I don't understand the point of creationism

[OldWiseGuy]

All Christians trust God's word as divine revelation. The question is, why do some Christians require Genesis to be literal history?

Perhaps because it makes sense to us.

 

[Job 33:6]

I suppose one could imagine a version where no supernatural activity was involved, but this would, as I understand it, contradict core Christian beliefs...

I don't know if that's true. I guess it always depends on the Christian as well. There are many who would say that believing in evolution also contradicts core Christian beliefs. But there are of course many Christians that accept evolution nonetheless. And what is supernatural could also be subject to change in the eyes of observers.

I think the main point is that, in the absence of observations of the body of Jesus or in the absence of observations of the alleged resurrection, I don't think that acceptance of the resurrection suffers from the same challenges of beliefs in a young earth, which can be actively investigated in modern times.

And that doesn't mean that the resurrection necessarily happened or didn't happen, it just means that one concept is a bit easier to investigate and to understand than the other.

 

[Speedwell]

Probably the indwelling Holy Spirit of God.

Which is the reason Traditional Christians give for not needing a literal Genesis.

 

[Speedwell]

Perhaps because it makes sense to us.

I'm sure it does. But why the unremitting hostility of YECs towards Christians who are not YECs?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Which is the reason Traditional Christians give for not needing a literal Genesis.

Speaking for myself the HS guides my study of the subject.

 

[pitabread]

I'm sure it does. But why the unremitting hostility of YECs towards Christians who are not YECs?

Tribalism.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't know if that's true. I guess it always depends on the Christian as well.

OK; I was always taught the resurrection was a core Christian belief - is there a particular name for Christians that don't believe in the resurrection?

 

[Speedwell]

OK; I was always taught the resurrection was a core Christian belief - is there a particular name for Christians that don't believe in the resurrection?

Unitarians?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Unitarians?

Ah, OK - I see they believe Jesus was just man, not supernatural (divine). Thanks.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I'm sure it does. But why the unremitting hostility of YECs towards Christians who are not YECs?

Because it does more than just "make sense" to them. If it was a simple matter of just making sense it would not be important and there would be no hostility. When it becomes the bedrock of your belief then anyone who does not agree lacks the basic foundation of belief and is, therefore, a threat.

 

[Job 33:6]

OK; I was always taught the resurrection was a core Christian belief - is there a particular name for Christians that don't believe in the resurrection?

When I responded, I think that in part, I was suggesting that the resurrection may not have defied physics. Not necessarily that it didn't happen.

As an example, some Christians believe in a metaphysical or spiritual resurrection. I'm not sure that I'd consider this an event that defies physics. But this is just one example.

 

[Job 33:6]

@FrumiousBandersnatch

I think it's also worth considering that defiance of physics does not equate to supernatural, or vice versa.

There are concepts in physics that seem to defy what we know. But they aren't necessarily supernatural. Concepts related to dark matter or energy for example, may result in questions of why physics appears to be defied. But I don't think I'd call dark matter or energy supernatural.

And a spiritual resurrection would be supernatural, but it doesn't necessarily defy physics either.

And with that, I don't think we can jump from your first statement:

"why not include things that contradict the fundamental laws of physics"

To:

"I suppose one could imagine a version where no supernatural activity was involved"

And we should also remember that for Christians, God is active and present in all things. Even something as simple as me riding a bike, can involve a supernatural presence, even if it is a perfectly normal and non miraculous occurance.

When God creates new life, God is considered present and active. And yet, we wouldn't say that birth defies physics.

It doesn't follow that if something doesn't defy physics, that it must therefore not involve supernatural activity.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think it's also worth considering that defiance of physics does not equate to supernatural, or vice versa.

There are concepts in physics that seem to defy what we know. But they aren't necessarily supernatural.

Concepts related to dark matter or energy for example, may result in questions of why physics appears to be defied. But I don't think I'd call dark matter or energy supernatural.

Those concepts in physics are not 'in defiance' of physics; they are consistent with the laws of physics but the mechanisms involved are currently unknown.

And a spiritual resurrection would be supernatural, but it doesn't necessarily defy physics either.
...

OK, we seem to have different definitions of 'supernatural' - for me it means 'unexplainable by science'. Something consistent with the laws of physics can, in principle, be explained by science.

A claim of an unevidenced or undetectable supernatural presence can be made by anyone at any time about anything; it is not the same as a claim of a physically inexplicable (supernatural) occurrence. IMO.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

When I responded, I think that in part, I was suggesting that the resurrection may not have defied physics. Not necessarily that it didn't happen.

As an example, some Christians believe in a metaphysical or spiritual resurrection. I'm not sure that I'd consider this an event that defies physics. But this is just one example.

OK, that's fair enough.

 

[Job 33:6]

Those concepts in physics are not 'in defiance' of physics; they are consistent with the laws of physics but the mechanisms involved are currently unknown.

OK, we seem to have different definitions of 'supernatural' - for me it means 'unexplainable by science'. Something consistent with the laws of physics can, in principle, be explained by science.

A claim of an unevidenced or undetectable supernatural presence can be made by anyone at any time about anything; it is not the same as a claim of a physically inexplicable (supernatural) occurrence. IMO.

I see. Yea sure. I'll review your past comments, but feel free to restate critiques if you have them.

 

[Job 33:6]

I suppose one could imagine a version where no supernatural activity was involved, but this would, as I understand it, contradict core Christian beliefs...

In light of your recent comments, I'd probably leave my response about the same. I don't think that abiding by physics mandates that no supernatural activity had occurred.

 

[loveofourlord]

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.

Or when god said he made man in his own image he meant spirit or soul, unless your saying god has all the sex and such parts.

 

[loveofourlord]

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.

It's a question of wether you believe gods creation over your understanding of his words. All the evidence in the world I see shows evolution, and nothing fits creationism. Creationists make god to be the biggest liar by insisting the bible is 100% accurate in how it describes creation. I would rather accept what nature says then make nature false to keep beliefs.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Or when god said he made man in his own image he meant spirit or soul, unless your saying god has all the sex and such parts.

"Image" has to with appearance. "likeness" has to do with character. Adam initially was not a sexual being. That came about when God formed Eve from Adam's rib. I do not know why God made us the way we are. I do know that in heaven there is no sex and it was a temporary measure to bring about God's will. Of course, it all went pear shaped when Adam disobeyed God.

Primarily, we are spirit beings. The spirit obviously relates to the spiritual realm. The soul is the organ of expression and should serve the spirit. The body enables us to relate to the physical realm. That's the ideal. In reality, unbelievers are driven primarily by physical demands and depend entirely on the soul (reason, logic, emotion and volition). It's the reverse for the Christian who has matured to where they can walk in the Spirit.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

It's a question of wether you believe gods creation over your understanding of his words. All the evidence in the world I see shows evolution, and nothing fits creationism. Creationists make god to be the biggest liar by insisting the bible is 100% accurate in how it describes creation. I would rather accept what nature says then make nature false to keep beliefs.

I see you have no clue of science but that's fine. The fact that you write "God" with a small g explains a lot. May He have mercy on you!