Regarding 'Creation Stories'

[Aupmanyav]

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

'Advaita' Hinduism has the explanation but no creation or creation story.

 

[j1i]

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?

When we understand God
We must realize his greatness
Not to contradict ourselves in that the great supreme truth of God created the universe

And that there are good people created, are over-respected until it reaches the stage of worship

We must know terms like the prophet of the angels of Satan God accurately and more transparently far from contradictions

I see that the beginning started from number one and this one integral and can not be divided (First at first)
This is the story of the beginning of creation

For example, any creatures that are claimed to be gods have a serial number after the number one
He is a creature, A powerful creature, developed, has abilities, but not God at the end

I can't say that the compass gives any number the right starting, only one number which is the first which one without jesus or any holy man

with respect
hug

 

[exchemist]

As a follow-up to this


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.

Actually I don't think you'd end up with nearly as many instructions from the NT as the Jews get from the Torah. The reason the Jews make such good lawyers is the rather legalistic structure of their faith, or so I'm told. Jesus actually gave fairly few direct instructions. He taught more in analogies to illustrate principles and by example. (That has not stopped my own church from constructing a nit-picking theology and a legalistic catechism from it, but that's another story )

By the way, I see you've adopted the Dulcinian rallying cry, even though it does not belong to the Cathars, so far as I am aware. Curious. I thought the Dominicans had you lot all burnt at the stake in about 1300.

 

[exchemist]

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.

You don't seem to realise how self-referential and circular your argument is. Trying to use accounts in the the bible to justify accounts in the bible is not going to win anybody over.

 

[PureX]

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

So helpful.

Human nature isn't "make believe". The story of Eden is not about how the world or humans began, it's about who we are, and why we suffer because of it. But to understand this you have to let go of the idea that myth is factual, and recognize that it's a form of artifice. Some people are too stupid to do that. While others are too biased.

 

[Audie]

Human nature isn't "make believe". The story of Eden is not about how the world or humans began, it's about who we are, and why we suffer because of it. But to understand this you have to let go of the idea that myth is factual, and recognize that it's a form of artifice. Some people are too stupid to do that. While others are too biased.

If you ever detect anyone who thinks myth is "factual"
be sure to send the squad to pick them up.

The six day poof is not human nature. It is make believe.
Some people may be so stupid as to get mixed up on such things.

Of course few details of the creo-story are loosely based
on aspects of human nature, however confused the telling.

Those same people may also think others suffer similar
deficiencies, and cannot detect "forms of artifice" even in
Aesop. Again, appropriate mental health authorities
should be notified if such are actually discovered.

Aesop, btw, is a far better author than "god" if
a look at human nature is the great thing.

 

[exchemist]

If you ever detect anyone who thinks myth is "factual"
be sure to send the squad to pick them up.

The six day poof is not human nature. It is make believe.
Some people may be so stupid as to get mixed up on such things.

Of course few details of the creo-story are loosely based
on aspects of human nature, however confused the telling.

Those same people may also think others suffer similar
deficiencies, and cannot detect "forms of artifice" even in
Aesop. Again, appropriate mental health authorities
should be notified if such are actually discovered.

Aesop, btw, is a far better author than "god" if
a look at human nature is the great thing.

So, do you understand that the Genesis story is taken by most Christians as allegorical? If you do, then you should recognise that your earlier dismissal of it as a "creo-myth" misses the point of it.

 

[PureX]

If you ever detect anyone who thinks myth is "factual"
be sure to send the squad to pick them up.

The six day poof is not human nature. It is make believe.

It is artifice; that is it's symbolic, and it's metaphorical. Nearly all literature, theater, painting, sculpture, music, and dance is an expression of "make-believe". But until you let go of the presumption that it's supposed to be factual (that "make-believe" is somehow bad) you will never understand WHY people create it, why people enjoy it, and what it means to us.

Some people may be so stupid as to get mixed up on such things.

Yes, CLEARLY!

Of course few details of the creo-story are loosely based on aspects of human nature, however confused the telling.

Sounds like YOU are one of those people, as I am not confused by the story at all. I understand the symbolism and the metaphor quite clearly, and find it amazingly insightful considering the story's age and origins.

 

[Audie]

So, do you understand that the Genesis story is taken by most Christians as allegorical? If you do, then you should recognise that your earlier dismissal of it as a "creo-myth" misses the point of it.

I dont know that what you say is true, re "most Christians".

Most educated ones, probably. Historically, no.
World wide? I expect you'd find that among
the many millions of third world Christians-Afraica,
S America, Philippines , that the great majority would
say it is a literal factual account.

Also, how fashions in interpretation change sayeth
not what original intent was.

Now look at the contest of what I said-


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.

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

So helpful.

The 6 day poof as I call it, is a story about how the world
came to be. The people who made it up may not have
thought they got it from god, or maybe they did. Who knows.
Did they think it was true? Who knows.

But it has been taken as true ever since.

Now, if some latter day god-believer wants to come along
and say that the 6 day poof was written as a way of
"perceiving and understanding our own human nature",
that is their privilege. It is just obviously not so, but,
as a myth abut a myth seems in keeping with the whole
religion thing, why not.


ETA of course parts of genesis and elsewhere in the bible
there are things touching on human nature. That is found
also in Harlequin Romances.

 

[PureX]

The 6 day poof as I call it, is a story about how the world came to be. The people who made it up may not have
thought they got it from god, or maybe they did. Who knows. Did they think it was true? Who knows.

But it has been taken as true ever since.

Only by ignoramuses, and bigots (of both the theistic and atheistic camps).

So which one are YOU? As you clearly seem to be insisting that it's not a myth, but a proposal of fact.

Now, if some latter day god-believer wants to come along and say that the 6 day poof was written as a way of
"perceiving and understanding our own human nature", that is their privilege. It is just obviously not so, but, as a myth about a myth seems in keeping with the whole
religion thing, why not.

The problem for you is that this recognition of the mythical nature of the story blows a giant hole in your argument against it as being absurdly non-factual. And without it, you have no more argument to pose, even though you desperately want to keep posing one.

 

[exchemist]

I dont know that what you say is true, re "most Christians".

Most educated ones, probably. Historically, no.
World wide? I expect you'd find that among
the many millions of third world Christians-Afraica,
S America, Philippines , that the great majority would
say it is a literal factual account.

Also, how fashions in interpretation change sayeth
not what original intent was.

Now look at the contest of what I said-


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.

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

So helpful.

The 6 day poof as I call it, is a story about how the world
came to be. The people who made it up may not have
thought they got it from god, or maybe they did. Who knows.
Did they think it was true? Who knows.

But it has been taken as true ever since.

Now, if some latter day god-believer wants to come along
and say that the 6 day poof was written as a way of
"perceiving and understanding our own human nature",
that is their privilege. It is just obviously not so, but,
as a myth abut a myth seems in keeping with the whole
religion thing, why not.


ETA of course parts of genesis and elsewhere in the bible
there are things touching on human nature. That is found
also in Harlequin Romances.

Origen treated it as an allegory, as early as 200AD. And that is the the way it has been treated for centuries in large parts of Christendom, certainly among the educated. As for the uneducated, one can debate forever what they may have thought and whether it matters. The church would have kept a simple message for simple people. All you have to to is watch a pop-sci programme to see that in operation - and the resulting public confusion when they try to offer a more sophisticated explanation.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

If you ever detect anyone who thinks myth is "factual"
be sure to send the squad to pick them up.

The six day poof is not human nature. It is make believe.
Some people may be so stupid as to get mixed up on such things.

Of course few details of the creo-story are loosely based
on aspects of human nature, however confused the telling.

Those same people may also think others suffer similar
deficiencies, and cannot detect "forms of artifice" even in
Aesop. Again, appropriate mental health authorities
should be notified if such are actually discovered.

Aesop, btw, is a far better author than "god" if
a look at human nature is the great thing.

I personally am one of those who believes in the literalness of the creation story. I recognize there are other Christians who have other views on it. Yet I see no reason to take it any other way.

If someone tells me it is just to absurd to believe, well, we are talking about God. And if God is doing the creating I don't see why He couldn't do it in six days.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[pearl]

, is the Old Testament absolutely crucial to Christianity?

Yes.

 

[Audie]

It is artifice; that is it's symbolic, and it's metaphorical. Nearly all literature, theater, painting, sculpture, music, and dance is an expression of "make-believe". But until you let go of the presumption that it's supposed to be factual (that "make-believe" is somehow bad) you will never understand WHY people create it, why people enjoy it, and what it means to us.
Yes, CLEARLY!
Sounds like YOU are one of those people, as I am not confused by the story at all. I understand the symbolism and the metaphor quite clearly, and find it amazingly insightful considering the story's age and origins.

You seem most persistent in the notion that you've a better background
in literature than I. But then, it is what believers do, they believe things.

Like that this has amazing insights into human nature.

1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years.............

Amazing insight yes. So amazing.

Them bible-writers knew things that it took the
scientists thousands of years to find out.

BTW, it was human authors who wrote the bible,
and such insight as they had into human nature would
be folk-wisdom handed down through untold generations

What is amazing in that?

 

[Audie]

I personally am one of those who believes in the literalness of the creation story. I recognize there are other Christians who have other views on it. Yet I see no reason to take it any other way.

If someone tells me it is just to absurd to believe, well, we are talking about God. And if God is doing the creating I don't see why He couldn't do it in six days.

Good-Ole-Rebel

You see no reason, or dont want to?

As to what "god" could do, that is not really the point.


Lets subdivide that a bit. First, t here is whether there is a god.
Which I dont accept, but lets say there is.

THEN, it is what "he" DID do

I could say he put Australia at the north pole, maybe a book
says he did. Lets go look. Hmm, guess he didnt

Now, there is a book that says he made a world wide flood.
Fine, "god" COULD do that. But did he?

Hmm. Lets look about

Where is the flood layer in the world's geology.

Lots of stuff from the ice ages. Plenty from when
Kansas was a tropical ocean Wheres the flood?

Hmm, here is antarctic ice over a hundred thousand years old

Ice floats. Now how can this ice be here if there was a flood?
I guess, like, maybe he didnt actually flood the earth?


Are we talking what you dont see, or what you dont wish to see?

 

[Audie]

Origen treated it as an allegory, as early as 200AD. And that is the the way it has been treated for centuries in large parts of Christendom, certainly among the educated. As for the uneducated, one can debate forever what they may have thought and whether it matters. The church would have kept a simple message for simple people. All you have to to is watch a pop-sci programme to see that in operation - and the resulting public confusion when they try to offer a more sophisticated explanation.

i tak eit you are retracting "most Christians".

 

[Audie]

Only by ignoramuses, and bigots (of both the theistic and atheistic camps).

So which one are YOU? As you clearly seem to be insisting that it's not a myth, but a proposal of fact.
The problem for you is that this recognition of the mythical nature of the story blows a giant hole in your argument against it as being absurdly non-factual. And without it, you have no more argument to pose, even though you desperately want to keep posing one.

The paucity of your "argument" is well illustrated by
your coarse language and resort to more make-believe.

Having done your creo-myth you are now full
invested in concocting audie-myth.

ie
You are just writing garbage, made up as it suits you.

 

[PureX]

The paucity of your "argument" is well illustrated by
your coarse language and resort to more make-believe.

Having done your creo-myth you are now full
invested in concocting audie-myth.

ie
You are just writing garbage, made up as it suits you.

And yet you still can't resist responding.

 

[exchemist]

I personally am one of those who believes in the literalness of the creation story. I recognize there are other Christians who have other views on it. Yet I see no reason to take it any other way.

If someone tells me it is just to absurd to believe, well, we are talking about God. And if God is doing the creating I don't see why He couldn't do it in six days.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Ask Origen, one of the revered Fathers of the early Church, who lived around 200AD: "Who is so silly as to believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, planted a garden eastward in Eden, and set in it a visible and palpable tree of life, of such a sort that anyone who tasted its fruit with his bodily teeth would gain life?"

Origen, like other scholars of the day, was brought up on the Greek and Roman myths of antiquity and was well used to seeing the meaning behind figurative and allegorical texts.

My understanding is that the reversion to literalism is a retrograde theology that became popular with certain sects at the end of the c.19th, probably as a result of the Protestant tendency to reject theology associated with existing church hierarchies.

 

[Audie]

And yet you still can't resist responding.

Sticking a pin in a gas bag is only vaguely amusing, true.

See ya around.