic evolutionists think God was doing?
What do you mean by "naturalistic"?
Does "naturalistic" mean to you that God is doing nothing?
Upvote
0
- Aug 3, 2004
- 14,082
- 1,003
- 84
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
I think has was stating what a deist would believe - the Divine watcher maker view, where God set it all up and our planet just goes on without any further involvement apart from natural laws operating.
John
NZ
John
NZ
Upvote
0
Leggomyegolas
I can haz popcorn?
I didn't say a word about theistic evolutionists. Why do you assume that?
Naturalistic means without divine intervention--what we can observe with our senses and predict and experiment with using science.
Upvote
0
Of course. But why does he associate it with evolution?
The early Deists were creationists you know.
And many creationists are quasi-Deists. They agree God created a machine we call the cosmos and--with the exception of some miraculous interventions from time to time--lets it run on its own.
To me, that is just as objectionable as pure Deism.
It still excludes God from the daily round of natural happenings.
Upvote
0
Because I assumed you had read the OP.
Since when?
Is it actually a property of natural processes we can observe with our senses and predict and experiment using science to not be dependent on divine activity?
Are you speaking of the same natural world which the apostle Paul points to as revealing the divinity and majesty of God?
If the natural world reveals the Creator, how can "naturalistic" exclude God?
I do grant that this is a popular definition and one you will find in dictionaries. But it is a theologically deficient definition which is incompatible with Christian faith about nature. It is not the way the bible describes what we can observe with our senses, nor the way Christians used to define "natural" even in the early days of the rise of modern science.
So I think Christians need to re-examine their unthinking acceptance of this contemporary cultural view.
What do you think is the relationship of God to such natural events as the growth of a seed into a plant or the formation of a rainbow after a thunderstorm? Do you honestly believe God has no role in this type of natural phenomenon beyond watching the machine of nature carry out its program?
Upvote
0
Leggomyegolas
I can haz popcorn?
You're taking my post about 100x more seriously than it was intended. I read the title and first post, and thought, "Well duh, of course God is the Creator. If not then what else would He be instead?" And then imagined God sitting on His throne with his feet up and eating popcorn while everything on Earth happened without His causing it to.
Note to self, use smilies more.
Note to self, use smilies more.
Upvote
0
pgp_protector
Noted strange person
- Dec 17, 2003
- 51,891
- 17,793
- 57
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
Let's put it this way.
I wouldn't ever want to play a game against God in pool. His opening shot can be a dozy.
I wouldn't ever want to play a game against God in pool. His opening shot can be a dozy.
Upvote
0
"Naturalistic" is a word.
Is a philosophy which defines "naturalistic" as "not by God" Christian?
How would a Christian philosophy define "naturalisitic"?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
