Regarding 'Creation Stories'

[Goodman John]

Are there any religions that do NOT have a 'creation story' to explain where we- and our world- came from?

It seems that in my readings on this or that religion they all have rather detailed myth of creation, some of which require huge leaps of the imagination- and faith- to accept as metaphor, much less as factual events.

But could one take, for example, the Christian New Testament ONLY and build a viable religion from it? Does a religion HAVE to include a 'creation myth' in order for it to be considered as viable? In this example, is the Old Testament absolutely crucial to Christianity? Or does it simply add 'street cred' to the NT by associating the two?

Can we not simply say something like, "God X, our Creator, tells us to do A, B, and C" and so on without an explanation of where God X came from or how he created us?

 

[metis]

Buddhism does not posit a creator-deity, nor does it define or explain "creation". When the Buddha was asked if there was a creator-god, he supposedly said that the question was irrelevant.

I will leave it up to Buddhists here to hopefully fill in more details.

 

[InChrist]

Are there any religions that do NOT have a 'creation story' to explain where we- and our world- came from?

It seems that in my readings on this or that religion they all have rather detailed myth of creation, some of which require huge leaps of the imagination- and faith- to accept as metaphor, much less as factual events.

But could one take, for example, the Christian New Testament ONLY and build a viable religion from it? Does a religion HAVE to include a 'creation myth' in order for it to be considered as viable? In this example, is the Old Testament absolutely crucial to Christianity? Or does it simply add 'street cred' to the NT by associating the two?

Can we not simply say something like, "God X, our Creator, tells us to do A, B, and C" and so on without an explanation of where God X came from or how he created us?

People can say or believe whatever they want because they do this often enough, just picking and choosing what they want to. But as far as the NT goes, Jesus and various accounts by Luke, Peter and maybe others in the NT acknowledge those creation stories as factual events.

For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 2 Peter 3:5-6

 

[exchemist]

Are there any religions that do NOT have a 'creation story' to explain where we- and our world- came from?

It seems that in my readings on this or that religion they all have rather detailed myth of creation, some of which require huge leaps of the imagination- and faith- to accept as metaphor, much less as factual events.

But could one take, for example, the Christian New Testament ONLY and build a viable religion from it? Does a religion HAVE to include a 'creation myth' in order for it to be considered as viable? In this example, is the Old Testament absolutely crucial to Christianity? Or does it simply add 'street cred' to the NT by associating the two?

Can we not simply say something like, "God X, our Creator, tells us to do A, B, and C" and so on without an explanation of where God X came from or how he created us?

Well the OT is quite clearly crucial to Christianity, as the concepts of the Fall and original sin, thus the need for a redeemer, and the whole concept of the Messiah, depend on it.

As to whether you could build a religion on the NT alone, I expect you could but it would not be Christianity. I believe I have read that some people think Christianity may have arisen by a fusion of Judaism with Buddhist ideas - which I don't think involve a creator God - and Greek philosophy. So you take the Judaism out, leave in the teachings and example of Christ and St Paul, and maybe have something or other.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I think there may be a selection bias in your sampling of different cultures/religions' composition. Clearly, if a culture/religion has no or only a brief and vague creation story, it's not going to get much study by anthropologists or scholars of comparative religions.

Also, it's good to keep in mind that our current concept of "religion" is of fairly recent invention, and its applications to the beliefs and stories of other cultures is sometimes something of a force-fit. Unfortunately, I can't put my hands on a source right now, but I seem to remember reading that some cultures don't have much in the line of creation mythos, and some have multiple versions.

 

[Heyo]

Religion is supposed to answer the big questions. "Where do we come from?", "What is the purpose of life?" and "Where shall we go to have lunch?". (Apologies to Douglas Adams)
A religion that doesn't have answers is at a disadvantage and will probably attract less followers than a competing religion and possibly fail.

 

[Goodman John]

Religion is supposed to answer the big questions. "Where do we come from?", "What is the purpose of life?" and "Where shall we go to have lunch?". (Apologies to Douglas Adams)
A religion that doesn't have answers is at a disadvantage and will probably attract less followers than a competing religion and possibly fail.

I do have a towel with '42' embroidered on it, so that should help

 

[Audie]

People can say or believe whatever they want because they do this often enough, just picking and choosing what they want to. But as far as the NT goes, Jesus and various accounts by Luke, Peter and maybe others in the NT acknowledge those creation stories as factual events.

For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 2 Peter 3:5-6

"Acknowledge"???

The OT creo-story is so obviously and blatantly
false, it is a demi-miracle that anyone can manage to
believe it.

 

[Audie]

Religion is supposed to answer the big questions. "Where do we come from?", "What is the purpose of life?" and "Where shall we go to have lunch?". (Apologies to Douglas Adams)
A religion that doesn't have answers is at a disadvantage and will probably attract less followers than a competing religion and possibly fail.

But they dont.

 

[sealchan]

Are there any religions that do NOT have a 'creation story' to explain where we- and our world- came from?

It seems that in my readings on this or that religion they all have rather detailed myth of creation, some of which require huge leaps of the imagination- and faith- to accept as metaphor, much less as factual events.

But could one take, for example, the Christian New Testament ONLY and build a viable religion from it? Does a religion HAVE to include a 'creation myth' in order for it to be considered as viable? In this example, is the Old Testament absolutely crucial to Christianity? Or does it simply add 'street cred' to the NT by associating the two?

Can we not simply say something like, "God X, our Creator, tells us to do A, B, and C" and so on without an explanation of where God X came from or how he created us?

To the extent that a religion employs myth to provide people with a sense of meaning or contact with mystery then telling an origin story, just as superhero stories so often do, is an obvious win.

But if the religion is much more focused on direct experience of truth then maybe a creation story is not so important.

 

[Goodman John]

As a follow-up to this

Well the OT is quite clearly crucial to Christianity, as the concepts of the Fall and original sin, thus the need for a redeemer, and the whole concept of the Messiah, depend on it.

As to whether you could build a religion on the NT alone, I expect you could but it would not be Christianity. I believe I have read that some people think Christianity may have arisen by a fusion of Judaism with Buddhist ideas - which I don't think involve a creator God - and Greek philosophy. So you take the Judaism out, leave in the teachings and example of Christ and St Paul, and maybe have something or other.

Well I'm not trying to 'create something new', but I was just rather intrigued that all the 'revealed' religions- and most if not all the syncretic ones I've run across- place a great stock in the founding 'creation myth'. Whether it's shoplifted from another faith or made up of whole cloth, it always seems to be there. I supposed it does serve to nail down the 'who, where, and why' aspect but while some of them can run to pages and pages of laborious detail, others (like the Creation part of the Book of Genesis) is handled in relatively short order- and rather short on details that we've had to 'fill in' with sometimes wishful thinking.

As for the second part of your post, I suppose if one were to use only the NT you'd end up with an awful lot of instructions on what and what not to do, but little on the practice of actual faith. You'd probably be left with something akin to a rather open-ended 'Jesusism' as opposed to 'Buddhism'- more a philosophy of life than an actual faith.

 

[sooda]

Are there any religions that do NOT have a 'creation story' to explain where we- and our world- came from?

It seems that in my readings on this or that religion they all have rather detailed myth of creation, some of which require huge leaps of the imagination- and faith- to accept as metaphor, much less as factual events.

But could one take, for example, the Christian New Testament ONLY and build a viable religion from it? Does a religion HAVE to include a 'creation myth' in order for it to be considered as viable? In this example, is the Old Testament absolutely crucial to Christianity? Or does it simply add 'street cred' to the NT by associating the two?

Can we not simply say something like, "God X, our Creator, tells us to do A, B, and C" and so on without an explanation of where God X came from or how he created us?

There are at least 250 creation myths. Many predated Genesis......

 

[nPeace]

Are there any religions that do NOT have a 'creation story' to explain where we- and our world- came from?

It seems that in my readings on this or that religion they all have rather detailed myth of creation, some of which require huge leaps of the imagination- and faith- to accept as metaphor, much less as factual events.

But could one take, for example, the Christian New Testament ONLY and build a viable religion from it? Does a religion HAVE to include a 'creation myth' in order for it to be considered as viable? In this example, is the Old Testament absolutely crucial to Christianity? Or does it simply add 'street cred' to the NT by associating the two?

Can we not simply say something like, "God X, our Creator, tells us to do A, B, and C" and so on without an explanation of where God X came from or how he created us?

If one wants to just live by the principles and laws outlined in those books, he might benefit himself in one way - that is, living a morally upright life, and having peaceful relations, and so on... imo.
I assume though, that sooner or later as they realize that those scriptures do work, they may want to know more about the origin, and they may also want to associate with people of like mind.... because those principles and laws do clash with common behaviors and attitudes in today's world, and it won't be easy living by them on your own. Having a lot of company would give much needed support and encouragement.

 

[Heyo]

But they dont.

Oh, most of them do. Nobody says that it has to be the right answers.

 

[PureX]

Are there any religions that do NOT have a 'creation story' to explain where we- and our world- came from?

It seems that in my readings on this or that religion they all have rather detailed myth of creation, some of which require huge leaps of the imagination- and faith- to accept as metaphor, much less as factual events.

But could one take, for example, the Christian New Testament ONLY and build a viable religion from it? Does a religion HAVE to include a 'creation myth' in order for it to be considered as viable? In this example, is the Old Testament absolutely crucial to Christianity? Or does it simply add 'street cred' to the NT by associating the two?

Can we not simply say something like, "God X, our Creator, tells us to do A, B, and C" and so on without an explanation of where God X came from or how he created us?

Creation myths, like all religious myths, are intended to convey a way of perceiving and understanding our own human nature, and our place in the world. They are not intended to "explain" how the world actually came to be.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Buddhism does not posit a creator-deity, nor does it define or explain "creation". When the Buddha was asked if there was a creator-god, he supposedly said that the question was irrelevant.

I will leave it up to Buddhists here to hopefully fill in more details.

It's a pretty good discriptor.

If anything, creation is emptiness by which forms and notions rise and fall.

"What is your original face"?

 

[Audie]

Creation myths, like all religious myths, are intended to convey a way of perceiving and understanding our own human nature, and our place in the world. They are not intended to "explain" how the world actually came to be.

That is like creomyth myth, made up to explain
make-believe.

So helpful.

 

[InChrist]

"Acknowledge"???

The OT creo-story is so obviously and blatantly
false, it is a demi-miracle that anyone can manage to
believe it.

Actually, Jesus more than acknowledged, throughout the gospels He very obviously and blatantly affirmed the accounts in the OT as trustworthy, real, historical events, not myths, fairy tales, or simply allegorical stories. That may not be good enough for you and many others, but Jesus' perspective is good enough for me, especially since according to the scriptures He is the ONE who spoke creation into existence.

I don't know what a demi-miracle is.

 

[SomeRandom]

Are there any religions that do NOT have a 'creation story' to explain where we- and our world- came from?

It seems that in my readings on this or that religion they all have rather detailed myth of creation, some of which require huge leaps of the imagination- and faith- to accept as metaphor, much less as factual events.

But could one take, for example, the Christian New Testament ONLY and build a viable religion from it? Does a religion HAVE to include a 'creation myth' in order for it to be considered as viable? In this example, is the Old Testament absolutely crucial to Christianity? Or does it simply add 'street cred' to the NT by associating the two?

Can we not simply say something like, "God X, our Creator, tells us to do A, B, and C" and so on without an explanation of where God X came from or how he created us?

We could, but it would make for a pretty boring theology. Presuming one ascribes to a creation theology in the first place.

 

[shunyadragon]

Buddhism does not posit a creator-deity, nor does it define or explain "creation". When the Buddha was asked if there was a creator-god, he supposedly said that the question was irrelevant.

I will leave it up to Buddhists here to hopefully fill in more details.

I do not believe Buddhists nor Taoists do fill in the details of what they in reality do not claim to know, nor revealed to them.

The Baha'i Faith does not define Creation in terms of the stories of Creation, but acknowledges them as the human view of Creation at the time there religion began and the scripture originated.

The Baha'i scriptures describe Creation as eternally ancient with God, and beyond human understanding. This view is more akin to the Buddhist and Daoist view, than that of Judaism, Christianity nor Islam

From: Bahá'í Faith and science - Wikipedia

Bahá’u’lláh taught that the universe has "neither beginning nor ending",[12] and that the component elements of the material world have always existed and will continue to exist.[13] In the Tablet of Wisdom ("Lawh-i-Hikmat", written 1873-1874). Bahá'u'lláh states: "That which hath been in existence had existed before, but not in the form thou seest today. The world of existence came into being through the heat generated from the interaction between the active force and that which is its recipient. These two are the same, yet they are different." The terminology used here refers to ancient Greek and Islamic philosophy.[14] Jean-Marc Lepain, Robin Mihrshahi, Dale E. Lehman and Julio Savi suggest a possible relation of this statement with the Big Bang theory.[15][16][17][18]

Bahá'ís believe that the story of creation in Genesis is a rudimentary account that conveys the broad essential spiritual truths of existence without a level of detail and accuracy that was unnecessary and incomprehensible at the time.[13] Likewise, `Abdu'l-Bahá said that literal story of Adam and Eve cannot be accepted, affirmed, or imagined, and that it "must be thought of simply as a symbol".[19] And rather than accepting the idea of a Young Earth, Bahá'í theology accepts that the Earth is ancient."