2 Creations, 2 Worldviews

Richard Lederer once said that there are three kinds of people: those who can count and those who can’t.

In terms of how we relate to others, there are just two kinds of people. Those who implicitly trust other people, and those who are implicitly suspicious of other people.

Of course, any individual may be “good” or “bad” at any particular moment in his life. What I’m talking about here is our assumption about the most-essential nature of human beings. Deep down, when everything is stripped away, are we essentially “good,” or essentially “bad”? I’m saying that all of us go through life consciously or unconsciously believing most of the time in one or the other.

This is not necessarily a religious or spiritual belief, but there is a religious framework for it. Among Christians and Jews these two groups are divided into those who have an affinity with the first creation story (people are essentially “good”), and those who have an affinity with the second (people are essentially “bad”).

There are two separate and distinct creation stories in the bible. The first is the seven-day creation, which begins, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth...” For each of the first six days, Gods speaks, and something is created. When God is halfway done, God looks out and sees that creation is “good.” When God is completely done, God looks over all of creation, including humans, and sees that is is “very good.” On the seventh day, God rests.

As a religious person, if this story resonates with you, you believe that human nature is essentially good. Indeed, very good.

The second creation story is the one with Adam and Eve, and it comes from a different tradition than the first. We know this right away because the name of God becomes “Lord God.”

In this story God forms Adam from the dust of the ground, and then uses Adam’s rib to create Eve. Then the trouble starts when God tells Adam that he can eat from any tree except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The snake tells Eve that it’s really ok to eat from the tree. Eve tells Adam, who then has an apple. God gets mad and throws them both out of the garden.

If this story resonates with you, you likely are suspicious of human nature.

Creation Stories and Us

Exactly what is legend and what is history continues to divide us. The creation stories at the beginning of the bible are a great example of this. Some people discard the stories as barbaric, others reverently worship the details and take them literally. Reasonable people find themselves somewhere between these two extremes.

Most people never read the actual stories. Just as very few people read the actual text from which the ten commandments are taken. (People seem to like the list better, even though it is a broad interpretation.)

Whatever we feel or believe about the creation stories, what matters is this: all people live based on the premise of either the first or the second. And that’s the truth of the matter.

Premise of first story: human beings are inherently good. As in: on the sixth day “God looked over all that he had created and saw that it was very good.”

Premise of second story (Adam and Eve): human beings are inherently bad. So bad that they were thrown out of the garden.

The King James Version

The King James Bible was published almost 397 years ago.

At the time, words like “doth” and “sayeth” were no longer used. In fact, they hadn’t been common for many years. But the authors wanted to give the book the sound of an ancient document.

The influence of the King James bible on our culture and language is considerable. This is especially obvious in the liturgies and beloved hymns of churches.

Fondness for the King James version sometimes goes too far. This is usually harmless, even amusing. For example, you can sometimes hear people pray using words from the King James--“thee,” “thou,” “leadeth” and “wouldst.”

I think the unconscious assumption is that King James English is God’s language. So God will understand you if you use it when you pray.

Due to the fact that the King James bible was used for hundreds of years to teach English to children, its rhythms, poetry and images have become embedded in our language. It was the bible that accompanied the westward expansion across the U.S., and so is part of our history.

It is beautifully and vividly written, and has been mined extensively for creative inspiration.

But respect and affection for this book are sometimes taken way too far. For example, some congregations and individuals consider the King James bible to be the only “true” bible. This is logically impossible, of course, unless you assume the book dropped out of the sky in 1611, and was therefore not based on any previous bibles.

And unless you assume that God speaks only English. King James English.

Religious and Anti-Religious Fanatics

Virtually all publicized religious debate and news is dominated by fanatics (sometimes called "fundamentalists"). There are fanatics on both sides of every issue, including whether there is a god or not. Two examples of fanatics who have gotten lots of attention are Pat Robertson and Bill Maher.

Robertson seems to enjoy the spotlight so much that he deliberately makes obnoxious assertions about what God wants or is going to do. Either that or he really believes God is sending messages for him to send along to us. Either way, he has a problem.

Bill Maher is another perfect example of a self-righteous fanatic. He is an atheist, though he has labeled himself a "rationalist," which is simply incorrect. A fanatic by definition cannot be rational. And Maher is far from rational when he brings up religion on his HBO show. He talks about it with foul, dripping loathing. You can hear it in the way he says the word “religion”: REEEE-LIH-JOHNNNN, drawn out with equal emphasis on each syllable.

Maher lumps all religious people together and effectively calls them superstitious, deluded and stupid. Using hugely broad stereotypes is a classic characteristic of a fanatic. Maher has occasionally been rebuffed and criticized for this on his show, often by people whom he’d never expect to be religious.

I have to give him credit because, after each of these incidents, he does seem to moderate himself for a while. Until something new sets him off.