Tuesday, February 11, 2014

In praise of creationism

I am on short rations timewise this week, so a bit of reliance on the writings of others ...

Is there any virtue in expounding a literal seven day creation? Possibly. An appreciative but critical perspective heads towards this conclusion:

"So I do not think that Ken Ham–style creationists should get to rewrite biology textbooks according to their very peculiar reading of Scripture. But I admire their bullheadedness. They have gotten lost in the woods while trying to protect the big truths of Christianity: that God created the world, that we are dependent on him, that we owe him everything, and that he loves us even though we are sinful. In the world most of us inhabit, day to day, the world of lovers, wriggling kids, disease, war, and death, the sureness of God's love is relevant in a way that the details of early hominid fossils never will be, glorious as they are. Have some perspective, people."

The whole article is here at The Week.

9 comments:

carl jacobs said...

File this under:

"With friends like these..."

carl

Shawn Herles said...

A six solar day creation is not a literal/plain reading of Scripture. Young Earth Creationist's have to do a fair amount of, dare I say it, almost Liberal style theological pretzel making to get around the actual plain reading of Genesis that the sun is not created on the first "day."

Father Ron Smith said...

Peter, I'm sad that you felt the need to resurrect this old stuff.
I thought you were busy.

Shawn Herles said...

A late post as I'm watching the Sochi Olympics.

Old Earth Creationism is still the best reading of Genesis imo. It preserves the plain truth of Genesis while rejecting the very odd reading YEC makes with regards to the sun, and the tortured attempts to explain carbon dating. It preserves the historical truth of two original parents, Adam and Eve, who sinned and fell, and avoids the problems of purely mythical or literary interpretations which raise more problems than they solve. And it rejects the nihilism of the secular liberal creation myth known as Darwinian evolution, which a growing number of scientists are quietly shelving anyway as the wheels fall off the theory.

This is a list of the main OEC organisations.

http://www.reasons.org/

http://www.oldearth.org/

http://www.godandscience.org/

http://www.rareuniverse.org/

Shawn Herles said...

While reading through one of the OEC sites I came across this brilliant refutation of the doctrine of Real Presence:

http://godandscience.org/doctrine/eucharist.html

Along with a detailed look at what Holy Scripture really says on the topic it made these very good points:

When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." (John 8:12)

Does this mean that Jesus was composed of fire? He also said that He was the gate:

Therefore Jesus said again, "I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. (John 10:7)
I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture. (John 10:9)

Does this mean that He was made out of wood and that He would give them grass? Jesus claimed to be the good shepherd of sheep:

"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. (John 10:11)

Jesus never was a "real" shepherd, but was a carpenter by trade. Jesus claimed to be a vine:

"I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. (John 15:1)
"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. (John 15:5)

Does this mean that Jesus was part plant? Jesus also claimed to be able to give "living water:"

Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water." (John 4:10)

Does this mean that we should institute a church ordinance in which water is given to people in order to be saved? This is the most obvious example that Jesus was talking about the same thing in John 4 as John 6. In both instances, He used the term "living." Jesus is the "living bread" and the "living water." Neither example was referring to a physical reality, but to spiritual truth. Like the Jews in John 6, this Samaritan woman had no clue about what Jesus was talking about. As bread is required for physical life, so water is also required for physical life. Jesus provides the living (spiritual) water that is required for eternal life:

Jesus answered, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life." (John 4:13-14)

Jesus used many different physical, earthly examples of physical life in order to convey the reality of how to achieve spiritual (eternal) life. The bread, given in John 6, is just one of those examples of using an earthly example to convey spiritual truth.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Shawn
A quick read of the site raises the question for me of what difference is made to the discussion if we take Paul's words about participating in the body of Christ etc (1 Corinthians 10) into account.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Ron
Please comment on the substance of comments (even to say you do not think the comment has substance).

I am deleting some comments (not only by you) these days which are comments on commenters.

Father Ron Smith said...

OK, Peter, so you've just wiped my next comment, too. I'll wait till you're out of the room.

Shawn Herles said...

See???

Spear us all the constant attacks. BAN THEM!!!!!