It's really too bad that there is so much controversy over Genesis 1, because I feel that the evangelical insistence on literally interpreting the days of creation has missed the whole point of this chapter. And that is that Genesis is not science, it is not history, it is propaganda. It was written to make a point, Our God is better than all of your gods.
But there is an even more radical idea in Genesis than monotheism. And it is the idea that humans were created in the image of God, male and female, and that their creation was very good.
No other religion of that time period and era, as far as I am aware of, ever dared to make such a statement. No other world religion--as far as I know--makes that statement now. It's not an inconsequential statement and it is why there is so much opposition to evolution.
Genesis says we are made special, with a purpose. Later on the New Testament took that idea further with Jesus saying "Whatever you do to the least, you do to Me," which is an indirect claim to being God. Further down the road a band of rebels signed a document that started out, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . ."
Why is this so important? Because there is another view, the majority view, that says that humans are not special, and they certainly are not equal. You see this expressed most clearly in the caste system of Hinduism but it's everywhere. It's what drives apartheid and segregation, slavery, bullying, exploitation of workers, the lack of provision for second- and third-class passengers on the Titanic, and eventually leads to the gas chambers and crematoria.
If one believes, truly believes, that each and every one of us is precious because we were created in the image and likeness of God and that to mistreat another is to mistreat God himself, how very different our world would be! The whole Western concept of human rights flows out of this idea. It's not a universal idea. For example, in 1992, then-Chinese Premier Li Peng told Dr. Henry Kissinger that "we can talk about human rights. But because of major differences between us, I doubt major progress is possible, The concept of human rights involves traditions and moral and philosophical values. These are different in China than in the West." (Kissinger, On China, page 464). So, who is right? Are human rights universal regardless of culture ("certain inalienable rights", according to the authors of the Declaration of Independence) or are they locally determined? I've often heard it said that if there is no God then everything is permissible. I think there is a great deal of (symbolic) truth in that statement. I certainly don't write it off.
This I think is the challenge that atheism and agnosticism needs to answer. If there is no God, then what do we substitute as a vision to uplift and encourage people? Or is Li Peng right? Or Peter Singer, who says to put our own species first is akin to racism and that in some cases an animal has more right to life than a handicapped newborn? (He said that in the 1980's and as far as I know, hasn't retracted that statement.) Are some people worth more than others whether it be skin color, gender, sexual orientation, religious or social affiliation, wealth, ability? In ancient Rome it was not possible to abuse one's slaves because the concept of abusing a slave simply didn't exist. You could do anything you wanted to a slave.
I freely admit I am biased here and that my bias is toward Genesis' radical idea. I don't always live it perfectly but I try to live as if it were true. At the end of the day that is what unites me with my church friends even if I share nothing else.
But there is an even more radical idea in Genesis than monotheism. And it is the idea that humans were created in the image of God, male and female, and that their creation was very good.
No other religion of that time period and era, as far as I am aware of, ever dared to make such a statement. No other world religion--as far as I know--makes that statement now. It's not an inconsequential statement and it is why there is so much opposition to evolution.
Genesis says we are made special, with a purpose. Later on the New Testament took that idea further with Jesus saying "Whatever you do to the least, you do to Me," which is an indirect claim to being God. Further down the road a band of rebels signed a document that started out, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . ."
Why is this so important? Because there is another view, the majority view, that says that humans are not special, and they certainly are not equal. You see this expressed most clearly in the caste system of Hinduism but it's everywhere. It's what drives apartheid and segregation, slavery, bullying, exploitation of workers, the lack of provision for second- and third-class passengers on the Titanic, and eventually leads to the gas chambers and crematoria.
If one believes, truly believes, that each and every one of us is precious because we were created in the image and likeness of God and that to mistreat another is to mistreat God himself, how very different our world would be! The whole Western concept of human rights flows out of this idea. It's not a universal idea. For example, in 1992, then-Chinese Premier Li Peng told Dr. Henry Kissinger that "we can talk about human rights. But because of major differences between us, I doubt major progress is possible, The concept of human rights involves traditions and moral and philosophical values. These are different in China than in the West." (Kissinger, On China, page 464). So, who is right? Are human rights universal regardless of culture ("certain inalienable rights", according to the authors of the Declaration of Independence) or are they locally determined? I've often heard it said that if there is no God then everything is permissible. I think there is a great deal of (symbolic) truth in that statement. I certainly don't write it off.
This I think is the challenge that atheism and agnosticism needs to answer. If there is no God, then what do we substitute as a vision to uplift and encourage people? Or is Li Peng right? Or Peter Singer, who says to put our own species first is akin to racism and that in some cases an animal has more right to life than a handicapped newborn? (He said that in the 1980's and as far as I know, hasn't retracted that statement.) Are some people worth more than others whether it be skin color, gender, sexual orientation, religious or social affiliation, wealth, ability? In ancient Rome it was not possible to abuse one's slaves because the concept of abusing a slave simply didn't exist. You could do anything you wanted to a slave.
I freely admit I am biased here and that my bias is toward Genesis' radical idea. I don't always live it perfectly but I try to live as if it were true. At the end of the day that is what unites me with my church friends even if I share nothing else.
