God vs. Science
Submitted by RpLiberty75 on Sun, 08/05/2012 - 22:15"Let me explain the problem science has with religion." The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.
'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'
'Yes sir,' the student says.
'So you believe in God?'
'Absolutely '
'Is God good?'
'Sure! God's good.'
'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'
'Yes'
'Are you good or evil?'
'The Bible says I'm evil.'
The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible! He considers for a moment.
'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'
'Yes sir, I would.'
'So you're good...!'
'I wouldn't say that.'
'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'
The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Can you answer that one?'
The student remains silent. 'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. 'Let's start again, young fella.. Is God good?'
'Er..yes,' the student says.
'Is Satan good?'
The student doesn't hesitate on this one.. 'No.'
'Then where does Satan come from?'
The student falters. 'From God'
'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?'
'Yes, sir.'
'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'
'Yes'
'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'
Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'
The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'
'So who created them ?'
The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. 'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. 'Tell me,' he continues on to another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?'
The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'
The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'
'No sir. I've never seen Him.'
'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'
'No, sir, I have not.'
'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have
you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'
'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'
'Yet you still believe in him?'
'Yes'
'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist... What do you say to that, son?'
'Nothing,' the student replies. 'I only have my faith.'
'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'
The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His
own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat? '
' Yes.
'And is there such a thing as cold?'
'Yes, son, there's cold too.'
'No sir, there isn't.'
The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. 'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold. 'We can get down to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy.. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'
Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding
like a hammer.
'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'
'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it isn't
darkness?'
'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'
The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?'
'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'
The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can explain how?'
'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains. 'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it. Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?'
'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'
'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'
The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.
'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'
The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided. 'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.' The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter. 'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir. So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'
Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face
unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I
Guess you'll have to take them on faith.'
'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?' Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in The multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'
To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'
The professor sat down.
The student (Albert Einstein) wrote a book titled *'**God vs. Science**'* in 1921.
Good and evil
Good and evil are moral judgments which derive from whatever moral standard one is using. They do not exist at all outside of a defined moral context.
For little kids, "good" and "bad" mean doing (or not doing) whatever the kid's parents tell him to do. A kid does not judge such things for himself; his morality is defined by his obedience to the authorities he respects. A little later in life, children reset their moral standard to some religion, wherein "good" and "evil" mean doing (or not doing) whatever God says to do, in the Holy Book of your choice. Again, the child defines his morality as obedience to the standard established by some Authority. Then the unfortunate child is usually incarcerated in a government school for a twelve year course of obedience training and State worship. There he will learn that good and bad are doing (or not doing) exactly what teachers (and "government") tell him to do. He will learn that "following instructions" and "obeying the law" is what makes you a good person, and that "breaking the law" or "taking the law into your own hands" is the definition of evil. Once again, some Authority provides his definition of moral rectitude, and again his cardinal virtue is Obedience.
Is it any wonder that freedom has all but vanished from our world? Men are taught from infancy NOT to judge right and wrong for themselves, but only obey the Authorities in their lives. Men need not meditate upon what principles are true and important -- only to discover WHO proclaimed the judgment. That, I submit, is an obscenity. Where are the adults in this world, the ones who give all the Authority-worshipers their marching orders? The ones who accept the adult, individual responsibility of judging right and wrong for themselves? Are priests and politicians the only true men among us? But even they do not accept individual responsibility for their choices and actions, always passing the blame on to some supernatural or "government" entity beyond human ken.
This little story is well written and amusing, but it is a lie on several levels. The most striking is the final conclusion, that evil is the absence of God. This is barefaced Christian propaganda, a conclusion that is true ONLY in the context of orthodox Christianity. If "good" is doing God's will, clearly doing anything else is "evil." But if one does not accept the premise that "God's will" exclusively defines ones morality, the argument collapses entirely.
And two further thoughts to ponder: like "darkness" and "cold" in the story, "justice" does not exist. Nor does "freedom." "Justice" is nothing more than the absence of injustice (i.e. violations of life, liberty and property). And "freedom" is what you have when no one practices coercion upon you.
Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...
according to your own absurd logic,coercion would not be
wrong. there is no concept of wrong if there is no creator.
Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html
You're not listening.
Right and wrong do not exist outside a defined moral framework. Coercion is not a moral wrong in all moral systems (i.e. in most religions and all statist moral codes). Amusingly, there does not seem to be any wide-ranging proscription of coercion in the Bible, which makes your criticism a little bit weird. On the other hand, in MY personal moral code, which does NOT derive from my regard for a Creator, there IS such a proscription. You want to talk about "wrong?" Everything you said is wrong.
Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...
i went back and reread your post,
you mentioned having morals decided for you. all of us have certain laws written on our hearts with or without another human teaching us. at a certain age all mentally able people come to the knowledge that stealing,killing,and other such vices are wrong.
i posted on another thread one of my favorite articles written on atheism--
http://nogreaterjoy.org/articles/learning-from-the-atheists/
Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html
Hah! Not hardly.
"All mentally able people come to the knowledge that stealing, killing and other such vices are wrong."
First of all, stealing and killing are not "vices." They are crimes: violations of the lives, liberties and property of other people. Do not confuse crimes with vices -- the latter are merely personal choices of which some religion does not approve and which harm no one except (debatably) their perpetrator.
More importantly, MOST people do indeed approve of stealing, killing and other injuries to persons, liberties and property. Killing is mostly applauded -- when "government" names it "war." Stealing is likewise approved -- when "government" names it "taxation" or "eminent domain law" or "asset forfeiture." Sexual assault is now practiced every minute of the day without objection -- when "government" calls it "security screening." Even slavery is approved -- when "government" calls it "fiat currency" or "regulation." "Government" and its "laws" define morality, for most people. If "it's the law" then it is, by definition, moral to "obey the law." Hitler and Stalin would be proud of us.
The one and only law most people have written on their hearts is: Thou Shalt Obey Authority. Parents, Clergy, Government -- all presume to tell us how to live our lives, and wish us to remain mental infants all our lives, following their orders. Liberty is the prerogative of adults with independent judgment. Become one.
Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...
sorry if i used the word vice incorrectly, i'll have to look it
up. my point is human beings know what sin is--even if it is to different extents.
and I do follow a few people's orders just to get along in this world. otherwise, I follow only God. He made me, loves me, gave his life for me, so I figure He has the right to tell me what to do. Besides, even if God didn't punish sin (which he most certainly will because He is just), sin still destroys anything and everything beautiful.
You would have no concept of independent judgement were it not for your creator.
Hopefully you will soften your heart. Religion has really skewed people's idea of God. The following sermon presents Jesus Christ instead of religion.
http://nogreaterjoy.org/audio/getting-to-heaven/?utm_source=...
Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html
well, what Stalin did was right in his moral code,
yada yada, you know where it's going. sorry but I want something more objective. but it really doesn't matter what I want. What matters is what is true and what isn't. my criticism stems from the fact that you seem to be calling something unacceptable, but you have nothing to base 'acceptability' on.
Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html
Objective morality
is an oxymoron. The only place morality can take root is inside an individual mind -- which makes it a subjective phenomenon, by nature and by definition. What you REALLY wish for is some certainty that you have chosen your own moral code wisely. Such certainty is available to you in only two ways: by faith or by rigorous philosophical examination. Faith means believing something to be true regardless of the arguments pro and con. Unfortunately, faith will not keep you from walking into the walls you refuse to see.
Yes, Stalin undoubtedly viewed his own conduct as morally proper -- but so what? You don't judge him by HIS moral code -- you judge him by yours. In just that way, I do regard his behavior a morally unacceptable --as judged by my own moral standards. Your assertion that "you have nothing to base acceptability on" is just jaw-droppingly naïve. Do your truly believe that only Christians can have moral standards? You cannot conceive of a moral code that isn't derived from some supposed divinity? That's sad. Your very existence depends upon your continuing ability to make the choices that will further your life, health and happiness, and you figure the very best way to do that is to study the legends crafted by superstitious Iron Age camel-drivers two thousand years dead? The mind boggles. Do some reading about the non-aggression principle, then ask yourself whether it depends on the existence OR non-existence of God.
Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...
the non-aggression principle must have a God to say
"aggression is wrong". There is no such thing as right or wrong UNLESS a TRUE authority declares it. otherwise it's just humans arguing their opinions.
God is the ultimate freedom lover, and that is why He allows us to choose Him or not choose Him. He doesn't force you by torture, He woos you by love and common sense. And please don't bring up Hell as a torture device. Hell is punishment for sin.
Libertarianism says "you can choose". if you choose rightly there are rewards and if you choose wrongly there are consequences. it's the nature of the universe--cause and effect. God has written it upon every human heart.
Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html
Reality is not a matter of opinion.
That's the point of my comment about "walking into walls you refuse to see." The world is very real, and your choices and actions have real consequences. That's why human beings NEED to have morality: to guide their choices and actions to produce whatever outcomes they desire. This is true whether any God exists or not.
Morality is much more than an arbitrary "matter of opinion": it is a necessary tool for dealing with a real world that rarely gives us do-overs. Morality is your everyday guide to every choice you make, from what you eat for breakfast to the manner in which you deal with your fellow men. If you choose your moral standard arbitrarily, foolishly -- wrongly -- it will not protect your from the consequences of your mistakes. On the contrary, it will guide you to make more mistakes. Therefore, you are correct in asserting that a TRUE moral standard (i.e. one which correctly identifies the nature of reality and which defines an ethical system well designed to actually achieve the consequences you desire) is preferable to alternative systems. Just as a solid, well-made tool that you've created yourself and fully understand is preferable to a shoddy one bought from carnival barker that falls apart the first time you use it.
The quality of the tool is not determined by WHO asserts it. "Authority" does not define reality; reality exists as it is, regardless of our opinions or preferences or the commands of any "authority." The means by which quality is determined is better described as "judgment," than "opinion." The more rigorous and critical the scrutiny with which one examines the tool, the more likely one is to assess its true value. So while you are perfectly free to adopt your religious moral beliefs on faith, by so doing you resolve the question of the quality of your moral code by pretending that the question does not exist -- that mere mortals may not question the moral code defined by your Bible.
So let's see if I've got this right: God created us all, and set us down in a world where our lives and our happiness depend on our correctly identifying the nature of reality and the conduct by which we can most likely achieve happiness. He gave us the power of reason to allow us to do this -- but He doesn't want us to use it. Rather, He wants us to ignore reason and use faith to make our most important choices. Instead of using the power of judgment with which He gifted us, He wants us to behave as intellectual infants, just doing as we are told, world without end, amen?
I have few quarrels with the moral practices of most Christians; anything that's peaceful is okay with me. But my respect for them is very much limited by their choice to substitute Authority for reason. I don't much care that they prefer faith to logic -- but I do care that by abasing themselves before every Authority that comes along, they have created a world of slaves.
P.S. A note to whoever is down-voting this lady's comments: Please stop that. We're having a serious discussion here and if you disagree with her or with me, leave comments explaining your reasons. Stop throwing tomatoes, it's rude.
Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...
funny thing is, I agree with almost everything you just said...
i'm always trying to explain to others that faith is merely acknowledging reality. anything less is credulity and not faith in the biblical sense. i have faith the sun will rise tomorrow--get my gist? God does want us to use reason with hopes it will drive us to Him-the source of life and truth.
Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html
For those who ask "Why does (not) God...."
Because you have Free Will. If God were anthropomorphic and interfered with every tiny little detail it would mean you do not have Free Will. If God were anthropomorphic and passed judge on every tiny little thing He would be like us forever griping and complaining. God is not an anthropomorphic being passing judgement like people (egos) do. We get to create and experience everything and event we wish. God would not interfere with your choices and experiences. God is not made in our ego image. We are made in His image which is to say perfect Creators in/of Mind Consciousness. God is therefore neutral. He sees you as perfect (your Soul) and not as you see your self/ego; guilty, victim, imperfect, etc. Your Soul is a perfect Creator. It creates your everyday life. The ego is your own creation and that creation is based on memories, fears, illusions and suppositions. Set the ego aside and one is Awake - that is what Awakening (becoming as Christ) means. In over 30 years of exploring for answers I've not found any better that "As A Man Thinketh": http://pondscienceinstitute.on-rev.com/svpwiki/tiki-index.ph...
http://www.svpwiki.com/
If he's All Powerful-
then why would he have a jackwagon like Pat Robertson as his 'spokesman'?lol
Not really
What loving god would send good people to eternal burning for not believing in him? What loving god would say he answers prayers in the bible but does not in reality? The student asks if anyone has seen a brain, well yes we have through MRI's. We've also seen thoughts with brain scans. We see evolution everyday in bacteria. Where would we be if for every question we didn't know the answer to we just answered with: "well I guess god did it". We dont need mythology to explain things anymore. Now, if you say that "god" is some sort of force in the universe that helped form the universe; and not that some conscious being created man out of dust and blew air into them that is described in most holy texts, then maybe I wouldn't be so skeptical.
We don't need god anymore. At least, I don't. In fact, im donate much more to charity and help out others than any religious person I know.
"Believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear." - Benjamin Franklin
God doesn't send people to hell for not believing...
please listen to this
http://nogreaterjoy.org/audio/getting-to-heaven/?utm_source=...
Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html
That's a good piece...
not much to argue with other than I have observed evolution as many others have as well. MRSA? Bacterial resistance to antibiotics? Just put some E.Coil on an agar plate with streptomycin (or any other antibiotic) and watch evolution. Otherwise excellent.
Where's the source for this
Where's the source for this story? There isn't one because Einstein was not a xtian.
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
-- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press
Is God willing to prevent
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?- Epicurus
off topic but
interesting. and all this time i thought hell was "hot".
p.s. science now allows us to take a MRI of the professors brain and prove it's there. scientist have also identified the god particle Higgs boson and lot's of other amazing scientific breakthroughs since 1921.
“We have allowed our nation to be over taxed and over regulated and overrun by bureaucrats, the founders would be ashamed of us for what we're putting up with.” Ron Paul
Brain
Sure, science allows us to take an MRI of the brain and prove it's there, but in the story, they can't see it then. They have to take it on faith at that very moment.
Also, science, by it's very definition, can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. Science can only study the natural world; God is supernatural.
“It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till." -J.R.R. Tolkien
Science doesn't need to prove
Science doesn't need to prove or disprove gawd. The burden of proof lies on the believer. Why would we feel the need to disprove something that all eveidence shows is not there? We don't need to prove anything. Fossils=Win.
Amen!
.
This story is an urban legend.
It's good, but, there's no historical record of it being true. Einstein was a Jew so I doubt he would have told the prof tha he believes in Jesus Christ.
Before getting into why a good God would permit evil, one first must answer the question of why a good God would create anything to begin with. What would the purpose be of creating angels, stars, human, animal, and plant life, etc.?
Revelation 4:11 says, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
This makes perfect sense. When human beings make something, they make it for their own pleasure. But, what if they sell it? They still get he pleasure of receiving money out of their creation. But, what if they give it away? They still receive the satisfaction and pleasure that comes with charity. If an older brother makes a toy for his little rother, he older brother is pleased in seeing his younger bro's satisfaction.
So, if a good God made all things for His pleasure, does everything He made. Bring Him pleasure? If so, He couldn't possibly be good since humans and animals can be incredibly evil to one another and many humans don't even acknowledge that their Creator exists.
If God made all things for His pleasure, there is no logical way that anybody could think He created the animal kingdom the way it exists today. The Bible says God created man in His own image (sinless perfection) and that man, by, choosing to disobey His Creator, fell from his state of perfection and God cursed mankind because of it. This meant that man could no longer approach God as he had before because he could no longer bring God perpetual pleasure as he had before because of the fact men and women now lived with a sinful nature instead of a sinless nature as they did before. Since God is good, He is also just and punishes sin. The only way mankind could escape God's anger and judgement on his sin after the fall was to sacrifice an innocent animal such as a lamb or kid goat. In this way, the innocent animal suffered for the sin of the guilty human. However, an animal's blood only covered man's sin; it didn't wash it away. For this, God sent His Son to Earth to be a sacrifice for mankind's sins just like the innocent lambs and goats were.
"But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. . . . By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." - Hebrews 10:3,4,10-14
Christ forgave all sins once and for all
Just because he died in some temporal place, it retroactively applies to all the OT faithful. Israel was the OT Church.
May the LORD bless you and keep you
May the LORD make His face shed light upon you and be gracious unto you
May the LORD lift up His face unto you and give you peace
Follow me on Twitter @ http://twitter.com/Burning_Sirius
Exactly.
.
Augustinian view
which is also the a Platonistic view of evil. Corrupted world and all.
Also Psychologists are returning to St Thomas Aquinas for research on the mind.
Also, Quantum Mechanics are returning to Plato to describe how the universe works! I am personally a Platonist in outlook. Most Americans are Aristitolian in their outlook.
May the LORD bless you and keep you
May the LORD make His face shed light upon you and be gracious unto you
May the LORD lift up His face unto you and give you peace
Follow me on Twitter @ http://twitter.com/Burning_Sirius
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - and 42
I have liked the book and movie well enough, but it's basically a satire between Atheism and Christianity, without it getting too overbearing either way - else where would there be humor.
I can't help noticing though that in the "computer program" called earth, there are 42 generations from Abraham to Jesus, first chapter of the first gospel - Matthew 1.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+1&versio...
So yes, Jesus Christ is the answer.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
Of course, the book could be
Of course, the book could be looked at as making light of the end of the earth and other things it shouldn't.
But the great day of the Lord isn't something to make light of.
This is another book I repent of.
Zephaniah 1
14The great day of the LORD is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the LORD: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly.
15That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness,
16A day of the trumpet and alarm against the fenced cities, and against the high towers.
17And I will bring distress upon men, that they shall walk like blind men, because they have sinned against the LORD: and their blood shall be poured out as dust, and their flesh as the dung.
18Neither their silver nor their gold shall be able to deliver them in the day of the LORD'S wrath; but the whole land shall be devoured by the fire of his jealousy: for he shall make even a speedy riddance of all them that dwell in the land.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
God + Science
= Truth.
So many ancient texts and teaching have written about what quantum science is discovering today. The question is, how did they posses such advanced knowledge? Is it really that advanced to simply hold yourself in a vibrational state of "love" or "god"?
Everything originates from the quantum field, aka God, and WE and EVERYTHING are a part of it. Recent studies of the atom suggest it is an energetic wave rather than a particle that is 99% empty space. So if all atoms are an energy then so are we along with our thought and emotions—e-motion—energy motion. Use the power of your thoughts to induce a positive e-motion in any circumstance to help you think with clarity and (divine) inspiration.
The great secret is that God and Science were once ONE. But THAT knowledge had to be KEPT from the "common people" and could only be known amongst the initiated. Well, that time is coming to a close and the need for Religious metaphors is coming to an end and Spirituality and Awareness of our own divinity is returning—aka the Second Coming. Not of some guy named Jesus, but of the consciousness he was so well in tune with.
How does one RECONNECT with this consciousness? Meditation. Infinite Knowledge, ironically, is found in stillness—in silence—in resonance with the quantum field or "with God in your heart".
“The lips of Wisdom are closed except to the ears of Understanding.”—The Kybalion
"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
Great post!
Freedom Ninja, It is a pleasure to know you! I agree with every word you say. Science does know these things but not conventional science. It does indeed have the components but hasn't put them together yet there being interference from atheistic materialism. I've been collecting and connecting the pieces for nearly 30 years and they all fit when we step out of the box of conformity and separation. There is a sympathy (Love) that links everything to everything. In modern science terms this can be likened to sympathetic vibration (entanglement) on the quantum level. See every quantum particle like a tuning fork perfectly tuned to each of its kind and energy state and you have the concept. This is the omnipresence of so-called God. It is aware of everything everywhere at the slightest touch (or Thought). And there is more, much more to all this. At the highest level is Mind (sub-quantum) that permeates everything and is from which everything is constructed.
http://pondscienceinstitute.on-rev.com/svpwiki/tiki-index.ph...
The duality of Good vs Evil and all the other dualities originate in the thinking intellect of humanity but not in the Mind of God.
http://pondscienceinstitute.on-rev.com/svpwiki/tiki-index.ph...
All of which implies absolute personal responsibility because our Minds are an extension of the Mind of God. Not our intellects but our Whole Minds, undifferentiated.
http://pondscienceinstitute.on-rev.com/svpwiki/tiki-index.ph...
http://www.svpwiki.com/