Talk:Creation within belief systems

Christianity Section More Sophisticated than Actual Myth
I think the Christianity section is rather unclear and doesn't seem to bear much resemblence to what is written in Genesis. In fact, I'd say it adds quite a bit more than what is actually written there and seems to do this to make Christianity's creation myth seem more sophisticated than it actually is. I don't think that what is written in Genesis is any more sophisticated than what is written for the Aztec or Babylonian myths.

I think that what is written here is a modern interpretation of the Genesis myth. Let's get the actual myth on here please and leave the interpretations as links.

Clan-destine 22:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm modifying the Christian myth to fit the format of the other myths. The eloquent and modernized interpretation of Genesis is still in the wiki history. I hope someone relocates it to another more appropriate article like Christian theology or Creationism. Clan-destine 23:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

First Cause
The First Cause argument is simply an argument for theism in general, not Christianity in particular. I.e. there must be a first cause for everything in existence and that first cause must have been a divine being. This being could have been the Ainu Kamui, the Bakuba Mbombo, or the Christian Yahweh. Therefore, Christianity has no special claim to the First Cause argument.

Furthermore, an argument like First Cause is an apologetic meant to defend the plausibility of a creation myth. It has no place in the simple exhibition of the myth itself. Therefore it has no place in this article. It should be placed under Creationism or theistic apologetics. I am removing it from this article.

Clan-destine 15:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Organization
I'm organizing the myths by region of origin for clarity. Clan-destine 16:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Merged
I've merged this article with origin belief. ornis 08:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)