Creationism or Creatorism?

I was pondering the concept that we kick around on this forum concerning the origins of two things: Life as we define it and substance or matter as we define that. I now conclude that if one believes that God created all matter initially, they could be labled as a Creatorist yet still be an evolutionist in terms of life on Earth. Do any of you see where I am heading with this? Of the several ideas that have been bounced around, I seem to recall truthlover saying something about believing in the personality rather than the book. Thus, does this mean that one can call themselves a Christian and not believe in the Bible? Comments, please!

Depends slighly in what you mean by believe in the bible. The bible contains ideas that anyone who is a Chtistian must share to be a Christian (e.g: there is a God; salvation comes through Christ). A literal reading of the bible is not required.In fact I'll go further: anyone who holds a literal interpretation of the bible to be true has missed the whole point of Christianity - they've become Biblicians.qv: http://EvC Forum: The Bible: Miracles Required to Believe It's the Word of God? -->EvC Forum: The Bible: Miracles Required to Believe It's the Word of God? my post here.However, I am an atheist so you can feel free to ignore my opinions about Christianity.

So we again have our good book as the focus,here. As Mr. Jack has asserted, the Bible does not need to be taken literally. The play "Inherit The Wind" humorously portrayed the Scopes Monkey Trial and had an astute and sharp lawyer Drummond who made a mockery out of the fundamentalist Brady and gave the scientific enlightenment a new respectability in the Bible belt of America. Drummond represented Clarence Darrow and Brady represented William Jennings Bryan. I suggest that anyone google these references for further insight. I will bring up a new question for us to ponder, if it please the court.

Sure you could use the word that way. But it would be a mistake since it is already loaded with much meaning different from that. It would only muddle the conversations.What you describe as "creationist" is the beliefs of the majority of Christians. Very many of those would be most upset at being called a creationist.

Ned, I am not quite sure of your point. Are you saying that all who believe that "In the beginning, God..." can be labled as Creationists? I agree with this premise since we believe in a literal Creator. As I have stated elsewhere, I am less clear on my belief as a biblical literalist. I will concede that Scripture is Inerrent. Again, the lines between Inerrent and Literal need to be clarified, don't you agree?

Ned, your comment doesn't seem to make sense: did you pick up on Phat's creatorist/creationist distinction?

[qs]Are you saying that all who believe that "In the beginning, God..." can be labled as Creationists? can be[/i] but I am saying that they shouldn't be. It just confuses things.Yes, I agree that there is a difference between inerrant and literal.

I'm not good with labeling people, but I have no problem with calling myself a Christian who accepts scientific reasoning for the beginning of life on earth (evolution)and the universe (Big Bang theory). So what does that make me?

It makes you a regular, sophisticated, faithful Christian. In contrast to one who's faith is so weak as to need bolstering.

One of the arguments from both fundamentalists and atheists is: If God performed a miracle to create the universe we see, and maybe one more miracle to jump-start life, then why stop there and wait a billion years, if "we" are what was intended? Why rush in one case and patiently wait in another? I know... God only knows. Of course, that answer can be applied to any God scenario.If He let evolution take its course to create us, then that means either (but not limited to):
a) He guided evolution "hands-on" to make sure we came out the way we are (i.e. mini-miracles along the way)
b) He was "hands-off", but planned every significant event and set-up the initial conditions to make sure we came out like He wanted (i.e. a billion-year plan for every molecule), and left no unquestionable evidence.
c) He knew eventually some sort of "intelligent awareness" life would arise, even if He did not know the exact form (i.e. in violation of the belief of all-knowing)This gets into the religious debate of a "personal" or "impersonal" God.That's nice for philosophical coffee discussions, but does not seem to contribute to Evo vs Cre debate to convince others. Please let's not re-hash this. See the Bible Inerrancy "Miracles to believe in God" thread to continue that discussion.

But let's not offend the creationists like that. That never helps. Let's say this: God is sovereign over nature. Both creationists and regular, sophisticated, faithful Christians can agree on that. So, what does that mean? It means science is no threat to Christianity. Science does not seek to discover what God did not do, it seeks to discover how God did what He did.

Well, I agree with you. We can separate the 'why' and 'how'. And I agree that science doesn't have to be a threat to Christianity.If science is no threat to Christianity but clearly is defined (by the creationists) to be a threat to this other belief then what is that other belief. I have had Christians tell me that 'creationists' are not 'real' Christians and I can understand how they would arrive at that conclusion.I generally agree with you about not voicing unnecessary offensive things. However, theologians (one of whom I know a bit) would also arrive at the same conclusion. Faith without evidence is supposed to be the hallmark of a Christian. However, the creationists seem to be demanding that science 'prove' that their religion is correct with evidence.They state, over and over again, that if the earth is old then Jesus wasn't real (or words to that effect). What is one to conclude?

And for the purposes of discussion, lets define these terms,shall we? In other words, if the book says that God told us to build a boat 200 cubits by 3.578 cubits then that is what it literally means. No more no less.

Well, Ned, I guess we can conclude that those Christians (fundamentalists) are themselves concluding that science contradicts the Bible, even though the Bible isn't making scientific claims about anything. It is not a scientific treatise. Galileo said, "The purpose of the Bible is to tell us how to go to heaven, not to tell us how the heavens go." And no one, not the Apostles, Moses, nor anyone else, who had a hand in writing the Bible has said otherwise.The whole point of this forum is a bit silly, really. Creation versus evolution? They are not mutually exclusive. What is "creation?" It's the answer to the fundamental human question, "What is all this?" And "this" is all of nature, all the creation of God. Evolution? Evolution is just the answer to a less important question: "How did God create?"

Hello godsmac:
I have to admit, I'm a bit confused by your two posts on this thread. Do you accept that the ToE is the only explanation for the diversity of life we see on this planet or do you ascribe to creationism? I ask because in post eleven you write the following: Science does not seek to discover anything about what God did or did not do. God is not a part of any scientific investigation. That's not to say that any given scienctist cannot believe in a "God". Science as a discipline, however, is a bit different. It doesn't preclude the existance of God, it just just require the existance of God.But then you say: So it appears that you do understand the difference between science and religion...between the Bible and an evolution text book. But yet it also appears that you don't really accept the scientific explanation for life on Earth (the ToE) but instead believe in creationism, because you also say: Technically, they are mutually exclusive. One deals with Faith and answers nothing about how life came about on this planet. The other deals with science and is the best explanation for life on this planet.You go on to say: Which is either an attempt to rile up the crowd a bit or you know nothing about creationism. You see, creationism answers absolutely nothing of the sort.And then you finish with, which is also flawed because as I said earlier, the ToE has nothing to do with God.So, if you understand that the Bible is not a "scientific treatise" how can you possible accept creationism? That's why I'm confused. What do yout think creationism is? Where do you think they (creationsists) get their answers? I guess I'm ultimately asking you which "creationism" you believe to be the correct idea? Old Earth? Young Earth? Big Bang? Created "kinds"? Bla bla bla. Help me out here.