Christians who don't belive in Creation

I've run across a couple Christians who ridicule other Christians who believe in Creation and reel off everything that's been thrown around in the eleventy billion threads on the subject.

What I find amusing is that these people believe in the Trinity, that Christ is the son of God, the he was conceived by a virgin, that he was crucified and died, that he rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. Am I missing anything?

They believe all of that, but they find the Creation story implausible. You know, because science has cleary shown us that people can be raised from the dead.

Do all of these people belive in Intelligent Design - is that the out for them?

 

Intelligent design is creationism.

When people such as Ken Miller say they believe in the Christian God but disbelieve creationism, they usually mean one of three things. First, they don't accept every part of the Bible, including Genesis, as literal truth. Second, while they believe in a creator deity, perhaps one who set creation in motion, they believe that the process from that point was an essentially natural one. Third, that while they have an abiding faith in God and in the teachings of Christ, they believe that there is a difference between religion and science. Thus they believe in Gould's NOMA.

 

Why do you think it's amusing?

 

people who call themselves christians believe in chrsit?
i'm not sure that the most amusing thing on this thread isn't that you find this surprising.

 

I had a dream last night where I was some sort of half human/half monkey, like not completely evolved. And I was living in 1941 London and dodging the German Blitzkrieg. Not sure if that answers your question but I find it somewhat relevant or at least coincidental.

 

Theo -

That's weird. I had a dream that my spookie dookies were climbing on my desk and making me cupcakes.

 

The people who put together the Torah didn’t agree on the creation story either, so they included both versions.

 

I believe that life is a miracle bestowed by God. I also believe that Biblical deviations from what we now "know" to be true are fairly inconsequential, and that dwelling on them is largely a waste of time.

The difference between 6 days and 4.5 billion years doesn't concern me in the least. The way I see it, the mere fact that we're here overwhelmingly trumps that trivial detail.

 

Gadfly,
I disagree with you that there are 2 versions of the creation in Genesis. I disagree in a only 1 way, that is that they are from separate authors who disagreed, which would then mean the 2 accounts contradict. You didn't say all of that, but it is the implication of your statements.

I do agree that there are 2 accounts. One is more general and details all that was made. The other is more specific in that it discusses how God made mankind. I don't see any contradiction which would show a disagreement. It is like 2 photographs. One is of a panoramic view of a mountain range. The other is a picture of one tree found on one mountain.

I understand the belief that there are 2 authors from different time periods with varying accounts. I just don't agree with the conclusions those people have made. I see complientary descriptions of the same occurence.

 

Monahorns, the two parts of Genesis DO contradict, at least in regard to sequencing. In the second telling, men are the original creation, with plants and animals coming after. In the first telling plants and animals come first followed by men.

 

I respect your belief and opinions Monahorns.

Most believe you can't literally interpret the creation story anyway (I don't), but you cannot believe (literally) in both accounts because there are contradictions. The order of creation may be the most obvious, but there are other things that make the two creation stories inconsistent.

 

I have read that the two words for shrubs and plants in verse 5 of Genesis 2 refer to things that are cultivated. So it is basically pointing you to a time before man was created. A way of indicating that the account is moving back in time to add more description of that time.

In that sense there is no contradiction and no need ot split the composite description into separate pieces.

 

You didn't fail 7 Iron - there is no good answer IMO. The only answer is “because I’m a hypocrite”, but nobody wants to admit to that.

---

 

Great question 7iron. For me, the creation story is very hard to understand... heck many of the OT stories are not easy to swallow... Particularly the one with Jonah.

But then comes along this man named Jesus and he fulfills all these miracles and there is strong evidence that he actually DID rise from the dead. I believe/trust in Christ. I really do. And somehow, someway he quoted from Genesis all the time. He quoted from Genesis more than any other OT book. So who am I to disagree with the guy that rose from the dead??

I admit that some of it is hard to understand, but if THAT guy who rose from the dead said its true, I think God is capable of other amazing feats as well.

I think Anastasis raises a good point, too. Some have asked me if I take the bible "Literally" I would say I read the bible in its "ordinary" sense. Much the same way I might read the sports page. When the sports page says that the Longhorns "Crushed" the Aggies, I know it doesn't mean that Aggy is squashed into a bunch of tiny pcs. It means that aggy was beaten soundly by UT. Similarly, I understand that the Bible uses allegory and hyperbole and other literary devices. Sometimes we just find it hard to know which devices are being used 2000 years after the fact.

 

OrangeChipper, great post. I'd second that opinion.

 

Gadfly... Good question.

You have to wade through the link a little, but it is very persuasive.
There are tons of similar essays out there, but William Lane Craig appears to be the most respected out there.
The Link

---