I don't understand the point of creationism

[pitabread]

Based on a couple decades of conversing with creationists and more broadly Christians in general, I've come away with two basic conclusions re: creationism:

1) It's not required for salvation by Jesus Christ.

2) It's not derived on the basis of God's Creation.​

I don't otherwise see the point of adopting creationist beliefs.

 

[Nithavela]

Based on a couple decades of conversing with creationists and more broadly Christians in general, I've come away with two basic conclusions re: creationism:

1) It's not required for salvation by Jesus Christ.

2) It's not derived on the basis of God's Creation.​

I don't otherwise see the point of adopting creationist beliefs.

Because when you can people base their whole worldview around 2 + 2 = 5, you can make them do anything.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Based on a couple decades of conversing with creationists and more broadly Christians in general, I've come away with two basic conclusions re: creationism:

1) It's not required for salvation by Jesus Christ.

2) It's not derived on the basis of God's Creation.​

I don't otherwise see the point of adopting creationist beliefs.

I dislike any kind of ism, but if God did not create man in His own image, as the Bible clearly states, then the whole concept of Christianity goes down the tube. This is a few reasons why.

If man is just an evolved ape, there is no way that he can be a sinner. No one takes an ape to court, no matter what it does.
If people are not sinners, there is no need for a saviour
If the biblical account of creation is false, then God is a liar
It is impossible to believe that God formed man individually and separately from the rest of creation and hold evolution to be true also. One or other has to be false.
Animals do not have a conscience or free will. Animals live by instinct. People have a conscience and free will.
God's judgement on humanity is on the basis of man's ability to know right and wrong. Animals do not have that knowledge, and therefore are not judged

Most Christians who reject the fact that God created man in His image do not think through the implications. I've had one conversation with a Christian who tried to justify theistic evolution. The tortuous "logic" involved was less plausible than Darwinian evolution.

 

[d taylor]

Creationism that creationist push, like ken ham, and basically every other one who teach like wise.

Does not teach the full and true creation account from the Bible, they take Adam out of Gods creation and place him in the creation created by science.

Then they try and prove sciences creation is wrong.

So you will never understand it, as in reality, they do not neither, that is why they look like confused people at best when stating their position.

 

[Speedwell]

I dislike any kind of ism, but if God did not create man in His own image, as the Bible clearly states, then the whole concept of Christianity goes down the tube. This is a few reasons why.

If man is just an evolved ape, there is no way that he can be a sinner. No one takes an ape to court, no matter what it does.

If man is just dust, then he can't be a sinner. No one takes dust to court, no matter what it does.

If people are not sinners, there is no need for a saviour

That we are sinners is an objective fact of our present experience. We don't need to read a story to find it out.

If the biblical account of creation is false, then God is a liar

Only if God intended it to be a mere factual account.

It is impossible to believe that God formed man individually and separately from the rest of creation and hold evolution to be true also. One or other has to be false.

Dos not follow logically--in fact, the possibility is widely entertained by mainstream Evangelicals.

Animals do not have a conscience or free will. Animals live by instinct. People have a conscience and free will.

How observant of you. You have seen for yourself that we are not merely animals, whether we were formed by God from a precursor primate or a handful of dust.

God's judgement on humanity is on the basis of man's ability to know right and wrong. Animals do not have that knowledge, and therefore are not judged

Neither does dust, nor is it judged..

Most Christians who reject the fact that God created man in His image do not think through the implications. I've had one conversation with a Christian who tried to justify theistic evolution. The tortuous "logic" involved was less plausible than Darwinian evolution.

Christians generally do not reject the fact that God created man in his image, whether they accept the theory of evolution or not. You were talking to an imposter.

No, I'm sorry, none of that holds water. Those are just arguments you think we're dumb enough to fall for--an insult really; I won't return the insult by supposing that you believe them yourself. There must be some other reason you're a creationist, something you're not telling us.

 

[pitabread]

If man is just an evolved ape, there is no way that he can be a sinner.

Why not?

It is impossible to believe that God formed man individually and separately from the rest of creation and hold evolution to be true also. One or other has to be false.

That doesn't change the relative physical similarity between humans and other species though. So that part doesn't seem to be that relevant is it?

Most Christians who reject the fact that God created man in His image do not think through the implications.

In discussions I've had with many Christians, the "image" in this context is spiritual, not physical. Yet you seem to be placing an emphasis on the physical. Why is that?

 

[Psalm 27]

Based on a couple decades of conversing with creationists and more broadly Christians in general, I've come away with two basic conclusions re: creationism:

1) It's not required for salvation by Jesus Christ.

2) It's not derived on the basis of God's Creation.​

I don't otherwise see the point of adopting creationist beliefs.

John 5
39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.
40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

It's a question of trust. When God says "I created the universe within 6 days", do you believe Him or not? If I did not believe God's account of His creation then I cannot logically argue that He is right about my salvation.
If you want to choose which parts you want to trust God on and which not then you got no foundation for your beliefs besides your own thinking and your own preferences. In other words, you have to rely on your own comprehension of things - which is nonsense when you actually believe in a God of infinite wisdom.

 

[Speedwell]

It's a question of trust. When God says "I created the universe within 6 days", do you believe Him or not? If I did not believe God's account of His creation then I cannot logically argue that He is right about my salvation.
If you want to choose which parts you want to trust God on and which not then you got no foundation for your beliefs besides your own thinking and your own preferences. In other words, you have to rely on your own comprehension of things - which is nonsense when you actually believe in a God of infinite wisdom.

You have to trust God on all of it. The authority of scripture depends on its divine inspiration, not on some literary genre you force it into.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's a question of trust. When God says "I created the universe within 6 days", do you believe Him or not? If I did not believe God's account of His creation then I cannot logically argue that He is right about my salvation.
If you want to choose which parts you want to trust God on and which not then you got no foundation for your beliefs besides your own thinking and your own preferences. In other words, you have to rely on your own comprehension of things - which is nonsense when you actually believe in a God of infinite wisdom.

Relying upon our own comprehension is something we all have to do anyway, even with the New Testament writings. It's inescapable, really.

What I'd suggest for you to do is consider that some of us who are your fellow Christians and think evolution is 'true' may actually have rational means by which we arrive at that conclusion. I'd recommend that even if you wish to continue to believe in a literal, 6-day Creation (and I don't really mind if you do), you at least engage the overall books/sources that someone like me would offer by which you could at least come to understand 'how' it is that I arrive at my own perspective.

I have no qualm with allowing Y.E.C. Christians to continue on as they feel comfortable believing; however, I expect no less of a courtesy in return.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

Relying upon our own comprehension is something we all have to do anyway, even with the New Testament writings. It's inescapable, really.

What I'd suggest for you to do is consider that some of us who are your fellow Christians and think evolution is 'true' may actually have rational means by which we arrive at that conclusion. I'd recommend that even if you wish to continue to believe in a literal, 6-day Creation (and I don't really mind if you do), you at least engage the overall books/sources that someone like me would offer by which you could at least come to understand 'how' it is that I arrive at my own perspective.

I have no qualm with allowing Y.E.C. Christians to continue on as they feel comfortable believing; however, I expect no less of a courtesy in return.

I've looked at the theory of evolution in detail, that's why I reject it. Survival of the fittest? Yes. Adaption to environment? Yes. Genetic differences over time that lead to biodiversity? Yes. But macro-evolution, from amoeba to man, is utter nonsense even from a scientific point of view.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

I've looked at the theory of evolution in detail, that's why I reject it. Survival of the fittest? Yes. Adaption to environment? Yes. Genetic differences over time that lead to biodiversity? Yes. But macro-evolution, from amoeba to man, is utter nonsense even from a scientific point of view.

Btw, we don't rely on our own comprehension of scripture. We have to rely on the Holy Spirit who reveals the truth to us. Many people actually do rely on themselves and you see the result: a million different opinions. That is not what God intended.

 

[pitabread]

If I did not believe God's account of His creation then I cannot logically argue that He is right about my salvation.

You said you rely on the Holy Spirit though? That seems to contradict this.

If you want to choose which parts you want to trust God on and which not then you got no foundation for your beliefs besides your own thinking and your own preferences. In other words, you have to rely on your own comprehension of things - which is nonsense when you actually believe in a God of infinite wisdom.

You appear to still be relying on your own comprehension of things even in the context of taking Genesis literally. By your own admission, if you don't that then you feel you can't trust God.

 

[pitabread]

I've looked at the theory of evolution in detail, that's why I reject it.

What resources did you rely on for looking into the theory of evolution?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've looked at the theory of evolution in detail, that's why I reject it. Survival of the fittest? Yes. Adaption to environment? Yes. Genetic differences over time that lead to biodiversity? Yes. But macro-evolution, from amoeba to man, is utter nonsense even from a scientific point of view.

It's not "utter nonsense." The fact is that the final link, the final data, that we all need isn't available by which to reach a firm conclusion between knowing that a Creator was or was not involved. It's not there.

So, with that in mind, it would be better, I think, if anti-evolutionary Christians would get off of their high-horses and stop treating evolution as the boogey-man of all issues. It's not.

Like I just previously stated, I don't go around knocking fellow Christians over the head for believing in their variouis 'Creationist' theories, whether they be Y.E.C., or Christian Science advocates, or even Intelligent Design proponets. I just don't. So, I'd really like to see fellow Christians let go of the agenda they so often have for bashing of other Christians who view the nature of Nature a bit differently than they do. Why? Because there are bigger fish to fry than 'the theory of evolution.'

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Btw, we don't rely on our own comprehension of scripture. We have to rely on . Many people actually do rely on themselves and you see the result: a million different opinions. That is not what God intended.

We most certainly do. Everyone does. In fact, most Christians I've come across do so even when contemplating the meaning of the verses they draw out about how they each think [interpret] "the Holy Spirit reveals the truth to us." They do so in other ways, too.

Let's be more clear here. When I say that Christians rely on their own comprehension, I'm not inferring that that comprehrension never includes some kind of influence from the Holy Spirit. No, I think it can. Moreover, it's not uncommon for Christians from various denominations to all claim "we see by the Holy Spirit" ... and then promptly denounce other Christians who claim the very same thing for a different view of various portions of the Bible.

You're insinuation that "you" have the Holy Spirit and other people who claim to use personal comprehension don't falls as a false-----nay, routinely false------accusation. So, don't make that accusation, especially upon someone like myself who is your brother in Christ.

 

[pitabread]

Btw, we don't rely on our own comprehension of scripture. We have to rely on the Holy Spirit who reveals the truth to us. Many people actually do rely on themselves and you see the result: a million different opinions. That is not what God intended.

Doesn't that kinda beg the question as to who is correct?

Speaking from the perspective as a non-believer, I can only take people's views at face value. When I have creationists speaking to an interpretation of Genesis that contradicts views of non-creationists, who is to say who is right? Especially when both parties are likewise claiming to rely on the Holy Spirit to guide their interpretations...

(On a side note, I've also had certain Christians tell me that this sort of confusion is exactly what God intended.)

 

[JackRT]

I do not read the Genesis myth as a fall from an original state of perfection into sin and death. The first couple were completely innocent and naive creatures. They were certainly capable of making a mistake but, without knowing good from evil, they lacked even the ability to sin. That ability came only with them eating of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". To me the story is a "coming of age story". Our mythical first couple graduated from animal status into to fully self aware human beings capable of making moral judgements. This is not an Original Sin story but rather an Original Blessing story that should be celebrated. We are not a people fallen from an original state of perfection into sin and death.

Why the expulsion from Eden? In the mythology, I believe it to be symbolic that mankind was no longer a naïve creature living in moral ignorance but had become real men and women living in a real world where there was real good and evil.

What we are is a people that is still evolving and that evolution has profoundly affected not just our bodies but our psyches as well. The world in which we evolved was a difficult and dagerous one and mere survival was of the highest priority. Selfishness became a part of who we are as a survival mechanism. This selfish instinct is no longer as necessary as in our savage past but it is still powerful. If there is an "Original Sin", this is it. Of course it is not a sin really but an innate part of our nature and it can be overcome.

In the words of Bishop John Spong: "Every living thing, plant and animal is programmed to survive. What is true of all these living things is also true of human life. The only difference is that we human beings are self-conscious, while plants and animals are not. If survival is our highest goal, self-centeredness is inevitable and thus this quality becomes a constant part of the human experience. Traditionally, the church has called this "original sin" and has explained it with the myth of the fall. That was simply wrong. Survival is a quality found in life itself. There was no fall. Self-centered, survival driven, self-conscious creatures is simply who we are. There is thus no such thing as "original sin" from which we need to be rescued by a divine invader. So much of traditional Christianityfrom that flows every other evil --- greed, gluttony, lust, anger, sloth and the like. assumes this false premise."

In conclusion, we are born sinless but we are not born perfect. We have the defect of selfishness and from that flows every other evil --- greed, gluttony, lust, anger, sloth and the like.

 

[Speedwell]

We most certainly do. Everyone does. In fact, most Christians I've come across do so even when contemplating the meaning of the verses they draw out about how they each think [interpret] "the Holy Spirit reveals the truth to us." They do so in other ways, too.

Let's be more clear here. When I say that Christians rely on their own comprehension, I'm not inferring that that comprehrension never includes some kind of influence from the Holy Spirit. No, I think it can. Moreover, it's not uncommon for Christians from various denominations to all claim "we see by the Holy Spirit" ... and then promptly denounce other Christians who claim the very same thing for a different view of various portions of the Bible.

You're insinuation that "you" have the Holy Spirit and other people who claim to use personal comprehension don't falls as a false-----nay, routinely false------accusation. So, don't make that accusation, especially upon someone like myself who is your brother in Christ.

Another winner. The objection I have to YECs is not what they believe, but that they insist that non-YECs are somehow not "real" Christians.

 

[JackRT]

We most certainly do. Everyone does. In fact, most Christians I've come across do so even when contemplating the meaning of the verses they draw out about how they each think [interpret] "the Holy Spirit reveals the truth to us." They do so in other ways, too.

Let's be more clear here. When I say that Christians rely on their own comprehension, I'm not inferring that that comprehrension never includes some kind of influence from the Holy Spirit. No, I think it can. Moreover, it's not uncommon for Christians from various denominations to all claim "we see by the Holy Spirit" ... and then promptly denounce other Christians who claim the very same thing for a different view of various portions of the Bible.

You're insinuation that "you" have the Holy Spirit and other people who claim to use personal comprehension don't falls as a false-----nay, routinely false------accusation. So, don't make that accusation, especially upon someone like myself who is your brother in Christ.

There is not a true Christian in this world who is not an heretic to some other true Christian.