View Single Post
  (#37 (permalink)) Old
TakeTheLeap Offline
Member
Senior TeenHelper
*******
 
TakeTheLeap's Avatar
 
Name: Emily
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Location: Virginia

Posts: 983
Points: 19,139, Level: 20
Points: 19,139, Level: 20 Points: 19,139, Level: 20 Points: 19,139, Level: 20
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: Can you look at religion scientifically, and still believe God exists? - July 24th 2009, 01:29 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by onion View Post
The Bible says it; I believe it.

So, do you believe, in your heart of hearts, that the world is only 4,000 years old?
According to the bible, the earth was created in 7 days. The earth as we see it? Or maybe something different that evolved into what it is today? According to science, it took a LONG time for the earth to form the way we see it. Big Bang took a minimal amount of time, but life developed over a series of thousands, and even millions of years.

But let me pose this question for you:
Is "7 days" (well, 6, but 7 because of God's resting day) in the bible really that literal? Or is it possible that when the Bible was written, people couldn't fathom such a HUGE amount of time, so the people (yes, people) who wrote the bible, put it in words that people could understand? Is it possible that, when the bible was written, they didn't understand the earth's past so they couldn't write quite so accurately as we see things now, but by writing what they knew and understood? So isn't it possible that science and religion can coincide? If we don't take the Bible quite so literally, everything can fit. People have this strange conception that you either have one or the other. But what about Christian scientists? Why not confirm one with the other?

Taking the bible literally is NOT necessarily what they meant when they wrote it. Yes, some of it can be literal, but, even Jesus told parables. There are stories all throughout the bible that are meant to teach a lesson. That doesn't mean you should take it literally.
A tiny passage may not mean what you want it to mean if it's in the context of a story. You can't sit here and quote verses without knowing the full text. If you're going to quote, quote a chapter rather than a verse. Some things end up being negated, or the meaning could be changed. Or it could just be a story.

Take, for example, the Levitical Laws. The entire book of Leviticus is almost entirely filled with the, "Code of Conduct," for Jews. The first 5 books of the Old Testament, the Pentatuk, is the Jewish Torah. While, yes, there are some important things to learn from these books in both Judaism and Christianity, you can't sit there and tell me that you believe every law in Leviticus. There are WAY too many to be able to know and follow them all. In Leviticus and Deuteronomy alone, I believe there are 400, if not more, laws the Bible says we should follow.
As you well know, we don't follow all of those. Most Christians eat pork, which Jews consider to be unkosher. If the Bible states that we shouldn't eat unkosher foods, why do we do it?
Who's to decide what parts of the bible we should follow, and what parts we shouldn't? Why do people choose to quote some verses but not others? If it confirms their beliefs, they quote it. If it makes them question something they believe, they don't. And when people question a verse, or quote something else they don't like, they just waive it, or say, "That doesn't mean anything." But why doesn't it?
If the Bible says it, and you believe it, why don't you follow everything the Bible says?


“Don't get too comfortable with who you are at any given time. You may miss the opportunity to become who you want to be." ~Jon Bon Jovi


Last edited by TakeTheLeap; July 24th 2009 at 04:09 AM.