Which creation do creationists want us to believe took place?

[Chalnoth]

Yes. This is why Christianity is unique. It is beyond logic, which is the only thing atheist has.

Beyond logic? You might as well just say that you're being illogical.

 

[AV1611VET]

Beyond logic? You might as well just say that you're being illogical.

Okay --- we will ---

There is that maketh himself rich, yet hath nothing: there is that maketh himself poor, yet hath great riches.

Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.

Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.

But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.

Beyond logic? You bet we are!

 

[BananaSlug]

Hey, your faith is yours, not mine or AV's. If anyone, anyone made you deviate from your faith, too bad, but it is YOUR LOSS. If I talked to you and I lose my faith because of your arrogance, I am simply stupid.

God can use one more manager who will not be swayed by others. The person could be you.

No, if you talked to me and lose your faith because of my arrogance your blood would be on my hands.
Christianity is not based on the literalism of the Genesis account. It is based on the fact that Jesus Christ willingly sacrificed himself in our place. Ignoring all evidence that doesn't back up your literal interpretation of Genesis yet wildly interpreting any other verse of your choosing is incredibly... I cannot think of the words to describe it.

Creation- It has to be literal! There is no room for any other interpretation! All the evidence supporting evolution is wrong because my interpretation says so!

Flood- Well, in a different state past... The flood waters were sent to Neptune.

2Also the fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the gushing rain from the sky was checked,

3And the waters receded from the land continually. At the end of 150 days the waters had diminished.
4On the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat [in Armenia].
5And the waters continued to diminish until the tenth month; on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the high hills were seen.
6At the end of [another] forty days Noah opened a window of the ark which he had made
7And sent forth a raven, which kept going to and fro until the waters were dried up from the land.
8Then he sent forth a dove to see if the waters had decreased from the surface of the ground.
9But the dove found no resting-place on which to roost, and she returned to him to the ark, for the waters were [yet] on the face of the whole land. So he put forth his hand and drew her to him into the ark.
10He waited another seven days and again sent forth the dove out of the ark.
11And the dove came back to him in the evening, and behold, in her mouth was a newly sprouted and freshly plucked olive leaf! So Noah knew that the waters had subsided from the land.
12Then he waited another seven days and sent forth the dove, but she did not return to him any more.
13In the year 601 [of Noah's life], on the first day of the first month, the waters were drying up from the land. And Noah [a]removed the covering of the ark and looked, and behold, the surface of the ground was drying. 14And on the twenty-seventh day of the second month the land was entirely dry.

The above quote says nothing about where the water went. All of the differing opinions about the disappearance of this amount of water are liberal interpretations. The literal interpretation says the water receded and dried up. That's all. Nothing else to it. The liberal interpretation says God created a few kinds that hyperevolved after the Flood. The literal interpretation does not.

How do you explain yourself on requiring a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation story yet believe it is okay to liberally interpret the rest of the Bible. If one part is supposed to be literal, then shouldn't all of it?

I guess Jesus was wrong when he said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." John 2:19. The literal interpretation says Jesus was talking about the Temple in Jerusalem which was destroyed by the Romans and never rebuilt. However, most people think Christ was speaking metaphorically, referencing to his body as the temple. Doesn't this fly in the face of a literal interpretation of the Bible?

Let us not forget Revelation, the most liberally interpreted book of the whole Bible. Does it make sense for Genesis=literal but Revelation=Metaphorical? Not really.

The "required" literal reading of Genesis misses the point of Genesis. God created everything by himself rather than everything being created by a pantheon of gods like many polytheistic religions in the area. The point of the Flood is to show how Noah's faith saved him from God's wrath. If the did not cover the whole earth it doesn't matter. The point is Noah's faith in God despite the ridicule of other people is the point of the story. The literal interpretation ignores the deeper aspects and spiritual truth of the story.

Can creation be factually false and spiritually true? Yes. Just because the Bible is factually errant does not make it spiritually errant. Ignoring scientific evidence because it flies in the face of a certain Biblical interpretation is not good. Remember how Galileo was persecuted because his findings contradicted the scriptual interpretation of the time?

 

[AV1611VET]

Christianity is not based on the literalism of the Genesis account.

It's not, huh?

It is based on the fact that Jesus Christ willingly sacrificed himself in our place.

If Genesis isn't literal, why did He have to do that?

 

[Tinker Grey]

It's not, huh?

If Genesis isn't literal, why did He have to do that?

Do you sin?
Did, say, David sin?

 

[thaumaturgy]

It's not, huh?If Genesis isn't literal, why did He have to do that?

I've heard this type of argument quite a bit. Granted it is no longer my religion, but isn't it possible that Genesis in regards to "sin" and "sinful nature" also is an allegory?

The sacrifice of Jesus to atone for man's inherent sins is the "ultimate" version of the "blood sacrifices" in the Old Testament. No literal Adam and Eve, but a kind of beautiful allegory of human nature.

We are born with both aspects inside of us: good and evil. The capacity for immense good and immense evil. It is merely the way we all are. (The idea of "originality" in the sin.)

The Old Testament is replete with the hows and wherefores of making blood sacrifices to atone for our iniquities. If you think of it, the story of Jesus is the "ultimate" version of the sacrifice. Kind of a "jumbo payoff" on a debt we incur as imperfect beings with free choice to act towards God.

No more blood sacrifices are necessary, but now we have the option to merely "accept" the Grace of God.

As I said, Christianity is not my religion any more so I don't have any say in how it should be interpretted, but is it absolutely necessary to read Genesis literally in all aspects for the underlying idea to be accurate?

Jesus wasn't literally a "Lamb" as in baa-baa-baa, 4-legged cud-chewing ruminant. Isn't there abundant symbolism already on hand?

Just thinking.

 

[BananaSlug]

It's not, huh?If Genesis isn't literal, why did He have to do that?

Because Adam (mankind) fell from the grace of God. Just like thaumaturgy said...

...is it absolutely necessary to read Genesis literally in all aspects for the underlying idea to be accurate?

Jesus wasn't literally a "Lamb" as in baa-baa-baa, 4-legged cud-chewing ruminant. Isn't there abundant symbolism already on hand?

Even if the Genesis account isn't literally true, it still teaches the spiritual truths which is what really matter.

 

[tapero]

MOD HAT

To those participating in this thread, please look over the rules and one of them being no profanity and no bypassing the profanity filter using symbols such as #!! in place of a swear word. Profanity is not permitted at all on CF.

Thanks!
​

 

[Danyc]

Danyc, do you realize that everything we say is "insane"? If I say, "Jesus walked on water", is that not "insane" to you guys? If I say, "Jesus ascended up to Heaven in the clouds," is that not "insane" to you guys?

Not really. Right now I am limbo-ed in the world of doublethink; I was a Christian but right now I'm not really sure. It seems that as I listen to the pastor preach his sermon every Sunday, I pick up more and more of the wrong things, the foolish things, than I did before. I'm more receptive to what is wrong in Christianity. I don't know exactly why this is so. Just yesterday I listened to my pastor make a comment about the meaningless life of an atheist. Any time before and I would have just nodded my head and listened on. Now I know better...Atheists aren't mindless savages. They're just people who don't believe something unless there is adequate evidence. Other than that they are exactly the same as you and me.
I fear Hell, if it exists. This is one of the things that keeps me open to Christianity. But then I understand more and more the arguments against the logic in such a religion; How is an eternal Hell fair in any way, shape or form? It isn't, I'm firm in my belief of this. If I were to return to being a full Christian with no doubt, then I would not subscribe to a sect that includes an eternal hell.

But due to me being in a transitional period, walking on water and rising from the dead do not seem so insane to me. I used to believe them without hesitation. They are much less insane than the insanity you spout (The Neptune thing, for instance), because, for one thing, nothing you advocate daily here is in the Bible anywhere. It is ad hoc reasoning that causes you to come up with it. You start with the assumption that the Bible is true; thus, so it can stay true, you make explanations that, if true, would fulfill this requirement. Other than that nothing you say has basis. That is why it is insane. At least the resurrection and the walking on water are actually in the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you sin?
Did, say, David sin?

Yes to both questions --- now comes a big question --- a little harder --- but work on it:

• Are we sinners because we sin, or do we sin because we're sinners?

(If Genesis is not literal, then there's only one way to answer this question.)

 

[MoonLancer]

You start with the assumption that the Bible is true; thus, so it can stay true, you make explanations that, if true, would fulfill this requirement.

Thank you for putting it so simply and in such a if then type of way. This is exactly what is happening.

 

[MoonLancer]

ug double post.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Yes to both questions --- now comes a big question --- a little harder --- but work on it:

• Are we sinners because we sin, or do we sin because we're sinners?

(If Genesis is not literal, then there's only one way to answer this question.)

You are a sinner because you sin.

Regardless, if you sin, then accordingly you need to be saved. This Jesus did (according to Christianity). Regardless of Original Sin. Ergo, Genesis need not be literal.

 

[MoonLancer]

I think, their for I am

or

I am, their for i think

 

[AV1611VET]

Thank you for putting it so simply and in such a if then type of way. This is exactly what is happening.

Like I tell these guys --- I'll be more than happy to simply say, "I don't know - God did it", if that's what will make them happier.

Where did the Flood waters go?

• I don't know --- God removed them though.

How were all those animals fed aboard the Ark?

• I don't know --- God took care of it though.

How was the Ark able to stay afloat?

• I don't know --- God handled it.

See how easy that is?

But I'm generally not that way - (unless pushed into a corner) - so if I'm going to be asked where the Flood waters went, I'm going to say, "IMO, Neptune".

And if that turns people off --- then they don't need to be asking me questions.

I've made it abundantly clear that if you can't get past Genesis 1, you're in for a doosey of a ride; and if that ride means you have to turn your back on God and Christianity and the Bible because you absolutely refuse to accept Genesis 1 as literal --- well --- sorry to hear that.

 

[Gracchus]

I am simply stupid.

A precious nugget from the quote mine!

 

[AV1611VET]

A precious nugget from the quote mine!

Here's mine --- one I thought up myself: I was born ignorant, and I'll die ignorant.

 

[Chalnoth]

Not really. Right now I am limbo-ed in the world of doublethink; I was a Christian but right now I'm not really sure. It seems that as I listen to the pastor preach his sermon every Sunday, I pick up more and more of the wrong things, the foolish things, than I did before. I'm more receptive to what is wrong in Christianity. I don't know exactly why this is so. Just yesterday I listened to my pastor make a comment about the meaningless life of an atheist. Any time before and I would have just nodded my head and listened on. Now I know better...Atheists aren't mindless savages. They're just people who don't believe something unless there is adequate evidence. Other than that they are exactly the same as you and me.

Ah, yes, I remember those days. I'd be sitting there in church thinking, "What!? It sounds to me like he just pulled that out of his you-know-where. He has no basis for claiming that! And his argument? Completely vacuous!

...

Oh, now that claim is just demonstrably false. What is this guy thinking?"

...and so on and so forth. My pastor was one significant reason I finally split from Christianity for good, though I doubt any other pastor would have kept me around.

 

[juvenissun]

Then why do you accuse us of having faith to try to say our points are wrong?

I think it was a miscommunication/misunderstanding.

 

[juvenissun]

Beyond logic? You might as well just say that you're being illogical.

I don't know what you are talking about. Faith is illogic. What is wrong with that?