All comments

Contradictions in the Gospels: Problems or Opportunities?

Jacob: Re: Contradictions in the... (2 days ago)
Jacob: Re: Contradictions in the... (2 days ago)
peter wilkinson: Re: Contradictions in the... (2 days ago)

Day One: A Sir Toby's Creation Myth

john doyle: Re: Day One: A Sir Toby's... (2 days ago)

A Generous Orthdoxy - Brian McLaren

john doyle: Re: A Generous Orthdoxy - Brian... (2 days ago)

The Lost World of Genesis One - John H. Walton

john doyle: Re: Some More General Thoughts... (2 days ago)
peter wilkinson: Re: Some More General Thoughts... (2 days ago)
john doyle: Re: Some More General Thoughts... (3 days ago)
peter wilkinson: Re: Some More General Thoughts... (3 days ago)
john doyle: Re: Some More General Thoughts... (4 days ago)
Syndicate content

Re: who is in the details?

Re: who is in the details?

I would take the existence of God as an a priori - perceived intuitively as true. I don’t see that the NT allows both for this and the inverse position - that God’s non-existence can also validly be perceived intuitively as true. The argument through Romans 1:18-32 seems to be that the knowledge of God is something that people train themselves out of - rather than something that is vouchsafed to some but not others.

There is plenty of evidence that challenges my belief in God - particularly the Judaeo-Christian God. I find the evidence that counterweighs this evidence to be more compelling, however. There is evidence in the natural world, but above all, the most compelling evidence is that provided by Christ, his death and resurrection, and especially the experience shared with those who become part of his renewed humanity.

There are all kinds of ways of looking at Genesis 1 - but I don’t see why the primeval conditions of the original creation should not have been different from conditions that have held sway subsequently - so that a six period creation should have been a supernatural act, or series of acts, while subsequent history settles down to conformity to more natural laws. I would add that the changes introduced by Adam’s disobedience also probably affected the natural world, but we have no detail about that in Genesis. So yes, I believe it’s possible to perceive historical truth through Genesis 1 & 2, but it is history presented in a mythical form, and with literary stylisation.

It sounds as if we agree then, in rejecting the True Myth explanation of Genesis 1-3. I wouldn’t want to spend a great deal of time and energy over explanations of Genesis 1-3, except to draw out the timeless truths, and to hold to a personal belief that somewhere in the mists of the mythical presentation, there is historical truth - that God created all that there is, including Adam, and that subsequently Adam fell through disobedience, which has affected us ever since. If God is a supernatural being, he can both override and work through natural laws.

Also, it seems to make sense, to me, to believe that something came from somewhere/someone, rather than believing that something came from nowhere - or it has always existed all by itself.

How do we find the time to indulge in all these wise cogitations?

Genesis 1 as "True Myth": 5 Possibilities By: john doyle (120 replies) 9 January, 2007 - 11:50