Creationism Creates Confusion for Christians

[YoursTrue]

Things cannot continue as they are. This is an evil time for the church, because it keeps trying to preserve truth. I think healing all starts with communion and reuniting everyone with serious dedication. Truth is not the solution but a result of forgiving others. Forgiveness is the solution. Perfect love casts out fear. Pride has to go, and until it does the misery continues. The manna will rot in the jar.

Of you want "The misery" to end, then end it by getting rid of all the separations, creeds and pride; but that is the last thing creationism brings to churches. It is someone's attempt to preserve truth, but truth is a result of love not the root of it. Truth is like manna. I know this analogy doesn't go far, but the point is that people die and new ones are born. We can't set up systems for preserving truth, but the parents just won't stop believing that they can. Then they screw up their children, just like trying to store manna for three days. It can't be done. You can't preserve the essence of truth by any means: not science, not pamphlets, not missionary organizations, not vacation bible schools. They all rot.

Creation has more than one interpretation, obviously. You can't unite people around the topic.

And I agree that things aren't going to continue as they are. I can thank God for that.

 

[YoursTrue]

Whether or not there is evolution I think that creationism is taking Genesis and Pentateuch out of its home. Its not about the creation of a planet, which is what Earth is. We're on a planet, but Genesis is about the creation of a people who we call Jews. Its actually part 1 of a 5 book series.

In your responses you say evolution implies death. The gospel requires denial of the self, for Christ. A grown man can accept death, but even children do. No man has greater love than to "Lay down his life for his friend." That's real love, and its what is required. Fake love is not required. Fake love is fake religion.

What about the resurrection? Repentance is resurrection, and its plenty good enough to be called that. When you repent you put to death your old ways and become something new. Jesus calls it resurrection. Why not just accept it? Because we are afraid, because we desire more time, because we tend to want more of everything. We reject the real resurrection which is repentance and desire instead a pagan resurrection, a means of pleasing our emotions and bodies, a return to this or a world like this.

We have stories about Jesus rising from the dead and visiting his apostles, but in the same books Jesus says "I am the resurrection and the life." Paul says "You were dead in your sins and trespasses." This is easy to explain. Anyone who rejects this rejects the resurrection -- the real resurrection.

I can see that Genesis says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and then goes into certain aspects of it.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I can see that Genesis says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and then goes into certain aspects of it.

Good point. Its says heavens plural. Then it says dry ground is created by the separation of waters from waters. Finally it says that everything is good, but we know that the world we see and experience isn't. Could it be that its not talking about planet Earth? It could.

And I agree that things aren't going to continue as they are. I can thank God for that.

Yet everyone is satisfied with how things are going. We buy and sell houses. We use creationism to impose God upon children; yet we ought to know that it is God's mercy and not pressing arguments that draws towards repentance. Could it be that we doubt God is involved in the conversion of children? Could it be that all of this 'Faith' is actually faithlessness? Stranger things have happened in scripture.

 

[YoursTrue]

Good point. Its says heavens plural. Then it says dry ground is created by the separation of waters from waters. Finally it says that everything is good, but we know that the world we see and experience isn't. Could it be that its not talking about planet Earth? It could.


Yet everyone is satisfied with how things are going. We buy and sell houses. We use creationism to impose God upon children; yet we ought to know that it is God's mercy and not pressing arguments that draws towards repentance. Could it be that we doubt God is involved in the conversion of children? Could it be that all of this 'Faith' is actually faithlessness? Stranger things have happened in scripture.

OK, you ask good questions. I do not know everything, only what I know. Or think I know. I do not know what you mean by the conversion of children. Perhaps you can explain.
But in answer to your first point, yes, life will go on as usual for many, just as Jesus said it did in the days of Noah. For some, however, life has changed in reference to what they learn from the Bible.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The atheists are required to exhibit the fruits of the spirit. Good plan!


Let me put it to you that 'Adam' is the same as 'Red' referring to our common human brotherhood, a shared blood. I agree it has important symbolism and a message fathers want to convey to their sons. It is a message of peace. This opposes the symbols and messages of the surrounding counties about the divinity and purity of nobles. Such belief in nobility is like a fungus that keeps appearing in humankind. More recently our own free America used it to maintain the slave industry, even involving Christian missionaries to further the lie that we are different, that their is nobility in blood. 'Adam' opposes this. We are all one bood.

Yeah, but as neither an atheist or theist, I can do that without the theistic God and also get to that we are all one blood.

 

[Brickjectivity]

OK, you ask good questions. I do not know everything, only what I know. Or think I know. I do not know what you mean by the conversion of children. Perhaps you can explain.

I am referring to my own upbringing with PACES and ABEKA and also to much of the past where it is argued we must believe in God, because God made everything. In one of my Science workbooks as a child it says that each snowflake is different, proving God makes them. It also says that Science shows us God's creation. Did this result in a class of nice children with spiritual attributes? Sadly it did not. We were as usual. Creationism is an argument to get other people to say the right things, but it doesn't create in them a conversion.

Yeah, but as neither an atheist or theist, I can do that without the theistic God and also get to that we are all one blood.

Adam & Eve is a story about every human having moral power and capacity, and I think it is for the sons of farmers and shepherds to protect them from royal propaganda. Every time they are conquered and stolen from, the royal cities also spread this filth. Rather than dogma A&E is a story which confronts the propaganda of the royalty's noble lineage: in which they claim royalty and divinity are proven by success in war.

Their theologies say they are related to the gods who give them victory, and so their bloodlines are sexier. They also claim magical powers to frighten the ignorant. They claim they know secret magical names given to things by the gods. Adam, a farmer, is the first man who names everything; so in this story there are no magic names for warriors. The names are Hebrew words. There is no power for the royalty. Adam and Eve also seize the power of morality which according to royalty is reserved for the nobility and gods. They do this by stealing that fruit (which symbolizes knowledge of the law).

Adam is the opposite of the propaganda of the royals in the time it is written. The farmer or shepherd teaches this to his child to protect them and their children from the propaganda of the royal cities -- from that claim that his child is less and is not good enough. Though that child may be taken captive and enslaved, they will know they are not meant by the gods to be slaves. Because he is only a shepherd or only a farmer they will try to dominate his son and belittle his son. This story is a defense.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Adam & Eve is a story about every human having moral power and capacity, and I think it is for the sons of farmers and shepherds to protect them from royal propaganda. Every time they are conquered and stolen from, the royal cities also spread this filth. Rather than dogma A&E is a story which confronts the propaganda of the royalty's noble lineage: in which they claim royalty and divinity are proven by success in war.

Their theologies say they are related to the gods who give them victory, and so their bloodlines are sexier. They also claim magical powers to frighten the ignorant. They claim they know secret magical names given to things by the gods. Adam, a farmer, is the first man who names everything; so in this story there are no magic names for warriors. The names are Hebrew words. There is no power for the royalty. Adam and Eve also seize the power of morality which according to royalty is reserved for the nobility and gods. They do this by stealing that fruit (which symbolizes knowledge of the law).

Adam is the opposite of the propaganda of the royals in the time it is written. The farmer or shepherd teaches this to his child to protect them and their children from the propaganda of the royal cities -- from that claim that his child is less and is not good enough. Though that child may be taken captive and enslaved, they will know they are not meant by the gods to be slaves. Because he is only a shepherd or only a farmer they will try to dominate his son and belittle his son. This story is a defense.

That is how you do it. But I learned to do it without the Bible as such. That is that.

 

[Brickjectivity]

That is how you do it. But I learned to do it without the Bible as such. That is that.

You are not typical, and you don't live in typical times. This is an age when people already believe in individual freedom and have leisure time. Its so obvious that we don't have to dominate to be happy, and its obvious that we are all genetically similar.

 

[shunyadragon]

They conflate the god of this world with the God of love, leading to endless problems.

James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

The scriptures reflect an ancient worldview without science, and yes the authors who compiled them believed what they wrote. The Christians who believe the Bible is what it is based on the beliefs of the authors are yes, justified in their beliefs, even though today it is illogical, not rational nor reflect what we know today and science and history.

Those that jerryrig and manipulate scriptures to make it fit science and history are indeed dishonest about the nature of the intent of the authors and what they believed. If anything does not fit they appeal to the authors intended symbolism and allegory, and the authors did not.

 

[shunyadragon]

They conflate the god of this world with the God of love, leading to endless problems.

James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

Interesting citation. This represents the extreme dichotomy of good versus evil found in the Book of Revelation. The concept of Biblical Creationism other problems of believing in a literal text has more obvious Confusion and division in Christianity, because those wrote the Bible believed literally what they wrote including the extreme dichotomy of good and evil.

 

[gnostic]

Creation does not create confusion, per se. What creates confusion is Atheism not understanding creation and trying to explain it in their way, instead of trying to understand it, in an historical and symbolic way. If someone does not understand and then insults you, one tends to get defensive and take a harder line stance; pride. Without Atheist confusion and insult, the spiritual are not as fixated as Atheism on Creationism. They instigate that.

you are generalising, wellwisher.

for one, atheism is about not believing in the existence of god or gods. Nothing more, nothing less.

everything else about the religions, including any scriptures, if such texts exist, are something else, altogether…including the Bible’s Genesis.

of course, the bible, is central to the beliefs of Christians, however the Bible, only present stories about the God and all the other characters (from Adam to Jesus’ disciples). For one, God didn’t write any part of the bible, they were by bunch of people who really didn’t understand the nature of the planet or that of human biology. For another, atheism is still about not believing in the existence of God, not about “not believing” in the bible’s stories.

Second, you don’t know the background of every & each atheists. Some may have been atheists all their life, while others were former Christians, who may understand the Bible as well as you do, including understanding the Genesis creation.

you cannot pigeonhole every atheists in a single hole with regarding to their Bible literacy.

Plus, many atheists didn’t stop being “Christian” because of number of other reasons that have nothing to do with the Creation story.

edit:

btw, wellwisher. Number-wise, not percentages, there are lot more Christians in the western world, who worked as biologists (who accepted Evolution) than there are atheists working as biologists. You wouldn’t call these Christians “atheists“, would you?

Lastly, the 3rd point. Science is science. History is history. Science and history have nothing to do with atheism.

Often creationists, lump people who don’t believe in the Genesis Creation, but accepting Evolution as science, as “atheists“.

Evolution is biology, not atheism. You are forgetting that @Dan From Smithville , @metis and other Christians here, accept Evolution, are still Christians, not atheists. @shunyadragon may not be a Christian, but he is a theist (he is a Baha’i).

like, I said, you are generalising. You are ignoring the fact, that there are theists, be they Christians or from some other religious backgrounds, they cannot be called atheists simply because they accept Evolution as biological fact.

I, myself, while not be officially a Christian, when I was younger, did believe in the bible, including the Genesis Creation and the Flood. I didn’t started-out being agnostic because of science or Evolution. I started to have doubts because of the gospel’s signs didn’t align up with the OT passages, for instance Matthew 1:23 & Isaiah 7:14. When I reread Isaiah 7, the whole chapter, I came to realisation that Isaiah’s original sign had nothing to do with Mary and Jesus.

And so with that in mind, I began to doubt the validity of other gospel’s signs.

this was how I became agnostic, back in 2000, when I was 34 years old. I didn’t have problems with Genesis Creation until 2003, when I encountered arguments about Evolution and Creation, at the first internet forum I had joined. When I looked more closely at Evolution and at Creation, I realised that Genesis authors didn’t know much about biology at all.

Hell, I didn’t know much about biology myself. My education in biology, was back in high school at Year 9 level, where I was only taught very basic genetics, but nothing about Evolution, like mutations or Natural Selection. In Year 10 and later, I had focused my electives on maths, physics & chemistry, ignoring biology.

and while I may have heard of evolution, natural selection & mutations on TV, eg the Fly, Spider-Man, Ninja Turtles, X-men, etc, I had never understood them, until I had borrowed an old biology textbook fro my cousin in late 2003.

prior to 2003, I also never heard of “creationism“ or “creationist”, but I did know and believe in Genesis creation before joining that 1st forum.

but just because someone is atheist or agnostic, it doesn’t mean they don’t understand Genesis creation.

Anyway, creationism isn’t science, and Genesis isn’t science or history.

 

[syo]

God of love

Gods are evil. That is why the abrahamic god of love is fake.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Interesting citation. This represents the extreme dichotomy of good versus evil found in the Book of Revelation. The concept of Biblical Creationism other problems of believing in a literal text has more obvious Confusion and division in Christianity, because those wrote the Bible believed literally what they wrote including the extreme dichotomy of good and evil.

I'd say they believed they had to live in an extreme way in order to make a difference, but I wouldn't say they were without subtlety. They also expected the readers to have cleverness. I remember a story about Jesus chiding his disciples for taking his own words literally. He said they were dull, which to me means he demanded that they be able to divide and cut through the words to the essence.

Gods are evil. That is why the abrahamic god of love is fake.

I would not take "God of love" as literally as you. It is a command to love other people.

 

[gnostic]

Eve comes from a rib of Adam. This symbolism is biological, but not exactly natural. It is more like biological and technical; cloning and stem cells.

if you think is “cloning”, then you would be wrong.

cloning is essentially a copy of the original.

so if eve is a clone of Adam, then biologically, Eve should have been a “man”, too.

 

[YoursTrue]

if you think is “cloning”, then you would be wrong.

cloning is essentially a copy of the original.

so if eve is a clone of Adam, then biologically, Eve should have been a “man”, too.

From what I understand, ribs have the potential to grow back, but the cover must remain intact. Can a human rib regenerate? - Answers
Since God was the surgeon, He can take what He needed from Adam's rib to form the woman. Just like it is written He used soil or dirt to make Adam's body. Exactly how He did it is certainly not recounted. Moses was not a surgeon, and it does appear fabulous that he wrote that the rib was used, since a human rib has the potential to regenerate.

 

[Little Nipper]

Gods are evil. That is why the abrahamic god of love is fake.

Man is presently evil. The GOD of the Bible isn't evil and sent HIS unique SON to come to sacrifice HIMSELF for my behalf.

 

[Little Nipper]

you are generalising, wellwisher.

for one, atheism is about not believing in the existence of god or gods. Nothing more, nothing less.

everything else about the religions, including any scriptures, if such texts exist, are something else, altogether…including the Bible’s Genesis.

of course, the bible, is central to the beliefs of Christians, however the Bible, only present stories about the God and all the other characters (from Adam to Jesus’ disciples). For one, God didn’t write any part of the bible, they were by bunch of people who really didn’t understand the nature of the planet or that of human biology. For another, atheism is still about not believing in the existence of God, not about “not believing” in the bible’s stories.

Second, you don’t know the background of every & each atheists. Some may have been atheists all their life, while others were former Christians, who may understand the Bible as well as you do, including understanding the Genesis creation.

you cannot pigeonhole every atheists in a single hole with regarding to their Bible literacy.

Plus, many atheists didn’t stop being “Christian” because of number of other reasons that have nothing to do with the Creation story.

edit:

btw, wellwisher. Number-wise, not percentages, there are lot more Christians in the western world, who worked as biologists (who accepted Evolution) than there are atheists working as biologists. You wouldn’t call these Christians “atheists“, would you?

Lastly, the 3rd point. Science is science. History is history. Science and history have nothing to do with atheism.

Often creationists, lump people who don’t believe in the Genesis Creation, but accepting Evolution as science, as “atheists“.

Evolution is biology, not atheism. You are forgetting that @Dan From Smithville , @metis and other Christians here, accept Evolution, are still Christians, not atheists. @shunyadragon may not be a Christian, but he is a theist (he is a Baha’i).

like, I said, you are generalising. You are ignoring the fact, that there are theists, be they Christians or from some other religious backgrounds, they cannot be called atheists simply because they accept Evolution as biological fact.

I, myself, while not be officially a Christian, when I was younger, did believe in the bible, including the Genesis Creation and the Flood. I didn’t started-out being agnostic because of science or Evolution. I started to have doubts because of the gospel’s signs didn’t align up with the OT passages, for instance Matthew 1:23 & Isaiah 7:14. When I reread Isaiah 7, the whole chapter, I came to realisation that Isaiah’s original sign had nothing to do with Mary and Jesus.

And so with that in mind, I began to doubt the validity of other gospel’s signs.

this was how I became agnostic, back in 2000, when I was 34 years old. I didn’t have problems with Genesis Creation until 2003, when I encountered arguments about Evolution and Creation, at the first internet forum I had joined. When I looked more closely at Evolution and at Creation, I realised that Genesis authors didn’t know much about biology at all.

Hell, I didn’t know much about biology myself. My education in biology, was back in high school at Year 9 level, where I was only taught very basic genetics, but nothing about Evolution, like mutations or Natural Selection. In Year 10 and later, I had focused my electives on maths, physics & chemistry, ignoring biology.

and while I may have heard of evolution, natural selection & mutations on TV, eg the Fly, Spider-Man, Ninja Turtles, X-men, etc, I had never understood them, until I had borrowed an old biology textbook fro my cousin in late 2003.

prior to 2003, I also never heard of “creationism“ or “creationist”, but I did know and believe in Genesis creation before joining that 1st forum.

but just because someone is atheist or agnostic, it doesn’t mean they don’t understand Genesis creation.

Anyway, creationism isn’t science, and Genesis isn’t science or history.

Yeshayah 7:14 (Isiaiah 7:14)
Orthodox Jewish Bible
14 Therefore Hashem Himself shall give you an ot (sign); Hinei, HaAlmah (the unmarried young virgin) shall conceive, and bear Ben, and shall call Shmo Immanu El (G-d is with us)

Mattityahu 1:23 (Matthew 1:23)
Orthodox Jewish Bible
23 HINEI, HAALMAH HARAH VYOLEDET BEN VKARAT SHMO IMMANU-EL (Behold, the Virgin will be with child and will bear Son and will call his name Immanu-El

I really don't understand what your issue is with the Isaiah & Matthew passage.​

​

 

[metis]

Man is presently evil.

Speak for yourself.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yeshayah 7:14 (Isiaiah 7:14)​

Orthodox Jewish Bible​

14 Therefore Hashem Himself shall give you an ot (sign); Hinei, HaAlmah (the unmarried young virgin) shall conceive, and bear Ben, and shall call Shmo Immanu El (G-d is with us)​

​

​

Mattityahu 1:23 (Matthew 1:23)​

Orthodox Jewish Bible​

23 HINEI, HAALMAH HARAH VYOLEDET BEN VKARAT SHMO IMMANU-EL (Behold, the Virgin will be with child and will bear Son and will call his name Immanu-El​

​

I really don't understand what your issue is with the Isaiah & Matthew passage.​

Who's haShem?

 

[YoursTrue]

Man is presently evil. The GOD of the Bible isn't evil and sent HIS unique SON to come to sacrifice HIMSELF for my behalf.

As a note, we don't die because we're so good, do we?