A scientific message for all

[_Fence Sitter]

I'll see your strawman and raise you a strawman.

Number of people whose life expectancy has increased due to religion since Chirst=0
Number of people whose life expectancy has increased due to science since Chirst=Billions and Billions.

All who are saved, 100% of them are saved because of what Christ did. You see death as an end, I see it as the pathway to the next reality. I find it interesting that as men become more prone to run from God that life expectancy went up. It seems that God is giving people more time to come to Him.

Regardless of whether or not there is an afterlife you cannot discount what science has done for mankind by comparing it to religion.

[_sheryl]

I'll see your strawman and raise you a strawman.

Number of people whose life expectancy has increased due to religion since Chirst=0
Number of people whose life expectancy has increased due to science since Chirst=Billions and Billions.

From John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

The Greek word translated as Word in the above is logos. The word logos was established in 600 BC to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. Curious, biology, anthropology - all science firlds ending in -logy are pointing to logos, logy is logos.

In other words, according to John, we cannot speak of science separate from Christ who is logos, the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. And so saying that life expectancy has been increased because of science, is akin to saying life expectancy has been increased by Christ. At least according to Apostle John. Christ=Science.

Shalom!

Sheryl

[_Fence Sitter]

I'll see your strawman and raise you a strawman.

Number of people whose life expectancy has increased due to religion since Chirst=0
Number of people whose life expectancy has increased due to science since Chirst=Billions and Billions.

From John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

The Greek word translated as Word in the above is logos. The word logos was established in 600 BC to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. Curious, biology, anthropology - all science firlds ending in -logy are pointing to logos, logy is logos.

In other words, according to John, we cannot speak of science separate from Christ who is logos, the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. And so saying that life expectancy has been increased because of science, is akin to saying life expectancy has been increased by Christ. At least according to Apostle John. Christ=Science.

Shalom!

Sheryl

Sort of begs the question don't you think?

While I may accept Christ as a historical figure, beyond that I do not consider him an authority. He does not seem to have left us any of his own writings. You argument would have the same weight if you substituted any other of the many beings mankind has worshiped/created over his brief existence.

[_Franktalk]

Regardless of whether or not there is an afterlife you cannot discount what science has done for mankind by comparing it to religion.

That is one way of looking at it. That man independent of God can find knowledge and some truth of nature. That somehow that is independent of any relationship with God and God sits in what is left over. Many think this way and it raises man to a point where he feels he is in charge of his own destiny. I don't view things this way. I think it is God who set the laws of nature and designed what we see. I think it is God that allows us to seek and try and obtain knowledge. But man does not include God in his analysis. Supernatural events are assumed not to exist. Then when man does find some data or a relationship he uses that knowledge to help and to kill. Just how many scientist give thanks to God for this wonderful creation. In times past the great scientist were also men of God. They were driven by a desire to understand God's creation. Now God is pushed aside and it is man who tries to take credit for God's work. Saying things like life came from nothing and the universe came from nothing. So yes indeed man has done some wonderful things but at what cost? Is all of the knowledge in the universe worth your soul?

[_sheryl]

Sort of begs the question don't you think?

While I may accept Christ as a historical figure, beyond that I do not consider him an authority. He does not seem to have left us any of his own writings. You argument would have the same weight if you substituted any other of the many beings mankind has worshiped/created over his brief existence.

Hi Fence Sitter!

When I speak of Christ, as do those of the world's Wisdom Traditions, I am not speaking of a historical figure, but of a living Presence and Power that emanated from God before the beginning. Christ is beyond anything of human imagining. Jesus or Yeshua the Christ, was anointed fully with this Light Presence and Power, and so was this Light Presence and Power in physical embodiment.

It is this Light Presence and Power that is Logos, or the divine reason and plan that coordinates the changing universe. We all have bodies and brains and know that they are limited, and so what of this Light Presence and Power that could be revealed to us in human form is likewise limited.

The key is that Christ is a living Presence that we can know right here and now, intimately, and not a dead historical figure. The dead historical figure can be a gateway for us though, to know the living Presence, if our faith is in the living and not the dead.

The point I was making is that the study of science is the study of Christ. And likewise scientific discoveries that benefit humanity are discoveries or expanding understandings of Christ. So when some one says science, I hear Christ. As do those of the world's Wisdom Traditions.

Shalom!

Sheryl

[_bcuzbcuz]

There is a statement in the Bible that I was referring to.

Rom 2:3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?

Mat 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

As to the scientist of 150 years ago they had the same attitudes that todays scientist have. The data may be different and the conclusions are different but the men are the same. They use what they have and overreach with what they think they know.

You have missed my point entirely. You seem to want to link this article from a 150 year old Scientific America to a concept called science. This article set your buzzers off simply because it is a totally unscientific article in a scientific magazine of some renown. You revel in its un-scientific-ness. You glory in its imprecise language as some kind of proof that scientists can see "holy matters" beyond the scope of science.

I see it as an vestige of religion that tainted the pages of a now, truly great science magazine.

"Infidel France", "this land of Bibles!", "wicked men and seducers","according to prophecy", "hypocrisy and hatred still rankle in the human breast", "christian men, philanthropists and good men", "happy days of millennial glory", "paradise of this corrupt earth", "curse is upon it", "all nature groans", "enlightened by the gospel", "day of redemption".

This not science, it is a sermon. This writer did not know what he was talking about, because he was not talking about anything, other than religious gobbledygook.

You claim he is using scientific method (huh?) mixed with spiritual truth (huh?). "Infidel France"? Which is that, scientific method or religious truth?

No, Franktalk, you'll have to do better than that to mix religious truth and scientific method.

[_Franktalk]

You claim he is using scientific method (huh?) mixed with spiritual truth (huh?). "Infidel France"? Which is that, scientific method or religious truth?

No, Franktalk, you'll have to do better than that to mix religious truth and scientific method.

Science is supposed to study the creation and determine a relationship of the forces and laws. If the laws are created by the Creator and all things are in part controlled by God then all of science is foolishness. If the main power in the universe is ignored then how can science give anyone an accurate picture of reality? By taking some small forces and relationships among the parts man has made some devices which have helped man advance in what we call modern society. Using these devices man has fooled himself about the true nature of reality. Many point to a toaster and declare there is no God.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvhWS0qm2dU

Even the view of the universe is used as scientific proof that God does not exist. That somehow the vastness of space is in some way an argument that we mean nothing. That all we are is so insignificant compared to the universe that that means we are nothing. Science is in love with the creation. It is the creation and not the power behind it. When you love the pot you can't see the potter. The vastness of space and the eternal nature of God and heaven match perfectly. I suspect the vastness of space is way more than we can currently observe. I welcome that vastness and see no problem with it.

Deep inside we are men and the men today are the same as the men 150 years ago. Man in that day wrapped them self with some beliefs and men do the same today. The men who humble them self wrap them self with a belief in God. Men who wish to praise them self wrap them self with a false knowledge and understanding of the creation. They think them self a god because they can understand and manipulate some small part of the creation. Their love of self manifest as love of the creation. No room is allotted for anyone but man who wishes to take all credit for being so wise. My message is that science today is not the same as science of yesterday. But the desires of the nonbelievers is the same. You can wrap your self in any number of wise thoughts but what you think is solid is not. Time has proven that what men believe they know is but a moment of clarity that is soon dashed to pieces as new data is made available. So my message which you may see or not see is simple. Any faith in understand the creation rest on a constantly moving set of ideas. A foolish faith that rests on vapor. But the power behind the universe and the creation is constant and unchanging. There faith is faith in a solid foundation. My reason to post this old scientific article is to point out how silly it is to rest ones trust in something so fluid. But from your comments you can't see that at all. Instead you compare todays wisdom which you assume is correct to yesterdays wisdom which you can see is false. What you can't see is that todays wisdom is just as false as those who lived 150 years ago.

[_bcuzbcuz]

Science is supposed to study the creation and determine a relationship of the forces and laws.

No, science studies and observes; things that can be observed, experiments that can be reproduced. That's what Newton did in the 1600's. A theory defined by empirical observations, even though it took another 100 years before a value could be given to G.

Many point to a toaster and declare there is no God.

No, I point to a toaster and declare I want to toast bread.

Even the view of the universe is used as scientific proof that God does not exist.

No, you're thinking of the Russian cosmonaut, Yuri Gagarin, who supposedly said, while in space, ""I don't see any God up here." But he never made that comment.

Time has proven that what men believe they know is but a moment of clarity that is soon dashed to pieces as new data is made available.

Maybe, maybe not. You are making a generality and all generalities are false, (including this one) The saxophone was patented in 1846 and it still moves me today. Just listen to Charlie Parker, Stan Getz, Paul Desmond or John Coltrane. To Hell with computer music!

What you can't see is that todays wisdom is just as false as those who lived 150 years ago.

I have no crystal ball to see what facts will be still accepted 150 years from now. And your godfaith says that wisdom of today will be nonsense in 150 years. You can get back to me on that one but don't wait longer than 30 years from now...I'll be almost 100 at that time.

[_Fence Sitter]

Hi Fence Sitter!

When I speak of Christ, as do those of the world's Wisdom Traditions, I am not speaking of a historical figure, but of a living Presence and Power that emanated from God before the beginning. Christ is beyond anything of human imagining. Jesus or Yeshua the Christ, was anointed fully with this Light Presence and Power, and so was this Light Presence and Power in physical embodiment.

It is this Light Presence and Power that is Logos, or the divine reason and plan that coordinates the changing universe. We all have bodies and brains and know that they are limited, and so what of this Light Presence and Power that could be revealed to us in human form is likewise limited.

The key is that Christ is a living Presence that we can know right here and now, intimately, and not a dead historical figure. The dead historical figure can be a gateway for us though, to know the living Presence, if our faith is in the living and not the dead.

The point I was making is that the study of science is the study of Christ. And likewise scientific discoveries that benefit humanity are discoveries or expanding understandings of Christ. So when some one says science, I hear Christ. As do those of the world's Wisdom Traditions.

Shalom!

Sheryl

Hi Sheryl,

Are Christ and the Universe the same thing in your view or does Christ have some sort of 'otherness' that separates him from the Universe?

[_Fence Sitter]

That is one way of looking at it. That man independent of God can find knowledge and some truth of nature. That somehow that is independent of any relationship with God and God sits in what is left over. Many think this way and it raises man to a point where he feels he is in charge of his own destiny. I don't view things this way. I think it is God who set the laws of nature and designed what we see. I think it is God that allows us to seek and try and obtain knowledge. But man does not include God in his analysis. Supernatural events are assumed not to exist. Then when man does find some data or a relationship he uses that knowledge to help and to kill. Just how many scientist give thanks to God for this wonderful creation. In times past the great scientist were also men of God. They were driven by a desire to understand God's creation. Now God is pushed aside and it is man who tries to take credit for God's work. Saying things like life came from nothing and the universe came from nothing. So yes indeed man has done some wonderful things but at what cost? Is all of the knowledge in the universe worth your soul?

Frank,

I hope all is well with you and Jo.

The problem with any discussion of this nature between you and I is that we do not agree on the existence and nature of God. I understand the need to ascribe some divine power to creation but I believe that this explanation originates from man. The actions and history of 'God' are exactly what we would expect to see from a man made construct, not one of divine origin. Adding one more 'turtle' to the layer of explanations does not move one closer to understanding the universe, in fact it creates needless complications like trying to explain evil in the face of a caring, omnipotent & omniscient God.

I also think this is very clearly illustrated by the life of Joseph Smith and the work he produced. It is so difficult to explain what he did if you have to include Christian beliefs about God in his actions. Once you move away from a belief that he was directed by the God of Abraham, his life and behavior becomes a lot easier to understand. Since he lived in a time where so much was recorded about what was going on he gave us a wonderful opportunity to study the founding of a significant successful religious movement in recent history. We really do know a lot about what went on back then and are discovering more and more as time goes on. I find it a fascinating subject.


That you and I are having this age old conversation regarding religion, having never met face to face, on computers that are the results of man's scientific advancements is evidence that we both believe in the science of man while only one of us thinks God is necessary to make that happen.