Why do some Christian's dismiss Creationism?

[ebia]

Whether you follow Judaism/Christianity/Islam, you end up follow the same God(at least this is Catholic teaching). You have to explain why you follow Christianity instead of Wiccan? because following Wiccan is no better than following atheism, I guess?

AFAIK, Catholic teaching does not say that following Islam is an acceptable alternative to Christianity. Certainly Islam does not say Christianity is just as good, so perhaps I should convert to Islam. But then there is Hinduism, Buddism, Confusionism, Sihkism, The Australian Aboriginal faith, Flying Spagetti Monsterism, ....

As soon as there are more than two choices, and at least two of those choices say "this is the only useful road" then Pascal's wager is useless.

There's simply no alternative to Creationism back then. Do you doubt this?

I deny that their idea of the nature of the creation story is the same as yours, yes. They had no scientific explanation for how the world was made, but that does not mean that they viewed Genesis 1 & 2 as a scientific explanation of how the world was made. To assume 1st century people thought in a 20th century way about the nature of reality is absurd.


OK

Can God make St Joseph and Virgin Mary(I'm not sure if this offensive to Protestants) produce the body of Jesus through sexual intercourse then inject the soul of Son into it? Of course He can since he's omnipotent. but He wants to show to us that Jesus is special. so He choose a highly unsual method.

It does more than just tell us Jesus is special, but... it's the story that tells us that. The story of annunciation and Christmas tells us that, not the fact. I've no reason to believe that the story isn't true, but the story would still tell us that even if it were not historically true.

Creationism says the method God created human differs the method God created other species. what's the corresponding argument in TE?

That we are special, because the Genesis story tells us about that.

What's the role of Genesis?

To tell us about God's purpose for creation and for us. To tell us how we are supposed to relate to God, to creation and to each other. To tell us how we fail in that calling. And so forth. All of that is what Genesis is for, and none of it depends on any of it being historical.

 

[ebia]

Do you think General Relativity is right? If it's right then the statement "Earth is the center of universe and motionless" can't be falsified.

It's not that it's not falsifiable, it's that it's meaningless. You can't falsify gibberish.

Author of Bible is God. you can't criticize Him.

If you read carefully, the suggestion is that it's your understanding of the bible that's wrong, not God.

If Darwin so helped the interpretation of Bible, why no one calls him a theologian?

Because that's not the purpose of the ToE. I would have trouble interpreting the bible if I couldn't read, but that doesn't make my grade 6 English teacher a theologian.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

AFAIK, Catholic teaching does not say that following Islam is an acceptable alternative to Christianity. Certainly Islam does not say

Christianity is just as good, so perhaps I should convert to Islam. But then there is Hinduism, Buddism, Confusionism, Sihkism, The Australian Aboriginal faith, Flying Spagetti Monsterism, ....

As soon as there are more than two choices, and at least two of those choices say "this is the only useful road" then Pascal's wager is useless.

There're only 2 choices for Pascal wager: follow a god (or even gods) or follow no god at all. that is becoming a theist or remain an atheist/agnostic.

Pascal's wager isn't for Christians and non-Christian theists.

When one is born, he does't know if there's a God or not. through learning a Christian learns follow pagen gods is no better than following no god at all.

I deny that their idea of the nature of the creation story is the same as yours, yes. They had no scientific explanation for how the world was made, but that does not mean that they viewed Genesis 1 & 2 as a scientific explanation of how the world was made. To assume 1st century people thought in a 20th century way about the nature of reality is absurd.

at that time, Creationism wasn't necessarily taught as science, but certainly as truth. there're truth outside science and science can contain lies (phrenology for example)

It does more than just tell us Jesus is special, but... it's the story that tells us that. The story of annunciation and Christmas tells us that, not the fact. I've no reason to believe that the story isn't true, but the story would still tell us that even if it were not historically true.

If you have doubt on the Jesus' birth, life, death and resurrection how much doubt do you have on your faith?

That we are special, because the Genesis story tells us about that.

Genesis isn't necessarily true for you, how can you draw conclusions from it?

To tell us about God's purpose for creation and for us. To tell us how we are supposed to relate to God, to creation and to each other. To tell us how we fail in that calling. And so forth. All of that is what Genesis is for, and none of it depends on any of it being historical.

And the evidence supporting this claim is? you can only draw conclusions from statements or facts you considered true.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

meaningless or not. it's not wrong to say earth is the immobile center of universe. however it's wrong to say earth isn't the center of universe when every place can be the center. I can't go into this too deep as neither of us is an expert.

If you read carefully, the suggestion is that it's your understanding of the bible that's wrong, not God.

If everyone gets it wrong, then the author and the writing are problematic.

Because that's not the purpose of the ToE. I would have trouble interpreting the bible if I couldn't read, but that doesn't make my grade 6 English teacher a theologian.

your English teacher doesn't teach you how to interpret Bible however according to TEs Darwin did directly contribute to the development of theology

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

ebia, do you think the statement "Jesus is an idiot" is problematic?
do you think it naturally includes the interpretation of "Jesus is an idiot but He's smarter than all humans"?

 

[ebia]

There're only 2 choices for Pascal wager: follow a god (or even gods) or follow no god at all. that is becoming a theist or remain an atheist/agnostic.

It's no use unless it can tell me which God to follow.

at that time, Creationism wasn't necessarily taught as science, but certainly as truth. there're truth outside science and science can contain lies (phrenology for example)

Missed the point again.

If you have doubt on the Jesus' birth, life, death and resurrection how much doubt do you have on your faith?

I didn't say I had any doubts. I said that it wouldn't matter if the virgin birth story was not true. That's not the same as saying that I think it might not be true. You really do need to read more carefully.

Genesis isn't necessarily true for you, how can you draw conclusions from it?

Genesis is true. It's just not historically or scientifically factual. It's not meant to be. It's a theological document, not a historical or scientific one.

And the evidence supporting this claim is? you can only draw conclusions from statements or facts you considered true.

I should have thought it self evident that at least its primary purpose is theological. Which bit of:

To tell us about God's purpose for creation and for us. To tell us how we are supposed to relate to God, to creation and to each other. To tell us how we fail in that calling. And so forth.

are you disputing?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

TEs also failed to address why Bible, God's Word, was written in a deceptive way that fooled human being for thousands of years

People are fooled now because the Enlightenment destroyed our appreciation of the value of myth.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

It's no use unless it can tell me which God to follow.

The first step to persuade an atheist is there're divine beings more powerful than human.

Missed the point again.

Read more carefully.

I didn't say I had any doubts. I said that it wouldn't matter if the virgin birth story was not true. That's not the same as saying that I think it might not be true. You really do need to read more carefully.

Then I ask you why do you think Jesus is God? if you don't accept gospels are factual truth, then your faith is baseless.

Genesis is true. It's just not historically or scientifically factual. It's not meant to be. It's a theological document, not a historical or scientific one.

everything that is true is factual, everything that isn't factual can't be true. truth can't come out of false assumptions.

I should have thought it self evident that at least its primary purpose is theological. Which bit of:

are you disputing?

All these conclusions are right, however you can't prove why they're right.

 

[ebia]

The first step to persuade an atheist is there're divine beings more powerful than human.

Pascal's wager doesn't offer to do that, which is why it fools no-one but the most incredulous.

Read more carefully.

I read carefully enough.

Then I ask you why do you think Jesus is God? if you don't accept gospels are factual truth, then your faith is baseless.

Let me say this very clearly: I did not say that the gospels were not factual truth. I said it would not matter if some bits of them were not. See the distinction?

everything that is true is factual, everything that isn't factual can't be true. truth can't come out of false assumptions.

About as wrong as one can get.

All these conclusions are right, however you can't prove why they're right.

I haven't attempted to. I'm not going to waste my effort proving things that are not being disputed.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Pascal's wager doesn't offer to do that, which is why it fools no-one but the most incredulous.

We're all "fooled" by some variants of Pascal's wager. it's not "fooled" at all. it's proper risk analysis

Let me say this very clearly: I did not say that the gospels were not factual truth. I said it would not matter if some bits of them were not. See the distinction?

Give me an example of which part of gospel isn't factual. don't forget evidence for your statement.

About as wrong as one can get.

Do you think God need deception to show truth? If not, at least show me why Bible isn't problematic if TE is true.

I haven't attempted to. I'm not going to waste my effort proving things that are not being disputed.

you simply can't. otherwise show me how you can.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

People are fooled now because the Enlightenment destroyed our appreciation of the value of myth.

Why do you post this? Aren't you a TE? Have you suddenly switched side or this is a parody?
God's creation is beyond the apprenhension of physic laws. it's TE try to explain it using physic laws which is as "reasonable" as an attempt to try to explain the resurrection of Jesus using physics.

 

[ebia]

Until I see some evidence that you actually read carefully and think about what others are saying I'm going to stop wasting my breath. Because this makes it quite clear that you are not:

Give me an example of which part of gospel isn't factual.

I have not said that any part of the gospel is not factual.

you simply can't. otherwise show me how you can.

I'm not your pet dog. I don't do tricks for your amusement.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Why do you post this? Aren't you a TE? Have you suddenly switched side or this is a parody?
God's creation is beyond the apprenhension of physic laws. it's TE try to explain it using physic laws which is as "reasonable" as an attempt to try to explain the resurrection of Jesus using physics.

The Resurrection analogy would only be apt if we were told to ignore a dead body.

To expand on the post you quoted: We are at a disadvantage when reading Scripture. The Enlightenment severely damaged our society's ability to understand myth as being able to be true and our ability to understand the way ancient histories put more emphasis on the meaning of events than the precise details and chronology of events. If we recognize our disadvantage, we can transcend it. If we don't, we can easily place ourselves in an untenable position.

 

[gluadys]

Do you think General Relativity is right? If it's right then the statement "Earth is the center of universe and motionless" can't be falsified.

Irrelevant. The ancient and medieval philosophers and theologians who believed the earth was motionless and that the bible supported this belief were not using a framework of General Relativity. They believed the earth was absolutely motionless and that this was a biblical teaching.

How was it possible for them to be fooled by the bible for so long?

Author of Bible is God. you can't criticize Him.

God is not the author of the bible. God is the one who inspired the authors.

And I am not criticising God or the bible. It is you--or rather your interpretation--of the bible that I am criticizing. Do you know what 'hubris' means?

If Darwin so helped the interpretation of Bible, why no one calls him a theologian?

Because he wrote no theological works about his scientific theories.

 

[gluadys]

at that time, Creationism wasn't necessarily taught as science, but certainly as truth.

And that is the difference between ancient creationism and modern creationism. Modern creationism does claim to be scientifically true and has been seeking entrance into the science curriculum.

there're truth outside science and science can contain lies (phrenology for example)

Agreed.

If you have doubt on the Jesus' birth, life, death and resurrection how much doubt do you have on your faith?

Why do you see doubt where there is none?

Genesis isn't necessarily true for you, how can you draw conclusions from it?

Genesis is true for us; just not factual history.

And the evidence supporting this claim is? you can only draw conclusions from statements or facts you considered true.

What is received by faith is considered true without supporting evidence from the physical world. Remember what Jesus told Thomas.

 

[gluadys]

everything that is true is factual, everything that isn't factual can't be true. truth can't come out of false assumptions.

Pure Enlightenment reasoning. This is how the philosophers of the Enlightenment narrowed the meaning of 'truth'. This is the basis of materialistic thinking. The logical conclusion of such thinking is atheism, for there is no factual basis for believing in the existence of God or any conclusion that flows from the existence of God.

If this was correct Jesus lied when he told Thomas "Blessed are those who do not see, yet believe." And the writer of Hebrews lied when he said "Faith is the evidence of things not seen."

 

[gluadys]

Why do you post this? Aren't you a TE? Have you suddenly switched side or this is a parody?
God's creation is beyond the apprenhension of physic laws. it's TE try to explain it using physic laws which is as "reasonable" as an attempt to try to explain the resurrection of Jesus using physics.

TEs don't try to explain the resurrection of Jesus using physics. We recognize this is a miracle that transcends physics.

Apparently you are making judgments about TE on the basis of false information.

 

[The Lady Kate]

We're all "fooled" by some variants of Pascal's wager. it's not "fooled" at all. it's proper risk analysis

Actually, it's a brute intimidation tactic to scare people into faith with the worst possible threats of damnation.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Until I see some evidence that you actually read carefully and think about what others are saying I'm going to stop wasting my breath. Because this makes it quite clear that you are not:

I have not said that any part of the gospel is not factual.

Then how can you not mind any of them isn't factual? I only draw conclusions from them because I'm absolutely sure they're factual. can you draw truth from falsehood?

I'm not your pet dog. I don't do tricks for your amusement.

your refusal to explain amuses me more than your explanation.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Actually, it's a brute intimidation tactic to scare people into faith with the worst possible threats of damnation.

If believing in God lead to heaven and refusing God also lead to heaven, who will "waste" their time worshiping?

Everyone here believes in God, because it makes a difference.