I used to be a big fan of using science to try to prove things in the Bible. I was big into reading about creationism and the science behind that and all that jazz. Then one day, I realized that it didn't really matter. We didn't need science to believe the Bible. Still..we spend time doing just that. I remember thinking about the possessed people that Jesus healed. I would wonder if maybe they weren't really possessed but instead they were epileptic or something. I asked somebody about that and they said something about that maybe that could be the case...but why don't you take the Bible for what it says? I thought...hmmm...that's a good point. I watched The Exorcism of Emily Rose this last weekend. I must say that it was a pretty good movie. It wasn't so much about the exorcism as it was about a battle of believes. It was a battle of science versus God...of the real versus the supernatural... I thought it was really well done. It reminded me a lot of my days of wanting to prove the Bible with science. I guess it is hard to be a scientist and want to take the Bible by faith. Scientists tend to be pretty analytical and we want proofs for things. It definitely is hard to be a scientist and be a straight up "the world was created in seven days" creationist. I know I used to be...now I am totally not. I think that microevolution is amazing...and I am glad that God gave it to us as a way to adapt. I remember being at
Ok...I totally don't think this post made any sense...but oh well.
*I am going to start private tutoring today. I am going to try to find more people to tutor. Somebody told me I shouldn't charge any less than $20 an hour...I felt bad even asking that...but the lady was totally fine with it...so maybe for the next person I will try to up it...hmmm. This could be a gold mine.
*Have a good day!
9 comments:
I'm assuming you hold yourself to be a creationist. Do you believe that the 7 days were literally 7 days, or that the days are not "days" in the sense that we think, but could symbolize a larger time span? I guess what I'm really asking is if you think everything in the Bible should be interpreted as exactly literal. If that's the case, then all Christians should hold to the Catholic/Orthodox belief in transsubstantiation that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ.
After all, Jesus says in John 6:43-66 (NIV):
"43"Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. 44"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.'[d] Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. 46No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. 48I am the bread of life. 49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"
61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."
66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him."
Most Protestants/Evangelicals quote this line of scripture and say that it was meant to be only in a symbolic sense. However, shouldn't we interpret this passage literally if that's what we do with the opening chapter of Genesis?
Sorry, I don't mean to fill up your comment space. I was mostly just looking for an intellectual debate of ideas. You can always reach me through my blog at What's the Point?"
Hey, I just read one of your other posts and saw that you're looking into Catholicism. I'm Catholic and also into talking about the Church, my faith, etc.
So...totally was excited for a second...because i thought JB as in Jonathan Bowen had a blog...
Well he doesn't different JB because I know JB isnt Catholic..good to have you anyway :)
I'm totally all about microevolution yes, but I wouldn't describe that as an act of God. I mean, I'm sure He saw it coming, but it's not like from His direct divine influence that it occurs. Macroevolution and life itself, however, I totally believe happened with His divine touch. Besides, not like anyone was looking, and Luci hadn't been banned at that point... which brings me to a quick question: If the Garden of Eden was a perfect paradise that Adam and Eve could exist in forever, what was Satan doing there?
Sacul, good point.
I'm not sure if there is anybody that is still respected in the academic community that still holds to seven day creationism. Which is telling of the problem that most of the Christian world (not all) don't care about education. Cause hey, what the hell do you need to be educated for if you've got the Holy Spirit? Right?
thanks addie :)
Sheesh! (The real JB, lol)
I found an interesting analogy in Velvet Elvis, by Rob Bell. He says that faith is like jumping on a trampoline, and doctrine is like the springs. Some people need to believe in creation in order to experience God. For them, their belief in creation is a spring. Some people know God better when they understand the Trinity. Their belief in the Trinity is a spring for them. But the point isn't the springs, the poing is jumping. The point isn't doctrine, the point is living with God. There's no need to remove someone's spring by convincing them that the doctrine they believe is wrong. If their belief in it is springing them towards God, then let it be. But if they need a spring, then give it to them.
What if someones spring is the doctrine that God hates children and wants them to burn in hell? And if we remove it then that person wouldn't be nearly as fond of God? Surely this person is sick but all the same they are closer to God. Should we have a problem with that. Unless you have the market on God Knowledge cornered than I think your world picture fails miserably. As does every other word picture that tries to explain a philosophical or theological mystery.
Post a Comment