Christianity and Creationism - some clarification

Castiel said:
Jehovah Witness' are not regarded as a mainstream major Christian Church, Evangelical Churches are not all Literal Conservative in nature or considered a major unified Church either (many are only Churches in name, not in recognition) and Baptists, unless led by the resurgent Conservative Literalism are not Literalist either, ( there is a current schism in the SBC between liberal and conservative viewpoints)

There is significant difference between fundamentalist conservative literalism in American pastor led churches and what Spudbynight was referring to as Major Christian Faith.
Click to expand...

Well that's the problem the minority churches think the mainstream churches are corrupt and don't reflect core Christian beliefs. The only true word is the literal word of god. And tbh I can see their point. You can't pick and choose what you believe because its convenient.
 
Edinho said:
The scriptures say man was created from Adam and God created Adam therefore evolution is complete rubbish. Believing word for word the bible is the only correct word is nothing new.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. The popularity in Biblical Literalism rose along with Protestantism, it is relatively new.

With very few exceptions the early Christian Fathers such Augustine, Origen, Iraeneus, and more contemporary scholars such as John Paul II all considered Genesis (and more in the case of Origen and Augustine) should be considered allegorical.

Origen wrote in De Principiis:

For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.
Click to expand...


http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04124.htm
 
spudbynight said:
I did say major and world. Yes, there are American "house churches" where a lone individual puts his own spin on things. I don't really have a lot of time for them.
Click to expand...

Religious person not agreeing with someone elses religion shocker!

Really, who cares.
 
Edinho said:
Well that's the problem the minority churches think the mainstream churches are corrupt and don't reflect core Christian beliefs. The only true word is the literal word of god. And tbh I can see their point. You can't pick and choose what you believe because its convenient.
Click to expand...

No you shouldn't, but their literal word of god is meaningless.
The bible wasn't written by God and the bible has huge numbers of translation errors. It was also written at a different time and so things had different meanings and difference relevancies.
 
Castiel said:
Yeah, I've spent a lot of time in America, and no, creationists are not everywhere, they are like many minorities, simply more vocal.

Not unlike Militant Atheists in Europe.
Click to expand...

I’m curious, what defines a militant atheist? As far as I can see, this appears to be any person who is verbal with their disbelief in god and it seems to be used as an insult in many cases. This from a group (all religions) who make a business of preaching at, and converting others...?
I’m sure it’s obvious which side I favour, but I have no wish to get into a debate over God, I just want a religious persons view on the above term.
 
Edinho said:
Well that's the problem the minority churches think the mainstream churches are corrupt and don't reflect core Christian beliefs. The only true word is the literal word of god. And tbh I can see their point. You can't pick and choose what you believe because its convenient.
Click to expand...

The issue is with that statement is, like many Biblical Literalists, it ignores the admission of allegorical intent in the Scripture itself, allegory is used throughout the books of the bible.

It isn't about picking and choosing, it is about the intent of the message contained within the words themselves....The use of abstract images and symbolism is a common thread in Biblical Scripture and to suggest otherwise illustrates a distinct lack of understanding about scripture.
 
PMKeates said:
I think once you start 'interpreting' the Bible to such an extent that you discard pieces of it one has to question the literal validity of the entire thing. It's fine as a set of moral teachings that one can pick and choose the 'good ones' to live by, but they will almost certainly just be the human moralities of the day. That sort of renders it all a bit pointless.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with this. Seems to be a bit of a defeatist approach on behalf of the so called Christian faiths.

If there's no belief in creationism from some of these theists, then where do they believe the world/universe was created? Surely to question 'his' power as to creating this world questions the validity of every other 'power' he has, i.e. total omniscience. Once you start stripping away beliefs from some aspects of it, the grind on all of it is sure to follow. All you'll be left with is a couple of books full of fables from two thousand years ago.
 
The bible isn't and never has been the literal word of god, as Castilel says its also not entirely literal. There are many stories in the bible that aren't literal and have never been taken as literal.

Threads like this always shows up two sides.
People who really don't have a clue about the bible and sprout **** about something that doesn't affect them.
And on the flip side you have certain religiuse people who have been taught and haven't research or tested their now blind faith.
 
Jack Bauer said:
I’m curious, what defines a militant atheist? As far as I can see, this appears to be any person who is verbal with their disbelief in god and it seems to be used as an insult in many cases. This from a group (all religions) who make a business of preaching at, and converting others...?
I’m sure it’s obvious which side I favour, but I have no wish to get into a debate over God, I just want a religious persons view on the above term.
Click to expand...

Then you should ask a religious person rather than me.

For me, A militant atheist is someone who holds a distinct faith in the proposition that there is no God and that this is supported by and proven by Science. It is entirely hostile to religion, often making claims against religion that are not supported or largely based on common misconceptions or applying extremist examples to the mainstream. Not all Atheists hold this fundamental ideology, although some do. The fact that Science makes no such judgements and is entirely agnostic on the matter seems lost on them.
 
Last edited:
Glaucus said:
No you shouldn't, but their literal word of god is meaningless.
The bible wasn't written by God and the bible has huge numbers of translation errors. It was also written at a different time and so things had different meanings and difference relevancies.
Click to expand...

Meaningless to you yes just as Darwin's word is meaningless to a creationist...we could go on all day like this.
 
Edinho said:
Meaningless to you yes just as Darwin's word is meaningless to a creationist...we could go on all day like this.
Click to expand...

Not at all, because they should read and understand the bible and the translation into modern languages. You can't or at least shouldn't ignore this.
 
Problem with translating the bible into modern languages is that you're never going to really know what the bible said originally anyway. It's been copied and passed down the ages for the past 2000 years and in that time nobody can really know what has been omitted and what has been added.
 
Edinho said:
Meaningless to you yes just as Darwin's word is meaningless to a creationist...we could go on all day like this.
Click to expand...

To a point, however Christian doesn't equal Creationist so to imply that all Christians are literalists, or are wrong if they are not is disingenuous and ignorant of the Scripture and doctrines of most Christian faiths.
 
Castiel said:
Then you should ask a religious person rather than me.

For me, A militant atheist is someone who holds a distinct faith in the proposition that there is no God and that this is supported by and proven by Science. It is entirely hostile to religion, often making claims against religion that are not supported or largely based on common misconceptions or applying extremist examples to the mainstream. Not all Atheists hold this fundamental ideology, although some do. The fact that Science makes no such judgements and is entirely agnostic on the matter seems lost on them.
Click to expand...

I see your point here - distinct faith in the proposition that there is no God - and it is probably the best description I have seen.

But I disagree on this point - The fact that Science makes no such judgements and is entirely agnostic - Science has no evidence one way or another, and therefore current scientific fact is that there is no God. The difference being if God came down to earth (or some other quantifiable evidence were to be observed) this fact would change.

J-FRO said:
i.e. Richard Dawkins. Although I'm not sure if he's ever actually called himself a "militant atheist"
Click to expand...

Well I think he would define himself as a scientist, either way, he is verbal. His arguments are normally reasonable, but he can go on the attack for what seems very little reason.
 
Oh God ;), more total misunderstanding of science.
It's isnt even remotely scientific fact. Go learn what science is before you Totaly abuse it like you are.

J-FRO said:
Problem with translating the bible into modern languages is that you're never going to really know what the bible said originally anyway. It's been copied and passed down the ages for the past 2000 years and in that time nobody can really know what has been omitted and what has been added.
Click to expand...

This isn't really true, it hasnt been copied hudreads of times, there's a fair bit of ancient texts, which are used for translation.

So it isn't a copy of a copy of a copy times a few hundred times.
 
J-FRO said:
Problem with translating the bible into modern languages is that you're never going to really know what the bible said originally anyway. It's been copied and passed down the ages for the past 2000 years and in that time nobody can really know what has been omitted and what has been added.
Click to expand...

Again, untrue. The original extent texts are still used today, along with various texts, partial and otherwise that support those extent books and texts.

It isn't a gradual re-translation of translation of translation, it is a translation of the originals supported by science and lingustics. The modern translations are closer to the original texts than those preceding it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom