Why the Christian creation myth

[AV1611VET]

Since nobody is going to think that they lost this debate I think it all comes down to personal taste. Hmmmm.....which one do I worship, the vomit or the God who created the Universe and gave His Son because He loves us? Since the second choice is backed up by science, history, culture and love why would an atheist think a person is foolish for picking it?

Proverbs 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.

 

[Speedwell]

True, but if the core of the Adam and Eve story is believed, then we are on a ride. And the name of that ride is "Knowledge of Good and Evil". And that actually explains a lot to me.

It explained a lot to the author(s) of the story as well as to subsequent readers. That is why it has remained so popular.

 

[Speedwell]

Is there any reason why you're saying this on a Christian forum?

Why should he not? The question is an interesting one and there will be Christians on all sides of the issue.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Unless you have faith in Christianity, nope.

Although Bumba myth lacks certain style and imagination people usually require of these events that have deeper meaning for them.

For style and imagination, the Scientologist mythology is hard to beat, so one presumes there's more to 'deeper meaning' than that.

 

[Halbhh]

Are there any reasons why the Christian creation myth should be preferred to (or is more likely to be true than) the creation myth of the the Bushongo people, which says that the lonely God Bumba had a terrible stomach ache one day and vomited up the sun, moon, stars, and the earth?

As an atheist, here is a key angle to consider --

What is the effect of --
"Love your neighbor as yourself."
-- (one of the two great commandments that summarize much in Christian scripture)

Consider -- if more people did this would it be good or bad for humanity? Would it improve life on Earth?

Next, consider this one--
"So in everything, do to others as you would have them to do you" (-- from Jesus the Christ)

Would this help humanity if more people did it?

What would happen if most people stopped doing this?

Answer: if most people stopped doing this then the incivility would cause breakdowns in all nations, and little wars to break out everywhere, and soon enough lead to a generalize collapse of civilization.
Then, in consequence, the full breakdown of law and then trade (economies) would lead to the starvation death of most of humanity (likely 4 to 7 billion) within a few years.

So.....

Considering the actual content of Christianity....this isn't just any old mythology, really.

It's something else. Even to an atheist, it's objectively the truths about how best to live, even foundational to civilization.

Objectively.

For me, that was a very strong motive to read more of what Jesus of Nazareth said. I was curious. A desire to learn.

He's got a lot to say you've never heard, and it is...amazing, and you'll be glad you learned, if you do.

 

[Kenny'sID]

So, the jihadist KNOWS he'll get 70 virgins in an eternal paradise if he blows himself up at a public market?

Maybe you would trust in a God that calls for what those people do, but not me.

I keep telling some of you, you must use a little common sense. yet.....

Is that what you call a "fact"?

In that case, I guess Tom Cruise, being an "operating thetan" really CAN bend space and time to his will................

Refer to the prior comment on common sense.

Must be terrible not to know at least one person you can trust that much...the concept really isn't all that that far fetched.

 

[Halbhh]

I mean, that depends on what you mean by true. You mean literally true? I don't take it as literally true--I don't believe the universe came into existence in a period of six days, or that Adam and Eve were literal-historic persons who by the litearl eating of a literal fruit from a literal forbidden tree introduced sin and death; but would agree with Origen of Alexandria that by these something deeper is intended to be conveyed.

I would again point out that I can't think of a reason someone who is neither Jew or Christian would need to seriously treat the story as anything other than a story--the relevance is only there if one already has a religious belief in which the story is relevant. I assume the Bushombo people derive a great deal of meaning from their story as part of their religio-cultural identity.

-CryptoLutheran

There's a good question -- what is an effective meaning for the word "true" that all manner of people could accept (or a great majority could)?

Here's the one I use, after considerable work, as an atheist and agnostic, to examine the psychology and philosophical angles.

'True' -- the best known explanation or idea that works better than any other available explanation or idea to produce good outcomes, good being that which best supports life and safety and happiness for humanity, both individuals and as a whole.

Using this working definition, as I learned more and more history, philosophy and psychology, I became increasingly impressed with the ideas (as I thought of them) of Jesus of Nazareth. I noticed that all the enduring human values and ideas, like law, compassion, etc., He was summarizing well.

That Jesus's ideas (as I thought of them at that time) were like an intersection set of human wisdom from all cultures, times, places.

That was a clue for me. It's amazing how....fortunate we are that He came.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Staying on topic is a rule that just about all forums implement.
If you wish to discuss another topic, nobody prevents your from creating a thread about that.

And what was that you said about Tom Cruise?

Oh, I know, we only run with the "stay on topic" defense when it's convenient and necessary to shush the offending party because we have no other defense.

Typical.

 

[Kenny'sID]

If your belief in your very good friend is justified, then I imagine that you could explain why the trust is justified and that others could easily meet your friend, interact with him/her, and see if your trust is justified.

There are plenty of examples where even very deep belief has been shown to be wrong in the past. Therefore, one person believing deeply doesn't work as objective evidence.

Once again, the concept is not that far fetched.

Because you have examples to the contrary, hardly says my friend is not trustworthy.

 

[Aman777]

Are there any reasons why the Christian creation myth should be preferred to (or is more likely to be true than) the creation myth of the the Bushongo people, which says that the lonely God Bumba had a terrible stomach ache one day and vomited up the sun, moon, stars, and the earth?

Sure, but it's not a myth but instead is God's Truth which agrees in every way with every discovery of mankind. God's Truth MUST agree with Science and History or one must continue to seek God's Truth. Not all consensus scientific views/assumptions agree. ie. the false ToE.

 

[KWCrazy]

The guy is just asking what rational reasons there that the christian creation story is more likely then the other creation story presented.

That's neither what he asked nor how he asked it.

There are many here with whom I disagree on nearly all subjects, but they can at least engage in civil discourse without unwarranted condescension. We all know your version of creation. We choose to believe God's version. We are rational and intelligent enough to know that a supernatural entity speaking the universe into existence violates natural law. We also know that has no bearing on whether or not it happened.

 

[Abraxos]

Are there any reasons why the Christian creation myth should be preferred to (or is more likely to be true than) the creation myth of the the Bushongo people, which says that the lonely God Bumba had a terrible stomach ache one day and vomited up the sun, moon, stars, and the earth?

It's a little bizarre to ask a Christian why they prefer Christian beliefs over another. You could say that most (if not all) Christians adhere to their faith in Jesus Christ and the Bible as the word of God which houses the origin of the heavens and the earth and everything in it.

As you probably already know, Christendom have many denominations and aspects to their beliefs that differ from others. The body of Christ is made up of many parts (1 Corinthians 12:12-31); be it evangelism, apologetics, or humbly living a quiet life in faith minding their business - they are all laid not upon the creation account, but upon Jesus as their foundation.

While the Christian creation myth (as you put it) may have importance to a relative number of Christians, to many other Christians it is not as important. Some see it as a timeless and powerful piece of Hebrew literature; others see it as a historical narrative which some have dedicated their lives in achieving to shift the paradigm away from a old and tired evolutionist perspective. Personally I believe the Darwinian myth will one day be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.

 

[Speedwell]

It's a little bizarre to ask a Christian why they prefer Christian beliefs over another. You could say that most (if not all) Christians adhere to their faith in Jesus Christ and the Bible as the word of God which houses the origin of the heavens and the earth and everything in it.

As you probably already know, Christendom have many denominations and aspects to their beliefs that differ from others. The body of Christ is made up of many parts (1 Corinthians 12:12-31); be it evangelism, apologetics, or humbly living a quiet life in faith minding their business - they are all laid not upon the creation account, but upon Jesus as their foundation.

While the Christian creation myth (as you put it) may have importance to a relative number of Christians, to many other Christians it is not as important. Some see it as a timeless and powerful piece of Hebrew literature; others see it as a historical narrative which some have dedicated their lives in achieving to shift the paradigm away from a old and tired evolutionist perspective. Personally I believe the Darwinian myth will one day be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.

I think AA misled us with his original wording of the question. I believe he meant to ask for reasons that one would regard one or the other of those two myths as factually true. There is no question that Christians (and others in countries heavily influenced by Christianity) value the Bible stories and prefer them--whether they think them factually true or not. I assume the same is true for the Bushongo.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Once again, the concept is not that far fetched.

Because you have examples to the contrary, hardly says my friend is not trustworthy.

No. But the important thing here is that it shows that deeply held beliefs are not necessarily reliable. Hence, something more than a deeply held belief is necessary to say that a claim is likely to be true. Note that my position here is just that the reliability of your 'friend' (presuming you mean God) is unsupported, not that it's unproven.

It's a little bizarre to ask a Christian why they prefer Christian beliefs over another. You could say that most (if not all) Christians adhere to their faith in Jesus Christ and the Bible as the word of God which houses the origin of the heavens and the earth and everything in it.

You miss the point. What I'm asking if is Christians can justify their beliefs compared to the beliefs of an example group of other people. Justify justify justify. That's what I'm asking.

I think AA misled us with his original wording of the question. I believe he meant to ask for reasons that one would regard one or the other of those two myths as factually true. There is no question that Christians (and others in countries heavily influenced by Christianity) value the Bible stories and prefer them--whether they think them factually true or not. I assume the same is true for the Bushongo.

I didn't mean to mislead. I was perhaps thinking too (formal) logically at the time. To prefer one hypothesis over the other is to consider that hypothesis more likely to be true/accurate.

Not necessarily. Your word, not mine.

I don't understand your point.

 

[AV1611VET]

I assume the same is true for the Bushongo.

The Bushongo, like AA, are going to stand before God at the Great White Throne Judgment and be held accountable for why they didn't put their faith in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour, unless they do something about it pronto.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You miss the point. What I'm asking if is Christians can justify their beliefs compared to the beliefs of an example group of other people. Justify justify justify. That's what I'm asking.

That may not be easy to do if your worldview includes the idea that belief without evidence is praiseworthy.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't believe that there is any substantive reason to conclude that either of the myths is "true" (in the sense that a YEC would mean it) nor do I think that it was the author(s) intention that they be so. Mythmaking is a complex business and while the definition of "myth" does not preclude the stories being true, it is not an important consideration in either creating or understanding them.

 

[AV1611VET]

Justify justify justify.

Justification is one of the major doctrines of the Christian faith.

In essence, it means to declare a person NOT GUILTY.

Romans 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

 

[Kenny'sID]

No. But the important thing here is that it shows that deeply held beliefs are not necessarily reliable. Hence, something more than a deeply held belief is necessary to say that a claim is likely to be true.

Not necessarily. Your word, not mine.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

That may not be easy to do if your worldview includes the idea that belief without evidence is praiseworthy.

I was hoping that people in the 'debate' sub-forums may have a passing interest in ... debate. Because even if your worldview favours belief without evidence, from a practical point of view debate without evidence isn't very effective.

Justification is one of the major doctrines of the Christian faith.

In essence, it means to declare a person NOT GUILTY.

Romans 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Context context context. We're in a debate sub-forum. Justification of arguments has a clear and I believe widely understood meaning.

The Bushongo, like AA, are going to stand before God at the Great White Throne Judgment and be held accountable for why they didn't put their faith in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour, unless they do something about it pronto.

What are you going to say when you find yourself standing in front of the Great Green Arkleseizure after the coming of the great white hankerchief?

Not necessarily. Your word, not mine.

I don't understand your point. Can you please explain?