Regarding 'Creation Stories'

Audie said:

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.

Click to expand...

Not at all, You criticise Genesis for bing a "myth", when all educated Christians are already well aware of that and never suggested anything to the contrary. So criticism on that ground fails, obviously.

Audie said:

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?

Click to expand...

Well, I thought we were talking about the Creation Story. I see it is not about the creation story but about God altogether.

Concerning the flood of Noahs day, yes I believe God flooded the whole earth. There were many geographical changes brought about upon the earth as a result of the flood. Understand, that concerning the flood of Noah's day, everything about it was miraculous. Everything. The timing and ending. The destruction it caused. The revelation to Noah. The Ark. The amount of water involved. The gathering of the various animals into the ark. etc. etc.

As to the age of ice or the age of the earth, I have no problem with it being very old. Scripture doesn't say how old the earth is.

I believe the account of the creation as given in Scripture.

Good-Ole-Rebel

exchemist said:

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.

Click to expand...

Origen is not quite so revered as you indicate.

Seems Jesus believed it literally.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Good-Ole-Rebel said:

Origen is not quite so revered as you indicate.

Seems Jesus believed it literally.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Click to expand...

Jesus was speaking to simple people, in terms suitable for the people of the time, based on their existing holy book. . He could hardly have started lecturing fishermen on geological or astronomical concepts.

Goodman John said:

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?

Click to expand...

Christianity takes from OT the following:
Matthew 5:20
"...unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

exchemist said:

Jesus was speaking to simple people, in terms suitable for the people of the time, based on their existing holy book. . He could hardly have started lecturing fishermen on geological or astronomical concepts.

Click to expand...

Doesn't change the fact that He believed it literally. (Matt. 24:37-39)

Good-Old-Rebel

exchemist said:

Not at all, You criticise Genesis for bing a "myth", when all educated Christians are already well aware of that and never suggested anything to the contrary. So criticism on that ground fails, obviously.

Click to expand...

Not at all? Yes, all. That post was not directed to you,
and for that matter, your response is not directed to the post.

But never mind t hat.

You criticise Genesis for bing a "myth"

Do I? There's nothing wrong with myths, and some of them
are heavily based on real people and events. I DO NOT CRITICIZE
IT FOR BEING A MYTH.

You and popeye there both somehow missed what I said,
rethis claim, despite my reposting it.

Lookee what he 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.


Pieces of the 6 day poof story are involve aspects of human
behaviour, of course.

The stuff about how the earth was formed is not.
How any of it was originally intended is mere speculation.

It is a myth to say otherwise. Myth in this case as in, nonsense.

Good-Ole-Rebel said:

Doesn't change the fact that He believed it literally. (Matt. 24:37-39)

Good-Old-Rebel

Click to expand...

You are assuming you know what he believed, and that
it somehow makes a difference.

Because what someone believed does not change the
fact that there was no flood.

A sober moment of reflection on your part might be in order.

For lo, what is it for you to believe and spread the word that
the lord your god committed some hideous mass atrocity
that in fact never happened?

You may want to think this thru.

Good-Ole-Rebel said:

Well, I thought we were talking about the Creation Story. I see it is not about the creation story but about God altogether.

Concerning the flood of Noahs day, yes I believe God flooded the whole earth. There were many geographical changes brought about upon the earth as a result of the flood. Understand, that concerning the flood of Noah's day, everything about it was miraculous. Everything. The timing and ending. The destruction it caused. The revelation to Noah. The Ark. The amount of water involved. The gathering of the various animals into the ark. etc. etc.

As to the age of ice or the age of the earth, I have no problem with it being very old. Scripture doesn't say how old the earth is.

I believe the account of the creation as given in Scripture.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Click to expand...

The ice deeply predates any possible time for the flood.

Now, if you want to go with the idea that "god" cleaned up
the mess, and made everything look as if there had been no flood,
go with it.

It is childish magical thinking but, if it suits, it suits.

Just dont make silly claims like thus-

There were many geographical changes brought about upon the earth as a result of the flood.

No geologist with a trace of intellectual honesty will agree with this,
tho a few fundies will. You are better off not saying things about which
you know nothing.

(btw, if there were flood-evidence as you think then it
would be proof of god. there are some heavy
implications to that-including that with proof, there is no
need for faith)

exchemist said:

Jesus was speaking to simple people, in terms suitable for the people of the time, based on their existing holy book. . He could hardly have started lecturing fishermen on geological or astronomical concepts.

Click to expand...

Seriously! Even assuming that "Jesus" really did make reference
to Noah, and that he actually was this holy man as presented-

By the time someone writes it down decades later, and it
gets translated to greek to english, to cite it as proof of literal flood
gets pretty silly.

Goodman John said:

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?

Click to expand...

begin with ….I AM!

if you want to leave out the story line...…..but no

Someone had to be First in Spirit
then someone had to be first to walk with that Spirit

and for that to happen......Someone had to be creative

but for clarity.....I do believe in evolution
that would be Man as a species.....Day Six

Chapter Two is NOT a retelling of Chapter One
that scenario is a story of manipulation
not creation

So, what all is myth which you educated Christians do not believe? The virgin birth? The resurrection of Jesus? Fall from Eden? Flooding of the Earth? Genealogy of Jesus? Jesus raising the dead or treating the lame or blind or the one who had leprosy? Let me know if it leaves anything to believe.
Also give some evidence about God, spirit, heaven, hell, judgment, etc.

Goodman John said:

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?

Click to expand...

Yes! The religion of atheism lacks a creation story beyond "The Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy wasn't in effect around the initial expansion of the Big Bang deity..."

Good-Ole-Rebel said:

Doesn't change the fact that He believed it literally. (Matt. 24:37-39)

Good-Old-Rebel

Click to expand...

That is just one example of what I meant: talking to simple people, using language and familiar references that they could readily understand. It shows nothing about what He actually knew about Middle Eastern floods.

Audie said:

Seriously! Even assuming that "Jesus" really did make reference
to Noah, and that he actually was this holy man as presented-

By the time someone writes it down decades later, and it
gets translated to greek to english, to cite it as proof of literal flood
gets pretty silly.

Click to expand...

1) Jesus did make reference to Noah.

2) You seem to be having a bad day. You have obviously failed entirely to understand what I am saying. I am explaining why Jesus would speak in terms of these biblical stories, seeing as they were part of the culture, rather than embarking on a series of what would have been incomprehensible science lessons, which is what he would have had to do in order to tell the story of these events as we understand the science today.

exchemist said:

1) Jesus did make reference to Noah.

2) You seem to be having a bad day. You have obviously failed entirely to understand what I am saying. I am explaining why Jesus would speak in terms of these biblical stories, seeing as they were part of the culture, rather than embarking on a series of what would have been incomprehensible science lessons, which is what he would have had to do in order to tell the story of these events as we understand the science today.

Click to expand...

1. It is claimed that he did. What , if anything he might have said
is in the realm of facts no in evidence.

The whole flood thing is a heck of a story to make up and tell,
portraying god as some psycho monster, and use that
to tell something about human nature, which is....?


2. Good freaking grief. What you said is simple and
obvious, i have no quarrel, would have said the same thing.

3, Pure mischaracterized genesis I pointed that out.
I dont know how either of you missed that. Bad day?

Audie said:

1. It is claimed that he did. What , if anything he might have said
is in the realm of facts no in evidence.

The whole flood thing is a heck of a story to make up and tell,
portraying god as some psycho monster, and use that
to tell something about human nature, which is....?


2. Good freaking grief. What you said is simple and
obvious, i have no quarrel, would have said the same thing.

3, Pure mischaracterized genesis I pointed that out.
I dont know how either of you missed that. Bad day?

Click to expand...

@PureX did not mischaracterise it, so far as I can see. What he said was in line with what I am also telling you. Or, if not in your opinion, how did it differ?

exchemist said:

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.

Click to expand...

LOL Good of you to pick up on the Dulcinian connection- a rather obscure one, at best! No, as far as I'm aware it was not a Cathar thing and the Dulcinians came a bit later down the road; my use of it is more in the sense of 'beat the Devil' from oneself, physically and spiritually, doing penance for one's sins, as well as being applicable to the Church's excesses as it was historically (although you RC's have done an admirable job of cleaning up your act since Martin Luther had his hissy fit )

And yes, by the mid-1300's the last known Cathar Perfect was 'dealt with' by the tender mercies of the Inquisition and the sect effectively exterminated. As for myself, I'm trying to make sense of it all and re-create what I can of it as a workable faith within Christianity- after all, the original Cathars considered themselves to be Christians, just not in the way the Church wanted them to be.

As for the Dominicans, although Dominic was himself very instrumental in the Cathars' fall, I have a lot of respect for him. After all, he did see the good in much of what the Cathars were doing and modeled his Order using a lot of their practices, if not their theology. One might think I'd view him with some venom, but all in all Dominic was a great man and I give credit where it's due. He'd have made an outstanding Cathar

Goodman John said:

LOL Good of you to pick up on the Dulcinian connection- a rather obscure one, at best! No, as far as I'm aware it was not a Cathar thing and the Dulcinians came a bit later down the road; my use of it is more in the sense of 'beat the Devil' from oneself, physically and spiritually, as well as being applicable to the Church's excesses as it was historically (although you RC's have done an admirable job of cleaning up your act since Martin Luther had his hissy fit )

And yes, by the mid-1300's the last known Cathar Perfect was 'dealt with' by the tender mercies of the Inquisition and the sect effectively exterminated. As for myself, I'm trying to make sense of it all and re-create what I can of it as a workable faith within Christianity- after all, the original Cathars considered themselves to be Christians, just not in the way the Church wanted them to be.

As for the Dominicans, although Dominic was himself very instrumental in the Cathars' fall, I have a lot of respect for him. After all, he did see the good in much of what the Cathars were doing and modeled his Order using a lot of their practices, if not their theology. One might think I'd view him with some venom, but all in all Dominic was a great man and I give credit where it's due. He'd have made an outstanding Cathar

Click to expand...

I visited Toulouse a few years ago and was startled and impressed to find the tomb of St Thomas Aquinas there in the Couvent des Jacobins. I had no idea he was there - but that was before I had read the history. (On that trip we also visited Albi, home to the eponymous heresy and crusade. Hideous church, but interesting history.)

Good-Ole-Rebel said:

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.

Click to expand...

Have you looked for reasons? Because I have to assume that you have been given any number of them by people who don't share your enthusiasm for 'divine magic'.

Good-Ole-Rebel said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well, one reason might be that doing it in six days defies the logic of the existential system that was created. Why would God use 'magic' to create a universe that doesn't allow it? I'm not saying God couldn't have, I'm just saying it seems incongruous. Some people see these kinds of questions and then need to account for them.