[_ Old Earth _] Deism and Creation vs. Evolution

[Vanguard]

I find that I really appreciate the deism approach to evolution vs. creation. I've mentioned this on another thread, but wanted to make its own unique post.

First, let's define deism. That is the belief in God (or a higher power), and that God created the universe, set forth the laws of nature, pressed the start button and walked away.

Under deism, God is the creator, whether it was the Big Bang (He pulled the trigger), Creationism (He snapped His fingers and made it so), or Evolution (His laws of nature governed the development of life over time). It doesn't really matter which method you prefer, they can all point to God.

I do not take the Genesis account of creation literally. Metaphorically, yes.

A "day" to God could be an infinite amount of time. There are too many discrepancies in Genesis, written at a time when mankind knew very little (and next to nothing) about chemistry, biology, physics, geology, climatology, astrophysics, astrobiology, or astrogeology. Simply put, ancient man could not explain things scientifically.

At one point in time, the greatest minds KNEW that the earth was flat. They KNEW that everything revolved around the earth.

I like to try and keep things simple. The explanation that deism gives for the co-existence of creation and evolution is simple and I like it (doesn't mean it is right).

 

[cupid dave]

I find that I really appreciate the deism approach to evolution vs. creation. I've mentioned this on another thread, but wanted to make its own unique post.

First, let's define deism. That is the belief in God (or a higher power), and that God created the universe, set forth the laws of nature, pressed the start button and walked away.

Under deism, God is the creator, whether it was the Big Bang (He pulled the trigger), Creationism (He snapped His fingers and made it so), or Evolution (His laws of nature governed the development of life over time). It doesn't really matter which method you prefer, they can all point to God.

I do not take the Genesis account of creation literally. Metaphorically, yes.

A "day" to God could be an infinite amount of time. There are too many discrepancies in Genesis, written at a time when mankind knew very little (and next to nothing) about chemistry, biology, physics, geology, climatology, astrophysics, astrobiology, or astrogeology. Simply put, ancient man could not explain things scientifically.

At one point in time, the greatest minds KNEW that the earth was flat. They KNEW that everything revolved around the earth.

I like to try and keep things simple. The explanation that deism gives for the co-existence of creation and evolution is simple and I like it (doesn't mean it is right).

Why deism, though?

What is the definition you use?

The belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of God seems to infer Gen 1:26....



Gen.1:26 And God, (The Universal Force, the Macrocosmos), said, "Letus, (the Natural Laws), make man, (a conscious mind, to model us,the unfolding Universe, as a Microcosmos of his mind), in (order that)our image (might be modeled after our own orderly organization): andlet him (that conscious mind,) have dominion over the fish of the sea,and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, andover every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."





Gen.1:27 So God (The Universal Force) created man (an abstract mindin his own image, enabled to image The Universal Force, abstractly andmathematically), so created God (The Universal Force) him; male andfemale created he them.

 

[Vanguard]

I am not a deist, I just like its approach to creation and evolution, and how they co-exist.

 

[cupid dave]

I am not a deist, I just like its approach to creation and evolution, and how they co-exist.

... oh,...

Its in the right direction, for sure.

People read Genesis and never get the point that the creator is the vague First Cause behind an ever chnaging Reality that meets us at our birt, and let;s us immediately know, :I am.:
"I exist, not just you who had been isolated in the womb,: this Reality tells us.

"You will need to learn how to behave in order to get the nurture and benefits of the unavoidable relationship you will have with 'me.'"

This is the point where the deists detours into the idea that Nietzsche set down, that God is now unnecessary and essentially dead.
But even the deist believes his spirit in the Natural Laws continues in his absence.

What is moer the actual case is that Reality is not static, but a dynamic which unfolds moment to moment, chnage being the only thing permanent for the living species trying to cope.
Reality is the God of the Bible, the almighty Force which rules over the living.

His image inside man's head is Truth, which conforms and corresponds exactly with what is real and what is actual.
It is this "son-of-God," Truth, i.e.; this grace of the Force of Reality which can indwell us once we model that Truth, mentally.

It is this model of Truth which completes the trinity that is different from deism.
Man can understand Reality, adjust to it, and co-exist with this God as each next frame of life unfolds.
Man has a relationship with Reality because of the gracethat has made man capable of imaging the Father-of-all-things external to him.

 

[GKC]

I do believe that God created the universe and everything in it. I don't believe that God intended Genesis to be a scientific text or a how-to manual; had He done so, man at that time would not have been able to understand (and for most of us, not even today...physics makes my head hurt.) Besides, the point wasn't to explain how He created the universe, it was to explain why He did.

 

[Arch Angle]

the question for me is if it was created in the same manor that you"create" your finger nail? Orin the same fashion we create a "building".

 

[Barbarian]

At one point in time, the greatest minds KNEW that the earth was flat.

When do you think that was?

 

[cupid dave]

I find that I really appreciate the deism approach to evolution vs. creation. I've mentioned this on another thread, but wanted to make its own unique post.

First, let's define deism. That is the belief in God (or a higher power), and that God created the universe, set forth the laws of nature, pressed the start button and walked away.

But then, you would agree, having walked away, His interconnected web of Natural Laws are still the Spirit of God, working relentlessly to forevermore unfold the next frame of the Reality we are all trapped inside, saved only by our ability to understand those Natural Laws and bow down to them, right?

 

[cupid dave]

I do believe that God created the universe and everything in it. I don't believe that God intended Genesis to be a scientific text or a how-to manual; had He done so, man at that time would not have been able to understand (and for most of us, not even today...physics makes my head hurt.) Besides, the point wasn't to explain how He created the universe, it was to explain why He did.

But you don't expect that genesis will relate a tale out of sync with Reality and diametrically opposed to the Truth which we comfirm by experimental evidence of certain Facts-of-Life in our sciences, either, do you?

I mean, you do expect that Genesis doesn't teacdh science or give evidence for the things it states, but that we will see that what is stated makes sense and is basically right.
Yes?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . First, let's define deism. That is the belief in God (or a higher power), and that God created the universe, set forth the laws of nature, pressed the start button and walked away.

Under deism, God is the creator, whether it was the Big Bang (He pulled the trigger), Creationism (He snapped His fingers and made it so), or Evolution (His laws of nature governed the development of life over time). It doesn't really matter which method you prefer, they can all point to God.

I do not take the Genesis account of creation literally. Metaphorically, yes.

A "day" to God could be an infinite amount of time. There are too many discrepancies in Genesis, written at a time when mankind knew very little (and next to nothing) about chemistry, biology, physics, geology, climatology, astrophysics, astrobiology, or astrogeology. Simply put, ancient man could not explain things scientifically.

At one point in time, the greatest minds KNEW that the earth was flat. They KNEW that everything revolved around the earth.

I like to try and keep things simple. The explanation that deism gives for the co-existence of creation and evolution is simple and I like it (doesn't mean it is right).

another perspective:

God is the Creator;
this moment is being created,
all time and space is being created, from His seat in eternity
all time is one with Him

He will walk away at the end of time;
in the Omega, it all ends

No pulling of the trigger, snapping of the fingers
His Word - the real Laws of Nature

A metaphorical Genesis means a metaphorical Jesus
there was/is a serpent, really
it eats the dust, the dust to which we return: it feeds on death
he and all that follow him, living in the dirt, creating nothing of value,
destined for death of the body and soul
this is real
the people involved were, are real
they are you and i, all humanity

Genesis pierces the core of reality as much as any thought can and
transcends the trivial concepts that modern society venerates as being true,
but remain only shadows of reality

science only as the servant of religion
can ever explain the unfolding of a universe created by God

 

[cupid dave]

another perspective:

God is the Creator;

science only as the servant of religion
can ever explain the unfolding of a universe created by God

There is another dependable being that lives, immortally, even before and after we die, which better than Science, already knew, and even now, continues to experience the Truth for what it is, even BEFORE the science of men re-discover that Truth.

This embodiment of Truth is within us, inthe kingdom of God where "he" lives in us and willingly offers a "personal relationship" to u=we who want and love The Truth.

This being is spiritual, in that it is comprised not of flesh and blood.
But it comprises memories, ancient of ancient memories stored in it.
It is a reservoir of Unconscious memories recording the phylogenetic memories of our whole species and perhaps beyond.

This "friend" is the Jesus people unwittingly ask, "What ought I do."
This is the dream maker who speaks to us symbolically.
This is the Third Eye that shepherds us if we will seek Him.

This is that low quiet voice some hear, often unbidden, spoken directly to our Conscience.
This is the source of instincts, insights, and emotions that overcome us.
This is the real person we are, while the clean slate board of our Conscious mind adds this new life experience, the real us is a genetically renewable entity that resurrects when we are born again into the living.





Revelation21:4-5

AndGod, (blessing them with Total Phylogenetic Consciousness: [Carl Jung]),shall wipe away, (in their awakened Unconscious Mind: [FreudianHypothesis]), all tears from their eyes, (for life is a geneticallyremember able, a continuum, we shall remember from one generation to the nextliving generation); and,

(ingenetic memories of prior existences held in our Unconscious Mind) thereshall be no more death... (For we shall not all "sleep:"[1Co15:51], but total phylogenetic Consciousness will have evolved), neither sorrow... (For we, individually, are part of a living continuum ofour own past, flowers upon our genetic vine), nor crying,.. (for weare happy in these revelations of reconstitution from our human gene pool),neither shall there be any more pain, (as men will have neurologicalcontrol, a self-hypnotic ability to stop the nerve signals to the brain),... forthe former things (in Modern Homo sapiens paradigm of the life experience)are passed away.

Andhe, (the Christ, the ancient, phylogenetic, Collective Unconscious Mind intheir own Kingdom within), that sat upon the throne (within the kingdomof the evolving Homoiousian sapiens' brain: [Luke 17:21]) said, Behold,(in this way, through evolution: [Gen 9:11-18]), I make all things (inhuman experience) new.

Andhe said unto me, Write: for these words are true, (i.e.; words of Christhimself, who is the experiential presence of Truth in us, rational, theUnconscious mind), and (worthy of) faithful (belief).

 

[Stone-yarder]

I find that I really appreciate the deism approach to evolution vs. creation. I've mentioned this on another thread, but wanted to make its own unique post.

First, let's define deism. That is the belief in God (or a higher power), and that God created the universe, set forth the laws of nature, pressed the start button and walked away.

Under deism, God is the creator, whether it was the Big Bang (He pulled the trigger), Creationism (He snapped His fingers and made it so), or Evolution (His laws of nature governed the development of life over time). It doesn't really matter which method you prefer, they can all point to God.

I do not take the Genesis account of creation literally. Metaphorically, yes.

A "day" to God could be an infinite amount of time. There are too many discrepancies in Genesis, written at a time when mankind knew very little (and next to nothing) about chemistry, biology, physics, geology, climatology, astrophysics, astrobiology, or astrogeology. Simply put, ancient man could not explain things scientifically.

At one point in time, the greatest minds KNEW that the earth was flat. They KNEW that everything revolved around the earth.

I like to try and keep things simple. The explanation that deism gives for the co-existence of creation and evolution is simple and I like it (doesn't mean it is right).

"I do not take the Genesis account of creation literally"
Then if someone says "I dont take Jesus or the gospels literally" You would agree correct?

 

[Adam]

Rhat's not a correct analogy.

I do not take the Genesis account literally.
If someone says "I don't take the parables of Jesus literally", I would agree.

 

[cupid dave]

"I do not take the Genesis account of creation literally"
Then if someone says "I dont take Jesus or the gospels literally" You would agree correct?

This useof the word, literally, seems to require some definition imo.

I take the Bible as LITERATURE.

It is literal.
It uses the Language Arts to semantically transfer information from one person to another through reading and writing.
The entire communication is all literal.

But understanding the scriptures has always been subjected to what the Rabbi call Commentary.

This is sikilar to what an English teacher would require as a Book Report presented by the students, each reporting what that student understood semantically, and each report subject to a test of reading comprehension.
The commentary or comparison of the reports always sum to a wholeness greater than the separate reports.

When I read the New Testament, I replace the word Christ with Truth, in every case, because Jesus said, "I am the Truth,"... he was/ is the personification of that ideal.
So, I am saying that literally, the two concept are one and the same.


I read the New testament and the tale sums to this literally, that Truth gets crucified but resurrects again forcing men to accept it by default of lies that have failed them.
Truth is the savior for the human race which copes with the need to Adapt or become extinct.
Truth is the light into the next frame if the ever unfolding Reality which can both nurture us or harm us.

Truth is a flash light in the dark world that lets us free from ignorance and faikure.
Truth is the Grace of the unfolding Reality, in that Truth is born in its wake, and man can image this son-of-god in his mind.

 

[Adam]

Jesus also said "I am the bread", "I am the vine," "I am the morning star" and "I am the door."


Does that mean he was a personification of the ideal of bread?

Is he a personification of a door?


Rather, do these words have characteristics which represent the ideal of Christ?

You often neglect the bulk of passages you appeal to.

In this case, Jesus says "I am the WAY, the TRUTH AND the LIFE"

Here we see the door/path, we see the fruit and we see the bread.

The whole of what he is saying is completely lost when you only focus on the Truth aspect.


This isn't about "imaging a son of god in our minds."

 

[Aloysium]

God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh

Gen 1:5
"God called light 'day', and darkness he called 'night'. Evening came and morning came: the first day."
". . . Evening came and morning came: the second day", " . . . the third day.",
the fourth, the fifth, sixth and seventh
this is the rationale for our week

a day:
with daybreak, one gets up and goes to tend the flock or the crops, cooks and cleans, chisels a rock for the pyramid, whatever,
evening comes, and he goes home

if one is carrying out scientific experiments involving accurate measurement of time
a day would be represented as = (an average of) 86,400 x 9,192,631,770 (periods of the the transition between the two levels of caesium - atomic clock).
if anything this is the metaphor,
and while useful for the experiment, this information is useless otherwise to the experimenter,
whose life consists of getting up, going to work and coming home - a day at a time

as it is stated in the Bible, it is simple

God's work: creation; each day He adds to what was done the day before

problem comes up when ppl use scripture in ways it was not intended
it directs us back Home
back to God

 

[cupid dave]

God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh

Gen 1:5
"God called light 'day', and darkness he called 'night'. Evening came and morning came: the first day."
". . . Evening came and morning came: the second day", " . . . the third day.",
the fourth, the fifth, sixth and seventh
this is the rationale for our week

a day:
with daybreak, one gets up and goes to tend the flock or the crops, cooks and cleans, chisels a rock for the pyramid, whatever,
evening comes, and he goes home

if one is carrying out scientific experiments involving accurate measurement of time
a day would be represented as = (an average of) 86,400 x 9,192,631,770 (periods of the the transition between the two levels of caesium - atomic clock).
if anything this is the metaphor,
and while useful for the experiment, this information is useless otherwise to the experimenter,
whose life consists of getting up, going to work and coming home - a day at a time

as it is stated in the Bible, it is simple

God's work: creation; each day He adds to what was done the day before

problem comes up when ppl use scripture in ways it was not intended
it directs us back Home
back to God

If one approaches the Bible with the assumption that is sealed and has not been completely open for the reader, that it falls into the genre of the Mystery writings that were so common to religion in ages gone by, then one might expect to find hints and subtle references that support an overview of what the many different facets of scripture all sum total to.

In Genesis, we encounter two immediate hints in regard to the statement about "days," the first being that the Hebrew word chosen was "yowm," meaning a duration to be understood within the context, perhaps a 24 hour day, a watch or part of a day, and Age, or just a long time.
The second "hint" we ought notice is that these "days" strangely start in the evening and end in the morning, the reverse of what we think of when we compare it to rising and tending sheep in the morning, and ending our own day in the evening, at home.

A third "hint" is more direct when half way thru, we read that the first 24 hour Earth day is created when God makes the Sun the time keeper for Earth.

 

[cupid dave]

I do believe that God created the universe and everything in it. I don't believe that God intended Genesis to be a scientific text or a how-to manual; had He done so, man at that time would not have been able to understand (and for most of us, not even today...physics makes my head hurt.) Besides, the point wasn't to explain how He created the universe, it was to explain why He did.

No, we don't expect Genesis to explain why Genesis says what it does.
We are to assume Genesis does not contradict the truth and just states the facts in the order of the Cosmic Unfolding.

What we do expect is that Science will gradually discover for the atheist and unbeleiver that those facts do correspond with the Truth as revealed a little at a time by the Scientific Method of inquiry.