Theistic Evolutionists a cult?

rmills · Mar 20, 2004

Just wanted to put some things to light here for those wondering about the ENUMA ELISH

ENUMA ELISH
THE EPIC OF CREATION

THE FIRST TABLET

When in the height heaven was not named,
And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,
And the primeval Apsu, who begat them,
And chaos, Tiamut, the mother of them both
Their waters were mingled together,
And no field was formed, no marsh was to be seen;
When of the gods none had been called into being,
And none bore a name, and no destinies were ordained;
Then were created the gods in the midst of heaven,
Lahmu and Lahamu were called into being...
Ages increased,...
Then Ansar and Kisar were created, and over them....
Long were the days, then there came forth.....
Anu, their son,...
Ansar and Anu...
And the god Anu...
Nudimmud, whom his fathers, his begetters.....
Abounding in all wisdom,...'
He was exceeding strong...
He had no rival -
Thus were established and were... the great gods.

There is a ton more but this part above will suffice for our current discussion.

Lucaspa states:

Notice the congruence between Genesis 1 and the Enuma Elish in the order of creation. What the website doesn't tell you is that most of the entities created -- sun, moon, plants, etc -- in the Enuma Elish are gods of the Babylonian pantheon. What Genesis 1 is doing is going thru that pantheon and demolishing those gods by making each entity -- sun, moon, plants, etc -- be created objects. Created by Yahweh. They can't be gods if they are created by Yahweh! So, while you insist on imposing your reading on Genesis 1, to the people of the day, Genesis 1 is expressing a fundamental truth to the Hebrews: there are no other gods but Yahweh.

It would seem that Christianity has stolen the creation story from some other list of gods?

Statements like,

Actually all your points are "scripture" so you are really only making one point, and that point is: "As I read scripture, it is not compatible with the theory of evolution. "

Or,

Jesus often told stories"

Or,

First, there are two contradictory accounts in Genesis 1-3. That is a big neon sign that neither should be read literally. "

These statements and countless like them seem to have a common thread that I figure I will put myself on the firing line in exposing.

The CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS & RESEARCH MINISTRY says:

The dictionary defines cult as "a system of religious worship or ritual"; "devoted attachment to, or extravagant admiration for, a person, principle, etc.", "a group of followers." This is a typical secular definition and by it, any believer in any god is a cultist, even atheists since they have an admiration for a principle and are a group of followers of the philosophy of atheism. Therefore, this is too broad a definition since it doesn't sufficiently address the issue of true and false religious systems. "

Theistic Athiesists are a Cult.

Rom 1:20 For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things made, both His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse.
Rom 1:21 Because knowing God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful. But they became vain in their reasonings, and their undiscerning heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became foolish
Rom 1:23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into a likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Because of this, God gave them up to impurity in the lusts of their hearts, their bodies to be dishonored among themselves,
Rom 1:25 who changed the truth of God into the lie, and worshiped and served the created thing more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

I have no idea what a Theistic Evolutionist would define these verses as but I see a big neon sign.

lucaspa · Mar 20, 2004

rmills said:
It would seem that Christianity has stolen the creation story from some other list of gods?

How could you have mistaken what I said so badly? Let me try again. The authors of Genesis 1 had as the major rival to Judaism the Babylonian pantheon. What the authors did was take the Babylonian creation story and re-work it to show that all those gods did not exist!

You insist on reading Genesis 1 as history. Instead, Genesis 1 is designed and intended to show more profound truths: that Yahweh is the only God, that Yahweh, and only Yahweh created, and that the Babylonian gods -- all based on physical objects -- don't exist because those physical objects are created by Yahweh. To make the point most forcefully, the authors took the general outline of the Enuma Elish that everyone was familiar with and show it to be wrong.

The CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS & RESEARCH MINISTRY says:

Theistic Athiesists are a Cult.

This says "theistic atheists". Since we are not theistic atheists, there is no problem.

Rom 1:20 For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things made, both His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse.
Rom 1:21 Because knowing God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful. But they became vain in their reasonings, and their undiscerning heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became foolish
Rom 1:23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into a likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Because of this, God gave them up to impurity in the lusts of their hearts, their bodies to be dishonored among themselves,
Rom 1:25 who changed the truth of God into the lie, and worshiped and served the created thing more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

I have no idea what a Theistic Evolutionist would define these verses as but I see a big neon sign.

A big neon sign of what? Since TEs don't deny that God created, worship God and not the Creation, what is your problem?

If you really look at the whole chapter, what is Paul talking about? He is talking about Romans who had abandoned the Christian faith to return to the worship of their pagan gods. Notice that "the incorruptible God into a likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things." This refers, of course, the the graven idols in Rome.

Now, you seem to have ignored Romans 1:18: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodlinness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth"

How many times have we seen Creation Science suppress the truth of what is known and give false witness by misquotes and other means? Suppressing the truth God wrote in His second book can't be good, can it? So, if you ask me, I would look at these verses applied to Creation Science first. Something about the log in your own eye before the mote of dust in someone else's.

rmills · Mar 20, 2004

How could you have mistaken what I said so badly? Let me try again. The authors of Genesis 1 had as the major rival to Judaism the Babylonian pantheon. What the authors did was take the Babylonian creation story and re-work it to show that all those gods did not exist!

Like I said, but now in long form. We are to understand that the "authors" of Genesis adapted an idea from texts unassociated with THE WORD OF GOD to somehow provide information to show that they did not do it but rather God. In these Genesis "texts" there is provided NO information regarding any of the above mentioned gods, thus the conclusion that it was written for the purpose of providing proof that these gods did not create is insane.

This says "theistic atheists". Since we are not theistic atheists, there is no problem.

wow sorry, messed that one up! Theistic Evolutionists! LOL! I gotta watch what I post!

Another common denominator among the Cults is their methods for twisting scripture. Some of the errors they commit in interpreting Scripture are: 1) taking Scripture out of context; 2) reading into the Scriptures information that is not there; 3) picking and choosing only the Scriptures that suit their needs; 4) ignoring other explanations; 5) combining scriptures that don't have anything to do with each other; 5) quoting a verse without giving its location; 6) incorrect definitions of key words; and 7) mistranslations. These are only a few of the many ways Cults misuse Scripture.

A big neon sign of what? Since TEs don't deny that God created, worship God and not the Creation, what is your problem?

A Big Neon Sign Of What? Only the fact that you have a religion based on the premise that the word of God is not the word of God! I am saying that folks who accept TE are using scripture to no avail. The fact that they point out suposed contradictions in scripture says that they do not accept the Bible as a whole truth. Logic would state that if the source is known to provide false or contradictory information, the source is unreliable, period. This is proven by the fact that various TEs only accept portions of the Bible as the Word Of God!

The sequence of events for supporting Theistic Evolution starts with an attempt to discredit the word of God. Once anybody has done that, you can manipulate it to mean whatever you want it to mean.

2Ti 3:13 But evil men and pretenders will go forward to worse, leading astray and being led astray.
2Ti 3:14 But you keep on in what you learned and were assured of, knowing from whom you learned,
2Ti 3:15 and that from a babe you know the Holy Scriptures, those being able to make you wise to salvation through belief in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 so that the man of God may be perfected, being fully furnished for every good work.

How many times have we seen Creation Science suppress the truth of what is known and give false witness by misquotes and other means?

Creationists use the evidence available to support the Word Of God.

lucaspa · Mar 20, 2004

rmills said:
Like I said, but now in long form. We are to understand that the "authors" of Genesis adapted an idea from texts unassociated with THE WORD OF GOD to somehow provide information to show that they did not do it but rather God. In these Genesis "texts" there is provided NO information regarding any of the above mentioned gods, thus the conclusion that it was written for the purpose of providing proof that these gods did not create is insane.

1. The main idea of Genesis 1 is that there is only one god, that that god is Yahweh, and that Yahweh created the universe.
2. What the authors did was put this message in terms that those familiar with the rival religion (everyone of the time) would recognize that the rival religion was false. The Babylonian gods did not exist because each of the "gods" was, in fact, something created by God. This is a bad thing? This is untrue?
3. The information is there. Look at what Tiamet and Apsu are: saltwater and sweetwater. Their commingling makes the universe. But what is the second thing that God does in Genesis 1? He separates the waters. To the people of the time, this means that God created sweetwater and saltwater. Therefore Tiamet and Apsu don't exist. Now look at Genesis 1:11 "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so." Herbs and fruit trees are agricultural plants. Why agricultural plants and not all plants? The Babylonian god of agricultural plants -- herbs and fruit trees -- was Marduk. So to the people of the time this was a clear reference to Marduk and telling them that Marduk did not exist.

wow sorry, messed that one up! Theistic Evolutionists! LOL! I gotta watch what I post!

Are you sure you messed it up? After all, you were supposedly quoting from another source. Are you sure the source didn't say "theistic atheists"?

A Big Neon Sign Of What? Only the fact that you have a religion based on the premise that the word of God is not the word of God!

The premise is that your literal interpretation of the Bible isn't the "Word of God". I don't see how a premise that you aren't God can be wrong, do you?

I am saying that folks who accept TE are using scripture to no avail. The fact that they point out suposed contradictions in scripture says that they do not accept the Bible as a whole truth. Logic would state that if the source is known to provide false or contradictory information, the source is unreliable, period.

Let's apply this "logic" outside the Bible to see if it is a criteria we actually use.
1. Einstein was wrong about Quantum Mechanics. Does this mean we throw out Relativity?
2. The Bush Administration has made many contradictory remarks about why we went to war with Iraq. Does this make the war "wrong"? Or better yet, do Republicans decide that the Bush Administration is an unreliable source of information?
3. If you get into the details of the After Action Reports of the Battle of Antietam, you find that there is a lot of contradictory information concerning the battle, and this within each side. When comparing the reports of the two sides, Bruce Catton, one of the foremost Civil War historians, says "it is as if the Federals and Confederates were fighting two separate battles." Yet do we regard the sources as "unreliable, period"? NO.

What we do is take one claim at a time. We evaluate each individual claim. So, the claim that Genesis 1-3 is historically accurate is separate from the claim that Jesus lived, was crucified, and rose on the third day. The evidence in God's creation and the contradictory text shows the first claim to be wrong. There is no such evidence in God's Creation to show the second to be false.

This is proven by the fact that various TEs only accept portions of the Bible as the Word Of God!

No, we accept all the Bible. We simply don't accept your literal interpretation is really the "Word of God". We reject the literal interpretation. What you are demonstrating quite clearly is that you have made a fallible human interpretation into a god. That's not good.

The sequence of events for supporting Theistic Evolution starts with an attempt to discredit the word of God.

Again, not at all. What TE starts out with is realizing that God's Creation doesn't match a fallible, human literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3. Since God's Creation is also from God, that means that God doesn't agree with a fallible human interpretation of the Bible. So, we have a choice: accept God or accept man. We choose God. How about you?

2Ti 3:13 But evil men and pretenders will go forward to worse, leading astray and being led astray.
2Ti 3:14 But you keep on in what you learned and were assured of, knowing from whom you learned,
2Ti 3:15 and that from a babe you know the Holy Scriptures, those being able to make you wise to salvation through belief in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 so that the man of God may be perfected, being fully furnished for every good work.

You seem to have messed with the translation. Not good to change God's Word, is it?

"All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/2Ti/2Ti003.html#top

Not "God-breathed" but rather "inspiration of God". Yours would have us believe God dictated the Bible word for word. I don't know of any theologian that holds to that. Can you find us one?

Creationists use the evidence available to support the Word Of God.[/QUOTE]

Bushido216 · Mar 20, 2004

This sounds like one big attempt to invalidate science by labelling it anti-God.

And, BTW, rmills, your own definition of cult includes Christianity, ya nit.

RVincent · Mar 23, 2004

A simple rule of thumb:

A denomination is a group that is taught something that you agree with.
A cult is a group that is taught something that you don't agree with.

If a group teaches something you don't like, simply call them a cult, and put away your thinking cap.

(I'm "gap-theory", but not "theistic evolutionist".)

lucaspa · Mar 23, 2004

RVincent said:
A simple rule of thumb:

A denomination is a group that is taught something that you agree with.

A cult is a group that is taught something that you don't agree with.

LOL! Nice one.

If a group teaches something you don't like, simply call them a cult, and put away your thinking cap.

Kind of like labeling anyone that opposes your position a "terrorist", huh?

RVincent · Mar 23, 2004

Glad you liked it!

Personal experience taught me that one.

JohnCJ · Mar 24, 2004

Rom 1:20 For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things made, both His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse.

Science is not things unseen, there are more that one type of seeing. ex/
Numbers are not actually seen they are an abstract thought yet you understand and see the concept of 2+2=4. 2+2 has always equaled 4 it did not need man to discover it, it was always there.

Sure you can see 2+2=4 with your eyes as an interpretation of an abstract thought.
Theisitc Evolutionist do offer an excuse for scientific fact, God.

Rom 1:21 Because knowing God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful. But they became vain in their reasonings, and their undiscerning heart was darkened.

Theisitc Evolutionist credit creation of the universe to God.

Rom 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became foolish

They were foolish because they gave no credit to God.

Rom 1:23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into a likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Because of this, God gave them up to impurity in the lusts of their hearts, their bodies to be dishonored among themselves,
Rom 1:25 who changed the truth of God into the lie, and worshiped and served the created thing more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

You were correct in your original address to theistic athiest.
Because theistic evolutionists worship only God.

rmills said:
I have no idea what a Theistic Evolutionist would define these verses as but I see a big neon sign.

I would suggest shutting your window or moving to a better neighborhood then.

JohnCJ · Mar 24, 2004

http://www.m-w.com/
Main Entry: cult
Pronunciation: 'k&lt
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate -- more at WHEEL
1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

So anyone who believes in anything can be concidered to be in a cult.

gluadys · Mar 24, 2004

rmills said:
Another common denominator among the Cults is their methods for twisting scripture. Some of the errors they commit in interpreting Scripture are: 1) taking Scripture out of context; 2) reading into the Scriptures information that is not there; 3) picking and choosing only the Scriptures that suit their needs; 4) ignoring other explanations; 5) combining scriptures that don't have anything to do with each other; 5) quoting a verse without giving its location; 6) incorrect definitions of key words; and 7) mistranslations. These are only a few of the many ways Cults misuse Scripture.

Click to expand...

Is this another quote from Christian Apologetics...? I could not have described creationist use of scripture any better myself.

A Big Neon Sign Of What? Only the fact that you have a religion based on the premise that the word of God is not the word of God! I am saying that folks who accept TE are using scripture to no avail. The fact that they point out suposed contradictions in scripture says that they do not accept the Bible as a whole truth. Logic would state that if the source is known to provide false or contradictory information, the source is unreliable, period. This is proven by the fact that various TEs only accept portions of the Bible as the Word Of God!

I'm a TE and I accept the whole bible as inspired by God and useful for teaching truth, rebuking error, correcting faults, giving instruction in right living and equipping the believer to serve God and perform every kind of good deed. (2 Tim. 3:16-17, TEV). I do not find that its occasional human lapses into contradiction render it unusable for the purposes for which it was given. Nor do I expect the writers to have more knowledge of scientific fact than was the norm for their day. And I expect them to use teaching methods appropriate for their time and their audience, including the full literary array of poetry, drama, metaphor, legend, story and myth as well as law, proverbs, history, and letters.

None of this requires literal interpretations where they are not appropriate. But none of them require abandoning passages of scripture as the Word of God either. It just means we look elsewhere for the Word of God than in the word-by-word literal meaning. Lucaspa's description of the meaning of Genesis 1 is an excellent example. It works much better as a refutation of polytheism than as a scientific account of the early days of the history of the universe/earth.

Roman Soldier · Mar 24, 2004

God's greatest problem with making everyone on Earth into a Christian is the Christians who already exist.

lucaspa · Mar 24, 2004

rmills said:
Another common denominator among the Cults is their methods for twisting scripture. Some of the errors they commit in interpreting Scripture are: 1) taking Scripture out of context; 2) reading into the Scriptures information that is not there; 3) picking and choosing only the Scriptures that suit their needs; 4) ignoring other explanations; 5) combining scriptures that don't have anything to do with each other; 5) quoting a verse without giving its location; 6) incorrect definitions of key words; and 7) mistranslations. These are only a few of the many ways Cults misuse Scripture.

Creationists use the evidence available to support the Word Of God.

Thus causing creationists to commit all of the errors above. Particularly 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7. Of course, #5 is only minor anyway; it's simply sloppy scholarship. Thank you, rmills, for showing how well creationism fits the definition of cult. First, you mistake a fallible, human interpretation of the Bible as the "word of God", then you commit all the errors above, then you end by ignoring the second book of God. Yep, pretty much a cult. Thank you.

lucaspa · Mar 24, 2004

Roman Soldier said:
God's greatest problem with making everyone on Earth into a Christian is the Christians who already exist.

LOL! Nice one.

Yes, I'm getting tired of having Biblical literalists make me embarrassed for being a Christian!

gluadys · Mar 24, 2004

lucaspa said:
Thus causing creationists to commit all of the errors above. Particularly 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7. Of course, #5 is only minor anyway; it's simply sloppy scholarship.

I don't think #5 is minor at all. Perhaps in regard to creationism. But when one moves to other common beliefs promoted by literalists---such as the Left Behind Rapture Scenario---it depends heavily on slapping disparate scriptures together without rhyme or reason. A dash of Daniel here, a pinch of Ezekiel there, a smidgeon of Matthew and Thessalonians, all whirled into a sauce of Revelations. As if each of these writings did not have their own textual authenticity and could be simply shredded and pureed in a theological blender.

rmills · Mar 26, 2004

gluadys said:
I don't think #5 is minor at all. Perhaps in regard to creationism. But when one moves to other common beliefs promoted by literalists---such as the Left Behind Rapture Scenario---it depends heavily on slapping disparate scriptures together without rhyme or reason. A dash of Daniel here, a pinch of Ezekiel there, a smidgeon of Matthew and Thessalonians, all whirled into a sauce of Revelations. As if each of these writings did not have their own textual authenticity and could be simply shredded and pureed in a theological blender.

Nice post.

The Bible says "Let no man teach you for it is God's anointing that teaches you..."
So this means that I can give up the preachers?

The Bible says "Everything is permissable..."
So I can smoke dope at youth group?

gluadys · Mar 26, 2004

rmills said:
Nice post.

The Bible says "Let no man teach you for it is God's anointing that teaches you..."
So this means that I can give up the preachers?

The Bible says "Everything is permissable..."
So I can smoke dope at youth group?

Apparently you did not understand that my post was a protest against just this kind of lifting quotes out of their context.

rmills · Mar 26, 2004

gluadys said:
Apparently you did not understand that my post was a protest against just this kind of lifting quotes out of their context.

You apparently did not get the joke. Sorry.

Theistic Evolutionists a cult?

Active Member

Legend

Active Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Onions make me gassy.

Legend

Onions make me gassy.

Senior Member

Senior Member

Legend

Roman Soldier

Guest

Legend

Legend

Legend

Active Member

Legend

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency