Can a Christian be a creationist and NOT a fundie?

[Superman]

What do you people think? When I talk to Christians, I usually ask them what they think about creationism to find out if they're fundies.

If they believe in this so called creation, that sort of makes them Biblical literalists, doesn't it?

[Darth Wong]

What do you people think? When I talk to Christians, I usually ask them what they think about creationism to find out if they're fundies.

If they believe in this so called creation, that sort of makes them Biblical literalists, doesn't it?

According to Merriam-Webster:

Creationism: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis.

A person who calls himself a creationist is either a fundie or someone who doesn't know what creationism is.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Hmm, I would say that that it would depend upon the source of his belief in creationism. If it is Independent of the Bible (or whatever holy book) then I would say that yes it is possible.

Keep in mind that this is only possible if we have the qualifications for being a Christian reduced to: "Believes that Jesus was the Son of God who died on the Cross for out sins". The two aren't necessarily linked.

[Joe]

Yes, I think you can be a creationist without being a fundie.

That said, I'm pretty sure there aren't any.

[Superman]

Korr, I liked the way you put that.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

What do you people think? When I talk to Christians, I usually ask them what they think about creationism to find out if they're fundies.

If they believe in this so called creation, that sort of makes them Biblical literalists, doesn't it?

According to Merriam-Webster:

Creationism: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis.

A person who calls himself a creationist is either a fundie or someone who doesn't know what creationism is.

Couldn't you just be a Non-Biblical Creationist?

[Darth Wong]

Couldn't you just be a Non-Biblical Creationist?

Sure, you could be a Koranic creationist instead of a Biblical creationist. Either way, you're a fundie.

[HemlockGrey]

I tend to define fundies as people who try to push their views on others, so if you're a creationist who keeps to himself(quick! Kill and stuff it!), you might just be a harmless idiot...

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Couldn't you just be a Non-Biblical Creationist?

Sure, you could be a Koranic creationist instead of a Biblical creationist. Either way, you're a fundie.

Your missing what I'm trying to say, wouldn't it be possible for someone to believe that all the religions of the world are bullshit, yet still believe that God created the universe? This person would be rational in all aspects except that one. From my perspective this person couldn't possibly be a fundie because he/she would not belive that any of "holy" documents were the literal word of God.

[Darth Wong]

I tend to define fundies as people who try to push their views on others, so if you're a creationist who keeps to himself(quick! Kill and stuff it!), you might just be a harmless idiot...

You can make up whatever personal definitions you like, but the whole purpose of a communicative language is the use of shared definitions, and the Merriam-Webster definition of a "fundamentalist" is someone who believes the Bible is true, regardless of whether he's pushy about it.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

Well, there might me some Creationists that will admit it's an irrational belief and not force it on others out there, and if there is, I wouldn't consider them fundies.

[Darth Wong]

Well, there might me some Creationists that will admit it's an irrational belief and not force it on others out there, and if there is, I wouldn't consider them fundies.

That's a very hypothetical statement. Anyone who believes the Bible is completely, literally true is also likely to believe that he should follow the Old Testament ethos of trying to shove your beliefs down everyone else's throats whether they like it or not.

[fgalkin]

Couldn't you just be a Non-Biblical Creationist?

Sure, you could be a Koranic creationist instead of a Biblical creationist. Either way, you're a fundie.

What about an Agnostic creationist? What about the Raelians?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Darth Wong]

Couldn't you just be a Non-Biblical Creationist?

Sure, you could be a Koranic creationist instead of a Biblical creationist. Either way, you're a fundie.

What about an Agnostic creationist? What about the Raelians?

They don't really fit the standard definition of creationists, although they're definitely idiots.

[fgalkin]

Sure, you could be a Koranic creationist instead of a Biblical creationist. Either way, you're a fundie.

What about an Agnostic creationist? What about the Raelians?

They don't really fit the standard definition of creationists, although they're definitely idiots.

I think that the Raelians actaully make more sense than the fundies (after all, there is a greater probablilty we were created by aliens, than by an invisible man in the sky). But, they're definitely idiots.

But what about people who don't follow any particular religion, yet believe in God and that they were created by him (not necessarily folowing Genesis)?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Darth Wong]

But what about people who don't follow any particular religion, yet believe in God and that they were created by him (not necessarily folowing Genesis)?

Those people are just Christians who went vague.

[fgalkin]

But what about people who don't follow any particular religion, yet believe in God and that they were created by him (not necessarily folowing Genesis)?

Those people are just Christians who went vague.

But are they necessarily fundies, since they don't believe in the literal interpreation of the bible?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Howedar]

A Creationist view need not strictly adhere to the version in the Bible (or Koran, or Torah, or whatever religious text we choose to talk about). Thus, one could be a creationist and not a fundamentalist.

[Darth Wong]

A Creationist view need not strictly adhere to the version in the Bible (or Koran, or Torah, or whatever religious text we choose to talk about). Thus, one could be a creationist and not a fundamentalist.

OK, how many creationists are out there who are willing to admit that the Bible (or Koran, or Torah, whatever applies in his/her case) is not true?

[Frank Hipper]

A Creationist view need not strictly adhere to the version in the Bible (or Koran, or Torah, or whatever religious text we choose to talk about). Thus, one could be a creationist and not a fundamentalist.

How could someone adhere to the fundamentals of a religion and at the same time dispute that religion's fundamental texts?

[Howedar]

OK, how many creationists are out there who are willing to admit that the Bible (or Koran, or Torah, whatever applies in his/her case) is not true?

Not to delve into a semantics argument yet again, but there's a difference between calling a religious text a collection of lies and saying that it is not completely literally correct.

Also note that I didn't say that these people are especially common...

[Darth Wong]

OK, how many creationists are out there who are willing to admit that the Bible (or Koran, or Torah, whatever applies in his/her case) is not true?

Not to delve into a semantics argument yet again, but there's a difference between calling a religious text a collection of lies and saying that it is not completely literally correct.

If they're saying that evolution is not true because the Bible says so, they obviously think that the most absurd and stupid parts of the Bible are correct.

Also note that I didn't say that these people are especially common...

I would like to meet one, just for scientific curiosity.

[Howedar]

If they're saying that evolution is not true because the Bible says so, they obviously think that the most absurd and stupid parts of the Bible are correct.

Golly, a stupid person? I've never met one of those.

I would like to meet one, just for scientific curiosity.

Maybe you already have. I guess it depends on how different from literal interepretation you can get and still call it "creationism."

[fgalkin]

A Creationist view need not strictly adhere to the version in the Bible (or Koran, or Torah, or whatever religious text we choose to talk about). Thus, one could be a creationist and not a fundamentalist.

OK, how many creationists are out there who are willing to admit that the Bible (or Koran, or Torah, whatever applies in his/her case) is not true?

Well, I've met one of them. When I was at this summer program at Yale, my roommate (from North Carolina) was a devout Roman Catholic, yet he did not believe in biblical inerrancy. Yet, he was a creationist who did not believe in "macroevolution", i.e. that species could change into other species (although he did believe in "microevolution").

However, he did not insist on the literal interpretation of the Bible (IIRC, it is not a part of Catholic doctrine).

Also note that other than being a creationst, he was quite intelligent (otherwise he wouldn't have gotten into the program in the first place). Hell, when we were doing debates, I managed him to support my topic (legalization of marijuana).

Although we did have some scary fundies there.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Hobot]

Also note that other than being a creationst, he was quite intelligent (otherwise he wouldn't have gotten into the program in the first place). Hell, when we were doing debates, I managed him to support my topic (legalization of marijuana). icon_biggrin.gif

I don't think intelligence has too much to do with whether one is a fanatic/fundie or not. One example of this is Fred Phelps. He may be one of the most fanatical fundies on earth, but he is pretty intelligent (unfortunately).