|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,775 Year: 4,032/9,624 Month: 903/974 Week: 230/286 Day: 37/109 Hour: 3/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why prefer the Biblical creation account over those of other religions? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You can make such claims but anyone that honestly reads the stories understands that there are two different tales, and that they are factually wrong.
The fact that you use the words as being synonymous simply shows a lack of education. That's a problem and can be cured. It's likely that you don't even know that there is no such thing as "The Bible", not even one list of what books should be included in a Bible. And guess what, there are many sacred Christian writings that are not included in any of the different Canons. The problem is that in the CCoI, people are simply not taught any of teh facts or history of Christianity. Edited by jar, : change subtitle Edited by jar, : Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
The above sects claim to be Christian, but they all owe their origins to founders who took the Bible message (many centuries after it was delivered to the Church) and twisted parts of it, added in their own false doctrines (doctrines which go contrary to what the Bible plainly teaches, and by and large the doctrines added are designed to prevent one from understanding the true message of salvation given plainly and freely in the Bible), and went from there. This would be a little bit like someone 100 years after Henry Ford invented the automobile adding a new kind of brake pedal to the car and then claiming that THEY invented the automobile. They had nothing to do with the original article and came along centuries later, and now pretend to have the original article. No actually it would be more like Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, and John Calvin. Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
No, they are not mutually exclusive. They are two different accounts with two different purposes. The first one gives the actual order of creation, the second one explains what God's planning and reasoning. And gives a different order of creation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3483 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined:
|
quote:No he didn't. quote:That isn't deeming that the first creation story happened as written. He's using a foundational myth to make a religious point. quote:In my creation story people were also around in the beginning. quote:No it means he wrote a story as God intended. Just like Jesus used parables. quote:Not the issue of this thread. The point of this thread is to show why the Biblical creation accounts should be considered true over those of other religions. This thread isn't about whether the Bible is true or not. Start another thread if you wish to debate that issue. Show me how the Biblical creation stories are true and the Iroquois creation story is not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Maybe some of the people that jeered me would have the ability to tell me why the comment is not accurate.
How is do the christian off shoots form the 19th and 20th century differ from the foundational protestant movements when looking at what the poster said?
The above sects claim to be Christian, but they all owe their origins to founders who took the Bible message (many centuries after it was delivered to the Church) and twisted parts of it, added in their own false doctrines (doctrines which go contrary to what the Bible plainly teaches, and by and large the doctrines added are designed to prevent one from understanding the true message of salvation given plainly and freely in the Bible), and went from there. Is there a difference? C'mon Buz show me.I know AE gave me a neg because he just doesn't like me. AdminPD is on that high horse, so I really don't care. But can anyone give me a reason why the argument foes not stand?Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3483 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
The Cheers/Jeers is an opinion option. It is not part of the debate. Don't start calling people out in the thread because they didn't like your post.
As AdminPD, I use it to say I consider the post to be off topic or veering off topic. This thread isn't about whether the Bible is actually true or not or even whether the creation stories are actually true or not. It is about why other creation stories are considered false and the Judeo/Christian one true other than "because we believe it is". The originator asked for empirical evidence. Even if someone shows evidence that another religion assimilated something from the Christian creation story, how does that make their creation story false? Quite frankly, by clinging to the issue of whether the Bible is actually true or not, you let the opposition off the hook. They don't have to deal with the actual question in the OP. They just fall into the same old debate about the Bible being true. You're helping them change the path of the debate. If you want to debate whether the Bible is actually true or not, start another thread. So far all the opposition has provided is that the Judeo/Christian creation story is true over others because they believe it is. Any religion can say that. That means that all creation stories are true, but I'm sure the opposition would not agree with that statement. That's why I provided the challenge to actually compare an Iroquois creation story against the Judeo/Christian one and show me how mine is false, just as the Jesuit Missionaries probably did when they first tried to assimilate the natives. This isn't a science forum. It isn't A&I. Please keep to the spirit of the debate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Do you not think that the fact that the two distinct and mutually exclusive Biblical Creation myths are in addition factually incorrect would not be a reason that should be considered when determining if you prefer the Biblical creation account over those of other religions?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3739 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
jar writes:
If a creation story fails to reflect reality then shouldn't it be considered false, regardless of other creation stories? Do you not think that the fact that the two distinct and mutually exclusive Biblical Creation myths are in addition factually incorrect would not be a reason that should be considered when determining if you prefer the Biblical creation account over those of other religions? I don't understand why anyone would ever argue "My creation story is less wrong than others".Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
I can understand why that might be the right position to argue.
Myths are like maps, and while a map does try to represent reality it may well have errors. If one map has fewer errors than another map, or is more accurate in one area while another map is more accurate in a different area, then it is reasonable to choose the more accurate one in any given situation.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3483 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:The title isn't the argument presented. Realistically, people don't sit down with a bunch of creation stories to decide which one they want to adopt. From Message 1 Let's say for the sake of argument, Evidence is found that proves Darwin wrong. How do you know that the Biblical account of creation is the true story, and not the accounts told by the Shinto and Hindus (Both of which are living faiths) for example? Citing the Bible is really invalidated by the other sagas (The Bible by itself is no more valid the others). What empirical evidence is there that proves the biblical creation story true and/or the other stories false. P.S. Flood stories are common many cultures. So citing evidence of flood doesn't invalidate other sagas. What empirical evidence is there that proves the biblical creation story true and/or the other stories false? That is the question. The originator never clarified what he meant by Darwin being wrong, but the thread was put on the religious side and not the science. From a science standpoint none of them are factually correct, so no point in debating one over the other. But this is a religious forum and some religions have a habit of claiming their religion is true and the other is false. It has nothing to do with facts. The same with creation stories. The Native Americans ran into that issue when the Jesuit Missionaries came. A creation story can provide valuable lessons for a culture. The stories may be scientifically wrong, but the lessons were sound and may still be sound depending on the culture. In many cultures the stories changed as the culture changed. IMO, each creation story fit the needs of the culture or religion that spawned it. I seriously doubt that there is empirical evidence that one creation story is right for all humans. They need to find something another religion can't also claim. I don't think they can do it. Approach the debate from a religious standpoint, not science. Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But even the procedure that you mention is a step by step decision making process. The first step I would think would be to look at the initial set mentioned, the Biblical creation stories.
I imagine that by now you are familiar with my oft repeated discussion about why the people creating the Judaic and Christian Canons included two mutually exclusive creation myths and even place the younger more recent of the stories first. If we couch the analysis of the Biblical creation stories in those terms then it is possible to show some value, but even there it provides no basis for preferring the Biblical stories over all the other such stories and is also totally unrelated to the subject of creation itself.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3483 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:The stories had value to their originators. Even when mushed together they had value to those who had lost their nation. Neither story would do much for my Iroquois ancestors. My various ancestors had different environments to survive in than the Israelites. Some Christians understand that the stories are myths, some don't. I'm sure other religions have the same issues. In the book "God is Red" by Vine DeLoria, Jr.; he states concerning Native American religions:
Lacking a sense of rigid chronology, most tribal religions did not base their validity on any specific incident dividing human time experience into a before and after. No Indian tribal religion was dependent on the belief that a certain thing had happened in the past that required uncritical belief in the occurrence of the event. Not everyone looks at creation stories the same as some Christians. Abraham is the beginning of the Jewish religion, not the creation story. They could lose the creation story and it wouldn't impact their religion, IMO. This thread isn't about proving the creation story is scientifically accurate. Keep to the religious angle. We tend to choose the story we grew up with. If one didn't grow up with a creation story, why would they even be choosing one today?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 827 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
They could lose the creation story and it wouldn't impact their religion, IMO. Wouldn't you, then, need to make up a different excuse for why we are "in need of salvation" and are "born sinners"? We "sin" because that dumb broad ate the apple and was tricked by a snake. Take that out, and there is no other reason we need the jesus character."Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
That is not something common to the Judaic beliefs or to many Christian beliefs.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 827 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Erm...what? Are you saying that sin is not the primary reason jesus came to earth? Are you saying that sin was not borne out of eve being tricked by a talking snake? By her eating an apple? I know some of you get really in depth with the bible, but some of the basic tenets of xianity are...wel, basic. That being one of them. Unless you are thinking of a different religion? Or have I been sorely misinformed?
"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024