Creationists—the new pagans?

[zulu9812]

from http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0509pagans.asp

Guy Consolmagno has an unusual job. He is a monk in the Jesuit order, but he is also an astronomer. He works for the Vatican, but he is not based in Europe—he primarily works at an observatory in Arizona, USA (he is also curator of the Vatican’s collection of meteorites). His name has been in the news recently, especially in the UK where the creation/evolution controversy has been heating up, because he has declared that a belief in the doctrine of God creating the universe in six days is “pagan superstition”:

Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality, to protect it from creationism, which at the end of the day is a kind of paganism - it’s turning God into a nature god.​

The Apostle Paul would have had something to say about Consolmagno’s bizarre contention. In Acts 17, Paul was distressed by paganism: “Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him when he saw that the city was given over to idols” (Acts 17:16). He then used the doctrine of creation to counter the paganism, for in Acts 17: 23, 24 (in his talk at the Areopagus), he declared:

As I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands (Acts 17:23, 24; emphasis added).

Paul here sets up the doctrine of God as Creator in opposition to the concept of paganism. In reality, it is Consolmagno’s own evolutionist philosophy (somehow incorporated into his religious beliefs) which is akin to paganism. An example of this would be seen in his ideas about the possibilities of intelligent life existing elsewhere in the universe:

ETs may not be aware of the idea of an Incarnation, or they may have their own experience of the matter. Their experience may be so alien from ours that even though they have experienced God in their own way, it’s an experience that we will never be able to share, nor they share in our experience.​

AiG–UK CEO, Dr. Monty White, once spoke at Stirling University in Scotland to a meeting organised by the university’s Christian Union. Unfortunately, the meeting was completely overrun by the university’s Pagan Society. Of course, at no point did any of these pagans suppose that Monty’s creationist message was a form of paganism. They were there to oppose his message.

In common with many other critics of biblical creation, Consolmagno completely misinterprets the creation belief system, and in doing so, shows a lack of understanding of the Scriptures. We are thus not surprised that he has also written that Genesis teaches that the universe is “just a dome over a flat Earth, the way that Genesis describes it.” For the Bible’s teaching about a circular earth, and to find out what it says about other topics related to astronomy, read our booklet What Does the Bible Say about Astronomy?

When you do, you will discover that this field of science (in fact, all fields) is consistent with Scripture when the evidence is correctly interpreted. Indeed, the Bible can be defended in this scientific age, and a straightforward reading of Genesis is directly opposed to paganism and its cousin: evolutionary humanism.

What refuge for creationists, now?

 

[The Last Conformist]

Most Christian creationists, or at least most Christian creationists who make themselves heard, are Protestants, and care little what the Vatican says, so this isn't really very significant.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

paganism and its cousin: evolutionary humanism.

Walter
Tango
Foxtrot
?

Never heard of such a thing as "evolutionary humanism".

But it's nice to see Creationism getting the revilification it deserves. Bad science and bad religion.

 

[Kozmos]

Again its not Walter , its Whiskey.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

So apparently I am some kind of secular evolutionist humanist according to that ultimate arbiter of religion, Answers in Genesis. I wonder what everyone who has debated me on religion thinks of that. Hmm, maybe my faith does require me to abandon logic and the cumulative observations of thousands of people over hundreds of years in countless locations. Or not, because that would be stupid.

 

[Archbob]

That guys seems to not understand Christian theology at all or is just making noise to make himself known. Because his assertion actually makes no sense.

Gensis clearly states that God created the world(whether its a literal 7 days or not can and has been debated, I myself don't believe in the literal 7 days). I don't see how its a "Pagan" belief.

 

[bhsup]

Most Christian creationists, or at least most Christian creationists who make themselves heard, are Protestants, and care little what the Vatican says, so this isn't really very significant.

Precisely. The Pope, cardinals, priests, monks, and so forth are not the voice of Christianity. They are the voice of Catholicism, and nothing more. While I have the utmost respect for Catholics and believe the Catholic Church is a great force for good in the world, I frankly couldn't care less what it thinks of others' religious views.

Mind you, I'd call myself an evolutionary creationist anyway, as I don't believe in a six day creation, but I'm not going to go around calling those who do believe it names. For one thing, a common argument I hear from them, that God could easily have set up the world to seem ancient as a test of faith, is possible. Unlikely, but possible, and I could be wrong.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

The guy isn't saying that it's pagan to believe that God created the earth, just that it is superstitious and pagan to insist that He did so in 6 days 6000 years ago, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You know, I think he has a point.

 

[bhsup]

But unless he can prove, and I mean prove, that God didn't set up all the carbon dating stuff and so forth as a test of faith, he's just stating an assumption. Some of the literal creationists I know would actually doubt HIS faith (as they doubt mine) for being 'led astray' by science.

 

[GenMarshall]

Precisely. The Pope, cardinals, priests, monks, and so forth are not the voice of Christianity. They are the voice of Catholicism, and nothing more.

I view, as a Catholic, that The Pope is the voice of Christianity since the popes are considered the Vicar of Christ and therefore the leader of all Christians. Its just the Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Coptic Christianity, Mormonism, and Anglican/Episcopals chose not to reconise the papal authority of Rome. To a non-Catholic, esentialy they dont see the pope and the hierarchy of the holy see as the voice of Christianity while in contrast, Catholics believe that the pope and the hierarchy of the holy see is the voice of Christianity.

Asside from that, I do not believe that creationists are going to be the new pagans in the secular evilolutionary world. I myself am an evolutionary creationist, meaning that I believe that God created the entire universe and provided the supplies for the creation of life and left evolution to it's own path.

 

[odintheking]

Uh... according to "The Answer is Genesis", I'm a pagan, and/or its ugly cousin. Wow. Aside from that spit in the face at the end of the article, I absolutely agree with the guy saying that about the creation story. I think there are parts of the Bible that need to be taken symbolically (wearing clothes made of two different fibers, eating pork; read between the lines people, this stuff doesn't hurt anybody), and most of Genisis I think should be taken that way. People who consider every page of the Bible completely literally, with no thought for the meaning are just not getting any sort of lasting effects from it in the first place, :shakehead:.

 

[Ciceronian]

Duplicate thread:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=169885

 

[zulu9812]

That guys seems to not understand Christian theology at all or is just making noise to make himself known. Because his assertion actually makes no sense.

Gensis clearly states that God created the world(whether its a literal 7 days or not can and has been debated, I myself don't believe in the literal 7 days). I don't see how its a "Pagan" belief.

You've completely and utterly missed the point.

The Catholic Church doesn't teach that everything in the Bible is literally true. Speaking as someone who went to a Catholic school, I can tell you that they went out of their way to make sure that we understood that these were stories, only designed to get people to treat others in a more decent fashion. In this way, the teachings of Christ are not invalidated by the march of history. The Bible is still relevent today, precisely because it is not caught up in historical context - the messages in each story is what matters.

What the man in the article is saying is that the Curch is still relevent in a scientific world: that the story of Genesis is only a story and was written to make sense to the Hebrews thousands of years ago. We have to look beyond that historical context and identify what the message is.

Why does he call creationists pagans? Well, it's all the in the article, he is criticised for trying to liberate the Bible from it's early origins and say that the message is what is important. The Christian God is not a nature god, and thus Christians should not be that concerned about how the world came into being - because it has no bearing on how people should treat each other.

 

[odintheking]

You've completely and utterly missed the point.

The Catholic Church doesn't teach that everything in the Bible is literally true. Speaking as someone who went to a Catholic school, I can tell you that they went out of their way to make sure that we understood that these were stories, only designed to get people to treat others in a more decent fashion. In this way, the teachings of Christ are not invalidated by the march of history. The Bible is still relevent today, precisely because it is not caught up in historical context - the messages in each story is what matters.

What the man in the article is saying is that the Curch is still relevent in a scientific world: that the story of Genesis is only a story and was written to make sense to the Hebrews thousands of years ago. We have to look beyond that historical context and identify what the message is.

Why does he call creationists pagans? Well, it's all the in the article, he is criticised for trying to liberate the Bible from it's early origins and say that the message is what is important. The Christian God is not a nature god, and thus Christians should not be that concerned about how the world came into being - because it has no bearing on how people should treat each other.

Thank you.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I, too, learned proper science, including the theory of evolution by natural selection, in Catholic school. There is no reason that I can see that one should cling to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 as opposed to just saying that it described a spiritual truth in a symbolic form.

 

[Leifmk]

That guys seems to not understand Christian theology at all or is just making noise to make himself known. Because his assertion actually makes no sense.

Yeah, it's not as if Jesuit monks are kind of well known for their scholarship and understanding of their own theology.

Um, or maybe they are, you know?

 

[Shaihulud]

Jesuits are smart people, but i cannot see how believing in creationism makes a person a pagan, misguided perhaps, but pagan?