I don't understand the need for fundamentalists to insist the earth is only 6000 years old. It's as if you don't believe that point, you don't have any faith whatsoever.
Another thing I don't understand---using science to try to disprove God's existence.
The first one IS necessary is you want to take a literal interpretation of the Bible, but I've found you have to ignore quite a few basics of science to do that, to the point of flat earth society logic.
The second one is sillier---physical law IS God's law. If you can't make the leap of faith to put a face on the order of the universe, then physical law is your God.
Faith by definition is that which can't be proven. I believe, though, some aspects of faith can be disproven. Test everything, hold fast to that which is true.
I believe God created physical law and constants, matter, and energy in exactly the way necessary so that the end result would be me blogging about Him today. This creation included not yet fully understood evolution and an old, old universe.
3 comments:
Assuming that the Bible is the word of God (as I believe) as told to man you have a pretty bad filter for that informations translation.
If your belief includes an omnipotent, omniscience deity. Then said being would have foreknowledge that the translation errors would be flawed.
Depending on the critical nature of said information the Deity would have taken proper steps to insure that message made it to the intended recipients.
So what we have is fundamental truth that is wrapped in a conundrum of material.
One might extrapolate the exercise of reading and striving for understanding, is the message.
Sure. You need a few tools to read the Bible---Language, for one. A basic knowledge of agricultural practices, since there are many agrarian metaphors. Since Kings I describes the value of pi as 3, and through observation I've found it to be more, I think the Bible's literal accuracy is 3/pi.
I'd amend your tools statement as follows: You need to develop tools as you read the Bible.
Post a Comment