Is believing in creationism (e.g. that lifeforms were independently created) required for salvation?

[EastCoastRemnant]

No. Belief in a literal creation isn't required. Be suspicious of arguments in favor of a bare minimum threshold of belief required to be a Christian. It shouldn't be about how little dogma one is required to embrace.

Is it really dogma though? Either God is God or He is not.. if He can't do what He said He did in creation, why can He do what He says in Salvation?

See my point? It's like me saying I love my wife... except when I don't. Love doesn't work that way and neither does belief in God.

Accepting salvation in the redemptive power of Christ requires faith and if you don't believe God can create in 6 days, you lack faith.

 

[pitabread]

Accepting salvation in the redemptive power of Christ requires faith and if you don't believe God can create in 6 days, you lack faith.

Does this mean one can't be a Christian if they don't believe God created all lifeforms independently?

 

[USincognito]

If you belive God , my question is this

Why not belive God? What's the problem with it?

Now God said he created all things in 6 days then rested on the 7th

When you say he did not do this, you are saying you dont belive in his power.

Are you familiar with what Creationism is?

 

[Saucy]

There are plenty of Christians who don't believe in Creationism. It is not a requirement for salvation. But once you are a Christian (if that's the direction you're thinking of heading), I would recommend you look at all your options. But if you're firmly rooted in your belief, that's fine. It's not a requirement.

 

[USincognito]

Is it really dogma though? Either God is God or He is not.. if He can't do what He said He did in creation, why can He do what He says in Salvation?

See my point? It's like me saying I love my wife... except when I don't. Love doesn't work that way and neither does belief in God.

Accepting salvation in the redemptive power of Christ requires faith and if you don't believe God can create in 6 days, you lack faith.

So we have to deny our own eyes that show the earth is billions of years old and life on it evolved?

 

[Danielwright2311]

Are you familiar with what Creationism is?

Yes I do why?

There is nothing I dont know about the subject.

 

[USincognito]

Yes I do why?

There is nothing I dont know about the subject.

I misread part of your post. It seemed you were not addressing Creationism. I see now that your third sentence did so.

Carry on.

 

[Danielwright2311]

So we have to deny our own eyes that show the earth is billions of years old and life on it evolved?

What do you see I dont?

There is no proof at all the earth is billions of years old or that life on it evolved

So IM confused on what you see that I dont or what you learned I have not?

 

[USincognito]

What do you see I dont?

Probably the evidence. We can discuss it in depth if you'd like to.

There is no proof at all the earth is billions of years old or that life on it evolved

You're half right. There is no proof because nothing is ever proven in science. We can discuss that as well if you'd like. There is, however, an enormous body of evidence that the earth is indeed billions of years old and life on earth evolved.

So IM confused on what you see that I dont or what you learned I have not?

Did you know that the ICR RATE team determined there was at least 500,000,000 years worth of radioactive decay in the geologic record? They had to invoke miracles to explain it away, but at least they acknowledged that fact. There's also things like magnetic striping in basalt at the bottom of the Atlantic, the heat produced by limestone formation, Helium-3 buildup on rocks in the Atacama desert and the Moon, the utter lack of short period radioisotopes on earth and the numerous raidometric dating methods.

And that's just a few things pointing to deep time off the top of my head.

 

[klutedavid]

I've long tried to figure out the point of creationist beliefs. It's been quite well established on this forum that creationist beliefs offer no scientific value. And given that all the organizations promoting creationism are inherently religious in nature, the only reason for creationist beliefs seems to be theological.

Thus, is creationism* as a belief required to be a Christian? Is it required for salvation?

Is anyone who is not a creationist doomed to go to Hell?

*(For the purpose of this thread, I am defining creationism as the belief that life forms on Earth were independently created by a supernatural being and not a result of biological evolution.)

The various creation scenarios have nothing to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Christian Gospel is about being reconciled to God through trusting Jesus Christ. Not being reconciled to God through a young earth interpretation.

Genesis is not a scientific book, Genesis is not intended to be a history book of life itself. That is not it's purpose nor the reason for it's existence. Genesis is crude summary of an ancient era, and introduces Abraham and then Moses. Abraham, the father of the Jews and then Moses, the father of the law.

Abraham dominates Genesis (12:1–25:18), over twelve chapters introducing the father of many nations. Genesis is not the history of the earth and of life, Genesis is a simple overview until Abraham is mentioned.

Genesis is Jewish lineage to be specific.

Hell if it exists, is for those that deny Jesus Christ.

 

[Danielwright2311]

Probably the evidence. We can discuss it in depth if you'd like to.



You're half right. There is no proof because nothing is ever proven in science. We can discuss that as well if you'd like. There is, however, an enormous body of evidence that the earth is indeed billions of years old and life on earth evolved.



Did you know that the ICR RATE team determined there was at least 500,000,000 years worth of radioactive decay in the geologic record? They had to invoke miracles to explain it away, but at least they acknowledged that fact. There's also things like magnetic striping in basalt at the bottom of the Atlantic, the heat produced by limestone formation, Helium-3 buildup on rocks in the Atacama desert and the Moon, the utter lack of short period radioisotopes on earth and the numerous raidometric dating methods.

And that's just a few things pointing to deep time off the top of my head.

I'm not trying to be rude so dont get defensive ok?

ICR RATE team is a fraud so there so called evidence is just that, fraudulent.

radioactive energy changes in time, in all things, its not constant, and so because it changes it cant be tested and used.

magnetic striping in basalt at the bottom of the Atlantic

This also is subject to fraudulent people trying to gain funds for experiments that prove nothing but there own speculation.

The sad thing is , now no offence here ok? its just a epidemic going on right now , and this goes for all people who follow others lies.

Its sad who you can follow other people with no proof on this subject like ICR RATE team but not Christians .

I have studied this myself and in all my studies I have found not one of these so called scientific groups have real testable proof to anything.

Just hear say.

So you dont do the tests but you follow others who say they have and you belive them with no proof.

 

[FireDragon76]

It rests on a triumphalistic yet fragile 19th century religious epistemology.

 

[WolfGate]

I've long tried to figure out the point of creationist beliefs. It's been quite well established on this forum that creationist beliefs offer no scientific value. And given that all the organizations promoting creationism are inherently religious in nature, the only reason for creationist beliefs seems to be theological.

Thus, is creationism* as a belief required to be a Christian? Is it required for salvation?

Is anyone who is not a creationist doomed to go to Hell?

*(For the purpose of this thread, I am defining creationism as the belief that life forms on Earth were independently created by a supernatural being and not a result of biological evolution.)

Of course not.

 

[USincognito]

I'm not trying to be rude so dont get defensive ok?

O.k. Don't know what prompted that, but awesome. Let's have a discussion.

ICR RATE team is a fraud so there so called evidence is just that, fraudulent.

While I certainly think that RATE was incorrect and dishonest in their work, I don't know how one would accurately describe them a fraud. Would you care to elaborate on this?

radioactive energy changes in time, in all things, its not constant, and so because it changes it cant be tested and used.

I have no idea what you mean by radioactive energy. Do you mean radioactive decay? Because we have zero evidence of it changing except for a few contested claims about Cesium decay (that I'm aware of). If radioactive decay were not consistent and could change willy nilly then our nuclear power reactors would be literal time bombs.

magnetic striping in basalt at the bottom of the Atlantic

I'm assuming that this ^ is a quote of me and this \/ is the response?

This also is subject to fraudulent people trying to gain funds for experiments that prove nothing but there own speculation.

I'm sorry but appeals to conspiracy theories and using magic words like "speculation" to try and poof away evidence in a cloud of smoke is rather laughable. If you object to the evidence of magnetic striping and dating of basalt from the mid-Atlantic ridge you need to actually address and debunk it, not put on a tin foil hat and hand wave it away.

The sad thing is , now no offence here ok? its just a epidemic going on right now , and this goes for all people who follow others lies.

Its sad who you can follow other people with no proof on this subject like ICR RATE team but not Christians .

I have studied this myself and in all my studies I have found not one of these so called scientific groups have real testable proof to anything.

Just hear say.

You don't actually know what the ICR is or what RATE was, do you.

So you dont do the tests but you follow others who say they have and you belive them with no proof.

This response is already quite long, so I'll simply post this link and you can read it if you choose.
Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”

 

[pitabread]

You don't actually know what the ICR is or what RATE was, do you.

It seems like not many creationists these days are familiar with organizations like AiG or the ICR. And I don't think I've seen any on these forums familiar with ICR's RATE project.

ICR needs to step up their marketing.

 

[USincognito]

It seems like not many creationists these days are familiar with organizations like AiG or the ICR. And I don't think I've seen any on these forums familiar with ICR's RATE project.

ICR needs to step up their marketing.

Seems so. Even after the publicity I gave them in this thread:
Guess where I drove by last night.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Does this mean one can't be a Christian if they don't believe God created all lifeforms independently?

How can you desire to become an American and not believe in the Constitution on which it's founded?

There are may that will come to Jesus in the day of judgement and say, "Lord, Lord, did we not do all these wonderful things in your name?" And He will say to them, depart from me, I never knew you.

Can a man serve two masters? Can anyone live a life of dichotomy and be of a settled mind?

I think you know the answers to all of these and to your query are no.

 

[Danielwright2311]

O.k. Don't know what prompted that, but awesome. Let's have a discussion.



While I certainly think that RATE was incorrect and dishonest in their work, I don't know how one would accurately describe them a fraud. Would you care to elaborate on this?



I have no idea what you mean by radioactive energy. Do you mean radioactive decay? Because we have zero evidence of it changing except for a few contested claims about Cesium decay (that I'm aware of). If radioactive decay were not consistent and could change willy nilly then our nuclear power reactors would be literal time bombs.



I'm assuming that this ^ is a quote of me and this \/ is the response?



I'm sorry but appeals to conspiracy theories and using magic words like "speculation" to try and poof away evidence in a cloud of smoke is rather laughable. If you object to the evidence of magnetic striping and dating of basalt from the mid-Atlantic ridge you need to actually address and debunk it, not put on a tin foil hat and hand wave it away.



You don't actually know what the ICR is or what RATE was, do you.



This response is already quite long, so I'll simply post this link and you can read it if you choose.
Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”

Hi again

"While I certainly think that RATE was incorrect and dishonest in their work, I don't know how one would accurately describe them a fraud. Would you care to elaborate on this?"

Sure thing

In order to get funds or paid for tests or funds for so called investigating science you have to have some type of reason, people just dont give money for nothing and they dont do tests with nothing, some one has to be paid in order to do the tests.

The same team that is being talked about here is also doing all this for money, there no different, so saying your tests where one thing but where another or even speculating on defect results just for money is fraudulent.

radioactive decay is the same as radioactive energy as it is this they say is counted.

So in decay, there is a certain amount of radio active energy that is counted.

In time this does change as the human condition comes into play

So lets say there is a dead animal, and this dead carcass laid there for 200 years in a state of decay.

other animals eat on it, bugs chew it, rain falls on it changing the amount of radio active energy.

Now you follow other men's word for there so called tests with no proof, and this is my point.

You believe and follow other men for there word but you never did any of the tests your self.

So you ask me to belive other men's words as proof, but this is not proof, it is there word and nothing else.

 

[pitabread]

How can you desire to become an American and not believe in the Constitution on which it's founded?

There are may that will come to Jesus in the day of judgement and say, "Lord, Lord, did we not do all these wonderful things in your name?" And He will say to them, depart from me, I never knew you.

Can a man serve two masters? Can anyone live a life of dichotomy and be of a settled mind?

I think you know the answers to all of these and to your query are no.

Instead of being mealy-mouthed about it, why not just answer the question directly?

Is belief in independent creation of living organisms required to be a Christian. Yes or no?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Of course not.

Let me ask you a question and hopefully you can be honest in your answer.... if you don't believe that God created all things, as His Word says, then how do you believe that the same God can redeem you, offer you salvation?