 |
The Bible Compared to Major Contemporary Religious Systems |
The writer of this paper remembers sitting in an anthropology class at a state university in which creationism was being lampooned. In the course of the lecture, the professor stated that American creationists are an unfair lot. Their efforts are exclusively to promote only one version of creation--that of the Judeo-Christian tradition. The professor went on to say that if religious accounts of creation were to be admitted to the public classroom; then, in the interest of fairness (i.e. pluralism), the creation accounts of other belief systems such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and others should be given equal time and equal weight. The question needs to be asked, "is that a valid assertion?" Do these other systems contribute accurate and reliable information to the subject area? Are they on a par with the Bible in that respect? If one comes to the conclusion that a Creator exists, how does one refer to that Creator? What is the Creator's name? Could it be possible that Brahma, Allah, Yahweh, Apsu, The Great Spirit, Zeus and a host of others are simply different cultures' names for one and the same Creator? Do all these systems worship the same creator god but simply call him/her by different names and worship the same god in different ways? What follows is an analysis of the accuracy (gauged in part by the observable universe) of the cosmogonies of some of the dominant, living belief systems today. BUDDHISM: Buddhism, in the purest sense, makes no attempt to address the subject of creation. A collection of Buddha's sayings called the Majjhima-Nikaya contains a section entitled, "Questions Which Tend Not to Edification." In the first sermon in this section, a disciple named Malunkyaputta becomes concerned that the Buddha has not "elucidated" to him whether the world is eternal or not, finite or infinite. When he brings his concern before the Buddha, the Buddha says, in short, that cosmological questions are irrelevant: Since Buddha chose not to address the subject, indeed, considered it irrelevant, there would be no point in including Buddhism in a discussion of origins. However, that leaves unanswered whether Buddhism would prove a reliable source of information on the observable universe. So consider the Buddha's observations on human anatomy: The Buddha asserted our bodily composition contained more earthy element than water. He also thought the body didn't decay while living. Observation has shown our bodily composition to be predominantly water and that decay sets in almost from birth with millions of dead cells sloughing off our bodies each day. Correctly, the Apostle Paul stated that our physical bodies were decaying {2 Corinthians 4:16}. HINDUISM:The reader should be aware that Hinduism has a long history of "being absorbent and syncretistic." Within Hinduism, therefore, there exists a mind-boggling variety of beliefs and practices, making it difficult to speak representatively. What follows, then, is a very general description based on the root literature that may not necessarily reflect the views of a particular branch on Hinduism's tree. In Hinduism, creation, destruction, and rebirth are seen as a never ending cycle conceived as a wheel. The universe is thus eternal--no beginning and no end. This belief shares concepts with the Oscillating Big Bang theory of the universe that asserts there have been multiple cycles of Big Bangs, expansions, then collapses of the universe. Both cosmogonies are confronted with contradictions by thermodynamics and the loss of available energy to create. The secular version fails to address the embarrassing question about origins. But back to Hinduism. Each cycle in Hindu cosmology is said to last approximately 4,320 million years. Many modern cosmologists can live with that time frame. Each cycle ends with the death of one Brahma and the birth of another.[3] Just as Hinduism posits multiple cycles, the system contains multiple creation accounts.[4] According to "The Song of Creation", Mandala X, Hymn 129 of the Rig Veda the gods came after the creation of the world and don't know exactly how or when it took place: The most popular account of exactly how physical creation took place comes from the "Purusa Sukta", Hymn of Man. According to the hymn, in the beginning Purusa--the Universal Soul/Man--was born from the cosmic egg. He was all alone at first. He then divided himself into male and female (Viraj) parts and the two then mated. In one version of the hymn, Purusa and Viraj assume various animal forms to mate and that is how animal life was created.[6] Another form of the hymn has the gods who came after Purusa sacrificing him to make animals and man: One other element of Hindu cosmology as it relates to the observable universe is its depiction of the world. In one depiction, the earth is said to rest on the head of the great serpent Shesha, who in turn is coiled upon the back of a tortoise floating on the primal waters. In another view, the world is a disc resting on the backs of four elephants, who in turn stand upon the tortoise.[8] In summary, Hinduism is a system that first needs to have their gods created. Those gods are ignorant of the how and when of the creative process. The creative process is an endless wheel of creation, destruction, re-creation which flies in the face of the laws of thermodynamics. Contrary to what has been observed, Hinduism posits that the earth is supported, not by gravity, but by giant reptiles and/or four huge members of the family Elephantidae. While these views certainly have a place in social studies, who could honestly admit them as a valid alternative in the creation-evolution discussion? In striking contrast, the Bible agrees with observation on these points. First, it asserts that time and matter had a beginning, are loosing energy, and have an ending {Genesis 1:1; Psalm 102:25-27; 2 Peter 3:7-12}. Secondly, there are passages within the Bible that speak of the earth being suspended upon nothing {Job 26:7} and that state or imply a spherical planet {Proverbs 8:27; Isaiah 40:22; Luke 17:31-36 (here Jesus describes night and day as existing simultaneously on the earth--true of a spherical world, a foreign concept in flat earth schemes.)}. A passage in Job even implies that the earth rotates like a jar on a potter's wheel being marked by a cylinder seal {Job 38:12-14}.[9] The Hebrew verb haphak--"to turn"[10]--can carry with it the idea of rotating or whirling around {cf. Genesis 3:24; Judges 7:13}. In Job 38:14 the action of the verb applies to the earth. ISLAM:The role of Islam in this discussion is somewhat different from that of the foregoing faiths for it developed some 600 years after the birth of Christianity. The earliest writings attributed to Mohammed date from around 615 A.D. The Qur'an itself contains many references to the Judeo-Christian Bible and to prominent individuals and events from the Bible. These references show that the Bible and Judeo-Christian traditions heavily influenced the development of the Qur'an and the Islamic faith. The Qur'an claims that both the Bible and itself come from the same God: In at least this one respect then, nothing is gained or lost by including or excluding the Qur'an in discussions of origins. In the very basic realm of causality, it agrees with the Bible. But there are reasons to exclude the Qur'an from a legitimate place in discussing origins and the process of creation. Understand first of all the the Qur'an sets itself up as inspired and flawless: The question that needs to be asked is, "are these claims verifiable?" When the Qur'an makes literal reference to the observable universe, do its statements agree with what has been tested and observed? For example, consider the Qur'an's stated function of mountains: The author hesitates to use the next references because he is aware of how the Hebrew term raqia has been used to claim the Bible adheres to the ancient and erroneous view of the sky as a solid vault or dome to which the planets, sun and stars are affixed. However, it has been ably demonstrated over and over again that the term as used in Genesis 1 means "expanse" as the New International and New American Standard versions so render it. Understanding the possibility that the Arabic term may have been mistranslated or used metaphorically, it still appears as though the Qur'an accepts the ancient, solid vault view of the sky: There also appears to be some inconsistency in the Qur'an's statement of how and from what mankind was created: CONCLUSION:The purpose of this paper was not to "trash" other belief systems. In fact, the writer thoroughly enjoys the study of other belief systems and believes that they have a place in the study of humanity's varied cultures. One will not understand India, for example, unless one understands Hinduism and the interplay of Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, Christianity and other belief systems upon the history and psyche of the Indian people. The question addressed was whether or not these systems contribute legitimate alternatives to the Bible and science in the ongoing creation-evolution debate on origins and process. With the pressures of a pluralistic society, is it valid to say that these systems' cosmogonies should be given an equal footing with the Bible and observational science? The conclusion is a studied, "No." Yet as has been demonstrated only passingly here, but in great detail by a host of creation science writers, the Bible does contribute meaningful information and correct observations on the origin and processes of the material universe. It is the only reliable contender, and a superior one, to the atheistic model of origins. [See The Bible Compared to Modern Atheism if you haven't read it already.] This conclusion, however, requires some soul searching on the part of creationists. In an effort to communicate the existence of the Creator to those around us, and particularly in the public realm, have we been guilty of hiding the Creator's true identity? In a pluralistic environment, demonstrating a Creator's existence is not enough in correcting error. What happens is syncretism takes over and the individual attaches the identity of his/her personal preference to the Creator: Gaia, Allah, Brahma, Atman, Wicca, etc. Along with that identity one would most likely adopt the religious practices that accompany that deity's appellation. This happened in Samaria after the Assyrian conquest {2 Kings 17:24-41}. In contrast, Yahweh, the Creator God of the Bible, wants there to be no mistake as to His identity. He does not accept syncretism: "I am Yahweh, and there is no other; there is no God besides Me. I will gird you, though you have not known Me, that they may know from the rising of the sun to its setting that there is none besides Me. I am Yahweh, and there is no other....Look to Me, and be saved, all you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other." {Isaiah 45:5-6,22} FOOTNOTES:
|