Most of us are pretty familiar with young-earth creationist talking points, so you may find that memes and quote mines aren’t going to have much impact. Memes can be good for the humour thread, though, if they’re funny and not mean.
This forum is good for digging deeper into any particular argument or piece of evidence. If you’d like to see if your claims about geology can withstand a close look, I encourage you to pick your favourite one and flesh out the argument in a new thread.
The Bible gives us several accounts. In Job 38–39 we have an account of creation presented as directly from God’s mouth, yet it has no structure of days and instead uses different non-literal imagery to get across how God is responsible for everything. In Psalm 104, the inspired psalmist praises God’s work in creation, seeing much of it as ongoing work still happening today, rather than confined to one week in the past.
The stories of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 use different approaches to portray God’s work. For instance, in Genesis 1 God’s speech directly makes things happen, while in Genesis 2 God’s speech is more like deliberation before God actually does something using other means. There’s no contradiction here. It’s just that no single picture could do justice to how God creates. When God wants to reveal something incredible, whether creation or the kingdom of God, we tend to get many “paintings” that allow us to see different facets instead of a single “photograph” that simply gives us the facts. The trouble comes when we treat one of the paintings like a photograph and then disregard the rest.
The simple truth is that the Gospel according to John begins: John 1:1 (NIV2011)**
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
So after a few rounds of clashes, I started to understand the differences. It’s more about purpose/motivation than accuracy.
Christianity:
In the beginning of Christianity, there were purposes, or motivations, one of which could be trying to influence people (everyone was wrong), to correct the sinners, to teach them what “right” life they should live, what right things they should do, etc.
But how to convince people? Or how to influence them?
The creators and developers of Christianity carefully used an axiomatic system, which started with a creation story, followed by the salvation story, etc.
If people accept the creation story, then it’s natural for them to think the relationship is between a father and children. And the father figure is so powerful that he could decide the existence and state of everything and the result. Before their father, people can have hope and should also be afraid. There’s no escape.
And, people don’t want to suffer? Don’t want to die? Don’t want to cease to exist? They want to live forever? They want to enjoy?
The salvation story started. The story of eternal life and eternal punishment/reward also started.
Now people are “motivated”.
Next, how to correct or influence them?
By following Jesus.
Who’s Jesus? What did he do?
More stories.
Is Christianity successful?
Quite in terms of influence.
And the Bible can answer any question IF people accept its axioms.
But the physical world refuses to agree with everything in the Bible.
There are people who care about accuracy.
Some people care about this life more than afterlife.
And people are born different. It’s not their fault. It’s hard to judge all of them by one role model and expect to be fair.
That could be the primary reason for the clashes here.
But the physical world agrees with the Bible in one perhaps over-riding fact. The universe has a Beginning. Some people who say that they care about accuracy do not want to accept this fact.
There is no conflict between this life and the afterlife, unless one thinks that goodness and morality are not important.
You are right, people are different and it is not their fault. That is why only the One Who created us in our diversity can judge all of us. It is hard to judge by one Role Model unless that Role Model is Perfect and the Judge is all knowing and understanding.
We know that Jesus is the perfect Role Model, because He is not impressed by the artificial things that impress us. He took on all the phonies of His time, and if we don’t look out we might also fall in our arrogant self-righteousness.
It’s interesting that you present trust in God as an either/or thing, something as simple and clear as turning on the coffee maker. (I haven’t had my second cup yet, so perhaps I have coffee on my mind.)
I agree that trust in God is central to the Christian experience. Indeed, it was Jesus’ intense trust in God that set his teachings apart from those of other religious teachers, both then and now.
It’s been common throughout the human history of religious thought for teachers to settle on a single set of truths that all followers must accept in their entirety if they expect to receive salvation. A rigid interpretation of Genesis is just one example among thousands of the human tendency to claim the power that comes from being “right” about God. Religious wars and conflicts usually come from the human desire to acquire this power. Our history books are filled with this basic human impulse. But religious teachings based on power aren’t the same as religious teachings based on trust. This is what Jesus taught.
Although life would be a lot simpler and less confusing if trust were like the switch on a coffee maker (with a simple set of laws and a simple set of words that explain everything important), the journey of faith is never simple and is pretty much always confusing. This is what Jesus taught.
Trust in God isn’t about laws or words; it’s about relationships. You can’t find trust in God by treating God like a series of either/or algorithms. From a purely logical point of view, trust isn’t even logical. Trust is messy and non-linear, and it calls upon us to use our Hearts, not just our Minds. This is what Jesus taught.
Sure, Christians believe that God created the Heavens and the Earth. But understanding what this actually means is the journey of a human lifetime . . . and beyond.
It’s hubris – nothing more – for human beings to say that it’s possible for us to fully comprehend what God is teaching us about Creation (the words of Genesis notwithstanding). The best we can do is to open our Hearts and our Minds to the infinite wonder of God’s Love, and then hang on with all our might to God’s loving hands as we learn more and more about why God is God – and why we’re not.
Trust in God means that even when our Minds are confused about the facts (a regular occurrence), our Hearts know with unflinching certainty that everything is going to be okay.
Thank you Jennifer,
I agree with your sentiment and that Christians would be better served by contemplating why God created the world and not how. Or by meditating on why there have been mass slaughters and not on how they happened. Focussing on why the flood happened and not how and when.
As you say, the veracity of the OT words is already questionable and time spent on semantics is wasted. We would better try to understand the apparent conflicts in the NT and discover where they came from. Like why does Jesus say that we must become perfect while many teach that grace is all that is required? Where Jesus says he is not the good Father and many teach that He is. The vast array of Christian thought should be the topic of discussion, and not everyone saying they are right and true. Jesus taught the Word and not the words that all these Christian sects claim. Discovering how this happened was my greatest reward.
Thank you Jennifer!
While agreeing with you, I would go further.
Is scientific Christianity possible?
Christianity by faith
Christianity by reason
Christianity offers some good ideas, which are proven helpful. It encourages people (like me) to practice and try to understand by reason, try to understand scientifically how those ideas could work, (not whether or not the Biblical stories true or false).
The tension between faith and reason is (as we know) a longstanding issue, and it seems we have to struggle with it if we want to be in relationship with God. But this tension exists physically within our own brains and central nervous systems: Dual Process Theory tells us that System 2 (a.k.a. “the Mind”) within the brain responds to logic and careful, analytical thought, whereas System 1 (a.k.a. “the Heart”) responds to empathy, faith, and meaning. So it’s not our imaginations that we have to work hard to resolve the tension. Our biology demands it.
A scientific Christianity would involve balancing the two major processing systems within ourselves, letting reason calm our passionate intuition, while empathy curbs the excesses of pure logic.
In my view, Jesus’ Kingdom teachings are all about attaining this balance so we can feel God’s presence in our lives. God is, after all, both infinite Mind and infinite Heart, so when we try to emulate this blending of Mind and Heart, it’s easier for us as biological creatures to feel what it’s like to be made in God’s image .