It makes me rather sad...
Nov. 5th, 2006 10:08 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bladesparkMore stuff on religion. I'm reading through some of the rest of the articles on creationist claims, and they make me very sad. They're basically trying to use science to prove the literal truth of the Bible, and they're having to twist and manipulate and sometimes outright lie in order to do so.
And it totally shames their own faith that they're doing this.
For example, just now I'm reading through a set of claims about Noah's ark, where the reality of the ark is "proved" by Nessie-like sightings of the actual ark still on mount Ararat! And where there are all kinds of convolulted explanations for how Noah and his three sons, and their wives could have cared for that many animals, and so on. And trying to propose "vapor halos" around the earth, or "sub-strata" of water that could come up to the surface, to create a world-wide flood.
Either believe or don't. Believe that God created a miracle and flooded the world, or don't. Trying to "prove" it by science merely proves that your faith is weak.
I believe in Noah. I don't believe the account is 100% literal, or that all details of the account were given. I believe it happened, but I am willing to simply say that I don't know how. And further, I'm quite happy to say that it doesn't matter how. The story of Noah isn't in the Bible to show anything about science or history. It's there to show certain principles, for example, that there are consequences for actions. Noah warned people, they ignored the warning, they died in the flood. That's the point of the story. (Or at least one point. Biblical stories tend to work on multiple levels.) Actions have consequences, and we're responsible for our actions. That's the point of most of the Old Testament. Sin and die, repent and live. The most basic beginning of good behavoir. The New Testament then builds on that with more advanced moral lessons. But the Bible is a moral guide and an object of faith, not a scientific text. And when science disproves something in the Bible, I simply have faith that the Bible is still true, and that it's merely our understanding of what it's supposed to mean that's flawed, rather than stubbonly clingling to the old interpretation.
Sheesh. Will you nutjobs quit giving faith a bad name?
And it totally shames their own faith that they're doing this.
For example, just now I'm reading through a set of claims about Noah's ark, where the reality of the ark is "proved" by Nessie-like sightings of the actual ark still on mount Ararat! And where there are all kinds of convolulted explanations for how Noah and his three sons, and their wives could have cared for that many animals, and so on. And trying to propose "vapor halos" around the earth, or "sub-strata" of water that could come up to the surface, to create a world-wide flood.
Either believe or don't. Believe that God created a miracle and flooded the world, or don't. Trying to "prove" it by science merely proves that your faith is weak.
I believe in Noah. I don't believe the account is 100% literal, or that all details of the account were given. I believe it happened, but I am willing to simply say that I don't know how. And further, I'm quite happy to say that it doesn't matter how. The story of Noah isn't in the Bible to show anything about science or history. It's there to show certain principles, for example, that there are consequences for actions. Noah warned people, they ignored the warning, they died in the flood. That's the point of the story. (Or at least one point. Biblical stories tend to work on multiple levels.) Actions have consequences, and we're responsible for our actions. That's the point of most of the Old Testament. Sin and die, repent and live. The most basic beginning of good behavoir. The New Testament then builds on that with more advanced moral lessons. But the Bible is a moral guide and an object of faith, not a scientific text. And when science disproves something in the Bible, I simply have faith that the Bible is still true, and that it's merely our understanding of what it's supposed to mean that's flawed, rather than stubbonly clingling to the old interpretation.
Sheesh. Will you nutjobs quit giving faith a bad name?
