Fundamental Principles of Creationist Theology

This brief post will be a life-changer, dear reader. After years of studying the contents of various creationist websites, your Curmudgeon has previously described what we call the Creationist Scientific Method:

1. Select a conclusion which you hope is true.
2. Find one piece of evidence that possibly might fit.
3. Ignore all other evidence.
4. That’s it.

But now we’ve gone beyond that. We herewith present to you the Fundamental Principles of Creationist Theology:

1. The bible is literally true in every detail.
2. God created everything, and it was good.
3. Then Adam & Eve rebelled and mucked it all up.
4. That was 6,000 years ago, and it explains everything.
5. Any teaching to the contrary is false — and evil.
6. All your troubles are because of your sins.
7. You must either repent or suffer the eternal consequences.
8. You should support us so we can spread the word.
9. Your reward — or punishment — will be in the hereafter.

That’s all you need to know, dear reader, and if your heart is pure, it’s all you should want to know. Now go forth, wiser than before.

Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

16 responses to “Fundamental Principles of Creationist Theology

  1. This is the theology of Young Earth Creationism.
    This can be done better.

    IDiocy:
    1. Bring up something good (including the act of creation): Praise the Lord.
    2. Bring up something bad: blame Homo Sapiens.
    3. The only escape is paying us without asking how we spend your money. Everything else results in eternal damnation.
    4. God will reward you, we can’t except by teling you the Truth.
    5. Any teaching of the opposite is false.

    Old Earth Creacrap:
    1-5.
    6. You can understand the Holy Bible metaphorically as long as you reject Evilution (that may or may not include the Big Bang).

    Young Earth Creacrap:
    1-5.
    6. You can understand the Holy Bible metaphorically as long as you accept our interpretations and maintain that those are not interpretations but God’s literal words.

  2. Fundamental indeed! That is, pulled straight out of ones fundament!

    Well done, repenting sinner! Ken Ham’s warm embrace awaits you! 🙂

  3. “8. You should support us [$$$] so we can spread the word.

  4. I tend to ask these types if you think evolution is false, how do you know? Have you studied the subject? There are thousands of books written on the topic. Have you read any?

    If you are just basing your “evolution is wrong” opinion on a claim that was made that evolution is inconsistent with the Bible, how do you know that? Have you studied the subject? Or are you just like the proverbial ostrich and just putting your head in the sand? Is evolution inconsistent with the Bible? What does evolution predict, compared to the Bible. Just as prophecies are at the heart of the veracity of the Bible question, scientific predictions are at the heart of scientific matters. If a theory makes predictions, and they turn out to be true, then you have a good theory. It is just that simple.

    If you say that the Bible is right and so evolution must be wrong, how do you know that? Have you studied the subject? There are thousands of books written on the topic of the veracity of the Bible. Just select one of the ones claiming the Bible is not correct and read it. Then, if you want to expand your study, pick a book that says the Bible is right and read threat? Which sounds more reasonable?. Can you tell who is lying?

    At this point, normal Christians will light their hair on fire and run away. Job done!

    On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 10:03 AM, The Sensuous Curmudgeon wrote:

    > The Curmudgeon posted: “This brief post will be a life-changer, dear > reader. After years of studying the contents of various creationist > websites, your Curmudgeon has previously described what we call the > Creationist Scientific Method: 1. Select a conclusion which you hope ” >

  5. Steve Ruis lays out a programme culminating in

    normal Christians will light their hair on fire and run away

    Maybe. But watch out for those that are instead liable to drag you off for a fiery auto-da-fé to atone for your heresy.

  6. Michael Fugate

    An interesting commentary here:
    https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/43150/carroll3.htm
    The author concludes that the act in Genesis 2 of forming a man out of dust is not creation but merely change. Creation requires bringing something wholly into existence not to change something that already exists into something else.

  7. siluriantrilobite

    Actually, they would like to make number 9 “Your reward — or punishment — will be in the hereafter.” something they can do in the here and now as well as the hereafter (at least the punishment portion).

    Sent from my iPad

  8. Damn, My Superior Curmudgeon!

    You barely kept the Principles to single digits.

    I urgently urge you to consolidate Principles — try and get ’em to 7, huh?

  9. Ceteris Paribus

    Religion? Damn. I thougt that list was taken from the menu of a Chinese restaurant, and I was just getting ready invite a bunch of friends over because “With six you get eggroll!”

  10. Ross Cameron

    I have a JW friend who insists evolution is rubbish. When I offer books on the subject, he says the Watchtower Society warns against reading such literature as it is evil. How do we break through?

  11. Dave Luckett

    The definitive statement on creationist theology is the Chicago Declaration of Biblical Inerrancy of 1978. Here: http://www.livinghopealliance.org/perch/resources/csbi-summary-statements-by-m-baker.pdf

    If you believe as a matter of essential faith, that the Bible is the sufficient and inerrant word of God, given by God Himself, containing no other material, and transmitted to us perfectly, without error or flaw, then the only area for movement is over what passages, if any, are meant by the Almighty to be taken in a metaphorical rather than a literal sense.

    I believe that while the head proposition is manifestly crazy, there is no point in attempting to attack creationism on the grounds that the Bible is in error. If read literally, that is obviously the case, but all such an attack will achieve is a total breakdown. It will simply be dismissed as wrong, on primal grounds.

    If you are dealing with a fanatic who can’t or won’t comprehend the concept of metaphor at all, it ends there. Sadly, most that appear in public are of that stripe.

    Slightly more useful, in my opinion, (for it sometimes works) is to show that scripture does not say that it must be read literally. To say that it must be, is to add to it. That is, the literalists are apostates who have the false pride to adulterate the Word of God.

    Realists who protest that this approach is entirely irrelevant to the facts of evolution, common descent, and deep time are of course perfectly correct. It is irrelevant to those facts. It’s also true that this approach has little effect on a self-defined creationist, as such. Mere reason has no traction, and we’ve all seen many examples of it.

    But such an approach does have the advantage of using one of the principles of Biblical literalism against creationists. It hoists them on their own petard. If the Bible is sufficient, and if it does not say it must be read literally, then it need not be. That argument may make some impression on a “Bible-believing Christian” who hasn’t ever thought about it that way. Maybe.

  12. What about the statements of the creationists which are clearly additions to the Bible? Such as microevolution after the Flood, anything about microbes, extinct animals, etc.

  13. Dave Luckett

    Also good. But it must be said that people who call themselves “Bible believers”, by which they actually mean “literalists”, are very prone to add to scripture where it suits them. If they are as consumed by pride as Ken Ham plainly is, it makes no impression on them to say as much, for they are commonly of the private opinion that God gives them special revelation. They usually don’t actually say this, mind. If they do, it should be pointed out that they have assumed the mantle of prophecy. Again, this will probably not have any effect on them personally, but it might cause discomfort to the attached faithful.

    Yes, of course I know that no such approaches have anything much to do with received reality. But the creationist and literalist positions have nothing to do with reality, either. Perhaps that is what makes them impervious to it. At any rate, trying a different tack might be useful.

  14. You’ve got it wrong.

    Not “All your troubles are because of your sins” but “All your troubles are because of Adam and Eve’s really very very naughty sin”. And although you have free will, you cannot avoid being contaminated.

    Fortunately, though, Jesus has paid the penalty for you, if you only accept it.

    I call this “dry rot and parking ticket” theology; you inherit sin as you might inherit dry rot in the family mansion; but Jesus can pay the penalty just as an indulgent parent might pay a child’s parking ticket.

    Such a doctrine, like the claim to be the only real form of Christianity, is as corrupt morally as it is scientifically.

  15. Michael Fugate

    “If you are dealing with a fanatic who can’t or won’t comprehend the concept of metaphor at all, it ends there.”

    How does one inject imagination into the unimaginative?

    It is often claimed God is a being which none greater can be imagined – if one has no imagination – what does this then mean?

  16. Comment to a creationist:

    “You say evolution is false. Can you show me in the Bible where it says this, or are you simply taking someone else’s word for it?”

    Thanks for this idea, Steve Ruis and Dave Luckett.

Make a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s