Welcome to Gaia! ::

Understanding that the Bible is mostly metaphorical and cannot compete in the same arena as science,* we must also endeavor to keep science separate from Biblical passages. Therefore, I will also ask people not to attempt to refute anything scientific with biblical passages, and to acknowledge that scientific studies cannot directly refute Biblical passages. If neither refutation nor verification is possible, and science contradicts the Bible's teaching, consider the passage as metaphorical; if it makes sense and agrees with concepts elsewhere in the Bible, that's probably how it was intended.

E.g., The Bible says protein is an abomination, and should not be consumed.

A refute of this is invalid if it says something like "Science says it isn't wrong, and we should."

A valid refute would instead be "Science says we need protein to survive. The Bible says we should take care of our bodies, therefore this verse is in error and refuted."

See?

*Physics, in the Bible-taken-literally, only makes sense if you believe in a flat earth, with heaven above the sky and hell below the ground. Science and personal experience tell us this is quite obviously not so now, and history, science, and personal experience tell us that the universe doesn't actually gain new dimensions that often. However, a metaphorical interpretation of Jesus's ascension (spiritual ascension) agrees with concepts elsewhere in the Bible, and also allows for science to agree with it; The universe becomes 11D (4 of which we experience, three of which we manipulate), and Jesus's bones can passibly be found on earth.



I'd also like to add on to The_Mortician's rules as follows:

#1: Sources must be cited from reputable places. Focus on the Family, TalkOrigins, National Geographic and the CCRC are all reputable sources, though biased, because they are well-known and easily verified. Neopets, LiveJournal, Blogspot, tripod.com and your new-age aunt from Alabama are not valid sources, because they are impossible to verify and very rarely include sources for their works, which anyone can add to. NOTE: Wikipedia is valid, simply because it is so often used and misleading or incorrect edits are fixed quickly.

#2: Please use grammar that is correct (Within reason; ending sentences with prepositions and the like is allowed.), and punctuation that is PERFECT. This is the only warning you get, if there are no capitals or periods in your wall of text, I will delete it without warning. If you are not completely up to speed with spelling, try typing your posts in Microsoft Word, and use the spell check there.

#3: Be prepared to defend your interpretation of the Bible verses you cite. Saying Acts 5:93 says "Mendori is king of France" does not make me King of France simply because you know how to cite verses.

#4: Be logical about it, and try not to spam too much.