Since all creation myths are essentially fiction, does it really matter?So which of them are compatible with monotheistic tradition?
Since all creation myths are essentially fiction, does it really matter?So which of them are compatible with monotheistic tradition?
Well, if you want to launch a relevant criticism and step outside of preaching to the choir by labelling everything and anyone you disagree with as "abrahamic", then yes.Since all creation myths are essentially fiction, does it really matter?
Exactly the same as it is now.......Out of curiosity, what would non abrahamic creationism look like, IYHO?
Ummm ... but you did just label it .... so if you want to take the subject outside of the labeling game (regardless whether you want to use "primitive speculation" or "abrahamic"), you will have to start moving in the direction of relevant argument and critique.It doesn't matter how you label it, it's all just primitive speculation.
Well, we are moving further and further away from this unusual generic "abrahamic" label, and into the "primitive speculation" label ... but either way, it's not apparent how you are talking about anything other than your own values, opinions, etc.The only value in the myths is what they can tell you about the cultures they're derived from, not what they can tell you about actual cosmology.
These creation myths have a number of descriptive labels that can be applied, myth being one of them. Do you object to that one as well? Primitive speculation is about as objectively accurate as I can imagine. How else would you describe millennial old mysical musings?Ummm ... but you did just label it .... so if you want to take the subject outside of the labeling game (regardless whether you want to use "primitive speculation" or "abrahamic"), you will have to start moving in the direction of relevant argument and critique.
As I said earlier, the onus is on you if you want to take the discussion beyond your choir group. You are just throwing around a bunch of labels that have no ultimate significance beyond your own opinions snd beliefs.These creation myths have a number of descriptive labels that can be applied, myth being one of them. Do you object to that one as well? Primitive speculation is about as objectively accurate as I can imagine. How else would you describe millennial old mysical musings?
The labels I used were accurate descriptions of these ancient human constructions. What other labels would you care to add?As I said earlier, the onus is on you if you want to take the discussion beyond your choir group. You are just throwing around a bunch of labels that have no ultimate significance beyond your own opinions snd beliefs.
Tautology 101.The labels I used were accurate descriptions of these ancient human constructions.
To what end?What other labels would you care to add?
My impression is that Jan picks and chooses what he likes from his "scriptures", and discards the rest.
But iceaura is also correct in that Jan seems quite fond of certain elements of the fundamentalist Abrahamist religions - Old Testament Creationism being one that has come up recently.
I was somewhat taken aback to discover that Jan apparently rejects evolution. I hope that is due to simple ignorance of the science, rather than dogmatic adherence to religious dogma, but on the other hand it wouldn't surprise me to learn that he is willing to reject science in favour of his own interpretation of a favorite "scripture".
Since Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 almost certainly came from earlier polytheistic creation myths - a few of them. For example, Genesis 1 likely came from the Egyptian creation myth. The Egyptian myth has many of the same elements - separating the earth and the sky, the first day, creating dry land etc. This was a common motif for Egyptians due to the Nile's regular floods - fertile dry land rising out of muddy waters was a powerful image for them. Of course, in the Egyptian version all those components (sky, waters, land, sun) were separate gods, so it needed some editing before it could set the stage for Genesis.So which of them are compatible with monotheistic tradition?
I'm not sure what any of your ideas have to do with ideas of intelligent universal creation.Since Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 almost certainly came from earlier polytheistic creation myths - a few of them. For example, Genesis 1 likely came from the Egyptian creation myth. The Egyptian myth has many of the same elements - separating the earth and the sky, the first day, creating dry land etc. This was a common motif for Egyptians due to the Nile's regular floods - fertile dry land rising out of muddy waters was a powerful image for them. Of course, in the Egyptian version all those components (sky, waters, land, sun) were separate gods, so it needed some editing before it could set the stage for Genesis.
You are still not taking it out of the "abrahamic". IYHO, are all monotheistic ideas of creation "abrahamic"?I know you're not.
But for the rest of the people reading this thread - those to whom intentional misunderstanding is not a common theme - they saw a post listing several creation myths, and saw you ask "which of them are compatible with monotheistic tradition?" The answer to that is that the Egyptian one is fairly compatible, because it calls out the same process. Thus Judaism was able to adopt that polytheistic myth pretty rapidly to monotheism by replacing the many gods with one god. And since the Egyptian myth was still well known, it was compatible with people's existing beliefs (important when you have a new religion you are trying to get off the ground.)
Interestingly, despite Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 being considered the primary creation myths of a monotheistic religion, two different gods are called out in them. Genesis 2 refers to Yaweh and Genesis 1 refers to Elohim in the original texts. This was fixed in translation because the translators knew (or were made to believe) that there was "really" only one god, and this was explained away by saying that they were just referring to two _aspects_ of the same God. (The same rationale, of course, that later led to the Trinity.)
How about to make some relevant point about the value of creation myths in general, or their contrasting value in particular. If you don’t want a circular discussion, stop talking in circles and open it up.To what end?
To make the circumference of your circular reasoning "bigger"?
I am. At the moment I am pointing out the circular usage of the term "abrahamic" and that despite links to wiki pages, most in present company are not even vaguely familiar with "all religions" so their subsequent opinions never leave the realm of values and beliefs.How about to make some relevant point about the value of creation myths in general, or their contrasting value in particular. If you don’t want a circular discussion, stop talking in circles and open it up.
Don't wait for others, go ahead and make your case with contrasting examples.I am. At the moment I am pointing out the circular usage of the term "abrahamic" and that despite links to wiki pages, most in present company are not even vaguely familiar with "all religions" so their subsequent opinions never leave the realm of values and beliefs.
Labels to contrast your labels?Don't wait for others, go ahead and make your case with contrasting examples.
So you can at least establish what your position is regarding the value of creation mythology.Labels to contrast your labels?
What would be the point?
Like any creation story involving a god, which doesn't adhere strictly to the Garden of Eden narrative that appears in the Old Testament/Torah.Out of curiosity, what would non abrahamic creationism look like, IYHO?
Which non-Abrahamic monotheist traditions are you thinking of, specifically?So which of them are compatible with monotheistic tradition?
Which ideas of intelligent universal creation are you thinking of, specifically?I'm not sure what any of your ideas have to do with ideas of intelligent universal creation.
I suggested that Jan Ardena has adopted certain Abrahamic ideas of creation. If you want to know his views more specifically, you'd be better off asking him.JamesR suggested Iceaura is correct in discerning an Abrahamic idea of creation.
I'm not sure exactly what your complaint is, at least as it applies to what I wrote.This prompted a reference to numerous, mostly polytheistic and Animistic cultures, as some sort of response. Now you are attempting to track the cultural connection betwern Egypt and Judaism .... which, even if we are to grant your ideas the greatest charity, says nothing about discussing monotheistic ideas of creation outside of the abrahamic atheist rhetoric. It's a common ploy : talk about "all ideas of God" or "all ideas of religion" and when we get down to brass tacks, find out they are mostly talking about christianity (and usually protestantism).
I agree.One of Jan's beliefs seems to be that all "scriptures" ultimately say the same thing about what's important, they all reference the same God and they all present more or less obscured versions of the message that's supposedly presented most clearly and perfectly in the Bhagavad Gita. Since the scriptures of the various religions contradict each other at various points, one can only harmonize them by 'picking and choosing' particular passages that sound similar in each one and best conform with the BG.
In that light, Jan's stance on atheism on this forum makes a lot of sense. Probably he really believes that atheists are troubled souls in unknowing (or knowing) denial of Krishna.The idea seems to me to be that we are all eternal transmigrating souls. All souls are in an eternal relationship with God/Krishna. But during some lifetimes some of the souls struggle and deny that relationship, convincing themselves that they are atheists. The ideal is to replace struggle and denial with ceaseless never-ending bhakti.
I checked out the link to the "evolution" resources on the Hari Krishna site. The first article I read there quotes as authorities two well-known Christian creationists, Philip Johnson and Michael Behe, both discredited promoters of the fraud of so-called "intelligent design".Since all "scriptures" supposedly teach the same thing and reveal Krishna when rightly understood, and since most internet atheists seem totally obsessed with Biblical Christianity and its Hebrew roots, it makes sense to discuss creation as described in the scriptures that are recognized by the people one is talking to.