Science and religion - are they compatible?

[karl]

Christ is the only totally unique one of His kind; He is Theos-Anthropos. He is the God-man. He is fully God; He is fully man. There is no other like Him in the whole of the universe. At some time in the future we will be like Him, but we will not be gods. And the Father and the Holy Spirit will always be gods. But throughout the rest of history and eternity there will be no other like Christ; He will be the monogenes for eternity: The only and very unique one. He became the bridge between God and man. But in order to do so, He gave up the benefits of being God (Philippians 2) and took up the frailties of men. Now He is a combination of God and Man's future being. Thus it is important to me to remind and to indicate this very important uniqueness. There will be nothing like Him in all of creation except for Him: He is the monogenes Son of God and of Men.

DEEP!

Thanks for this, Searcher.

[John317]

I appreciate your post very much and like much that you say, but I believe the Bible teaches that we worship One God, not gods. All three persons of the Godhead, are God. "God" is like a family name or title, not a personal name. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, yet they are One God, not three gods. They are separate and distinct persons but they are of one mind and one purpose, working together for the salvation of humans.

Thoughts?

[Dr. Shane]

Indeed!

Actually, someone else has already done the job for me:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/did_phil_jones_admit_that_theres_no_global_warming/

I read this article. While I agree many right-wing commentators are taking Dr. Jones (not Indiana) out of context, taking his words in their context is a far cry from the sky-is-falling cry that got Al Gore Jr. his Nobel Peace Prize.

It does seem that Global Warming has slowed down over the past 15 years. Has this been because carbon emissions have also slowed down? I doubt that. So if Global Warming is man-made, why has it slowed down over the past 15 years.

The admission that the Earth was warmer during the mid-evil times also seems to open the door to Global Warming being caused by something other than man - like solar activity.

[karl]

It does seem that Global Warming has slowed down over the past 15 years. Has this been because carbon emissions have also slowed down? I doubt that. So if Global Warming is man-made, why has it slowed down over the past 15 years.

The admission that the Earth was warmer during the mid-evil times also seems to open the door to Global Warming being caused by something other than man - like solar activity.

Analyses of global and local temperature fluctuations are well described by a Levy-walk statistical distribution. In fact, a comparison of the mathematical coefficients that describe the fluctuations suggest that the atmosphere directly inherits its temperature fluctuations from the variation in solar flare activity.

Good article here: http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/642-2.html

But the money being poured into global warming "research" has gone from 100 million to 2 billion in the last ten years. They who pay the piper call the tune. "Scientists" are working hard to find any correlation between human industry and global warming.

[jasd]

>>Have some issues do we?<<

Pluralis Maiestatis?—if not, then I suppose I might respond with, “Don’t we all?”

>>I am sorry. But I do find your arguments illogical.<<

Hmmm, ...’pears to be an overarching opine; however, it lacks supporting architecture – such as one, two, or more specific for instances, which may have then lent gravitas to the above.

>>But I am not you, and I do not know how you have arrived at your conclusions.<<

I write as the HS leads. And you..., how have you arrived at yours?

>>And if we had time, I could come to understand how you came to your positions. But I would never accept them.<<

Which, of my positions, exactly, do you have a brief with?—and why would you not accept Biblically based positions? You’re not cultic, are you?

>>I find nothing original in your thought;<<

Should my “thought” have, necessarily, been “original”? Why should that be so?

>>I have heard every one of your thoughts before in many forums and from many people; many much smarter than me.<<

Aww, c’mon..., you’re not the wizard of smart? [/just tweaking]

>>But I have also seen the result of such thought, I personally do not want to go there.<<

Again, what thought? Why so coy? In my neck of the woods we have a saying, “Quit scratchin’ like a chicken – and put that little foot right out...

>>There is a reason that I go by either the searcher or the seeker. I have this belief that if truth is truth, then it will stand up under the closest scrutiny.<<

So, these nine blind guys walk smack into the side of an elephant; whereupon, following a brief session of touchy-feely, they each began to pontificate upon the physiology of an elephant? Of course, they were happiest when

not withstood re their own perceptions.

>>Everything which I believe is subject to re-visitation. But it is based upon a return to the Biblical texts and a re-study under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I happen to believe that EGW was correct when she said, "Let no-one believe that we have all truth and that all our understanding of truth is correct. We have much to learn ..."<<

Good on top her!—for we find her visiting the doctrine of the Trinity – some half-century late.

>>I do not have the corner on truth, I am a seeker and searcher.<<

Meaning, that you’re receptive to a better understanding of Writ? ...not so nugatory, after all, eh?

>>But there are some things which are settled for me. [...] 2. Sinful man does not accept God's word because it either disagrees with his morality or it disagrees with his intellectual arrogance.<< [ed.jasd]

Are you saying that you are not “Sinful”?

>>3. I do not believe the scientific method necessarily arrives at truth.<<

Not “necessarily” – but perhaps? Disabuse me should I err, but isn’t linguistics a science?

>>4. Rather, I believe that truth can only be sorted out through the Holy Spirit.<<

Truth wears many guises.

>>5. Yes, I have a mind, and I have thought processes, but I believe that we have lost the ability to think properly when it comes to spiritual truth.<<

Spiritually jaded?—maybe just blasé?

>>6. Only God can renew our minds so that we can properly use the intellectual gifts which God has given us.<<

Oh, okay..., you may be correct; however, you present the position as though Gd were chary. I don’t think so.

>>7. I also believe there are angels who are more than willing to guide our thoughts in the wrong direction.<<

Bummer, eh? That said, I repeat what I’ve stated on occasion, “Man doesn’t need the influence of this or that angel to sin, he is quite capable and sins with abandon all by his lonesome.” [/paraphrased]

>>I have come to distrust myself when it comes to God's truth.<<

That’s sad. I, on the other hand, trust that Gd’s hand is not short, and that it is ever so to the benefit of His sons and daughters.

>>And I am constantly asking for God to show me the right way. I have come to trust His guidance instead of my thought processes when it comes to scientific, historical, and salvatory truth.<<

I suspect that one’s thoughts and Gd’s guidance go hand in glove, as it were – and that we are adjured to search [even] the “scientific, historical” (maybe most specifically) – for salvific truths.

>>...each person must be fully persuaded in their own mind, as Paul reminds us in Romans 14.<<

Exactly!—however, persuasion is arrived-at through means informative.

>>I pray that God will guide in the direction you take. I believe you are an intelligent person, and truth will have its way in you.<<

His hand is not short..., neither is His ear heavy.

[BobRyan]

<Bob responding to the title of this thread>

Junk-science fraud, hoax etc is not compatible with the Bible.

Wild looney stories about "birds coming from reptiles" that have no basis in observed fact - are not science and are not compatible with God's Word.

That is the easy part.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

According to the Church of England, they are:

It is easy to see that science and the Bible would be very compatible.

But even atheist evolutionists have a hard time with the "stories easy enough to tell but they are NOT science" when it comes to the practice of bending the fossil record to support stories about "how one thing came from another".

in Christ,

Bob

[jasd]

Several things: Writ states it, Gd spake it, Jesus Christ reaffirmed it – men, unto the word of Gd came, are gods (Jn 10:35) – not some future time, but right now, gods.

Acts 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Jesus Christ was Theos-Anthropos prior to the crucifixion, but Acts 13:33 seems to indicate that it was post-crucifixion that Gd declared “this day have I begotten thee.” The definition for “begotten” appears to lie elsewhere. Perhaps it is as it was with Isaac: it lies with an inheritance.

Incidentally, how many Old Testament texts address a Son of Gd?

[jasd]

Uh, Bob, are you okay? Get a grip, okay?

>>Wild looney stories about "birds coming from reptiles" that have no basis in observed fact - are not science and are not compatible with God's Word.<<

It was EGW who forwarded a "beautifully feathered, flying serpent". So, "observed fact" aside (wha's that? given the time frames you often utilize in attempting discredit evolutionists...), it is from within your .Org that substantiation for such a creature arises.

I don't see how you can so excite yourself, as your arguments have tended to the 'grab, drag, and drop' ...

:-(

[The Searcher]

Dear John317,

I did not use an article before the term gods indicating a quality. God is one, but each member of the Godhead has the physical quality of a god. Remember John 1.1-3 declares that the Word was in a beginning with God and He was a god. Let us understand something which needs to be clearly understood. Each member of the Godhead is a god, and each member is a distinct personage, and the Concept of The God does not deny this truth. Rather, as I study the concept of The God, it is a concept of unitedness. These three are so totally intimate that they act as one; they act in such concert as to appear to be acting as only one. There is no disagreement on the actions taken. Rather they work in perfect harmony in order to achieve common purposes. In Romans 8 we are told that the Holy Spirit knows the Father so well, He knows what is in his thoughts and will act accordingly. Christ declares that God, the Father, and He are one. Each has a role to play, but each role is towards a specific common goal. There is no divergence whatsoever.

Elohim is plural for a reason, because there are three distinct persons who make up The Godhead. The I Am in Genesis declares, 'Let "us" make man in our own image.' There is a clear acknowledgment of power and co-operation among the three. Maybe I am a heretic, but I do not have a problem acknowledging the Godhead as having three distinct personages each with the quality of a god. Physically, there are three distinct persons; each with the qualities of a god.

I believe marriage is a model of that relationship. A man is to leave father and mother and become cleved to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. Will they ever merge physically to become one body in their marriage? No, they will always be two very distinct physical beings. But they can become united in purpose and achieving their common goals.

I believe we do a disservice when we make ONE stand for only, when it clearly stands for a union. The Godhead is a union of three distinct personages; they are completely united in purpose and work. They are the ONE GOD. They work so intimately together that they act as though there is only one God.

And this is what they desire for all of the universe. To become one in purpose and goal. To be so totally intimate with God and each other that all of our actions will be towards a common purpose and a common goal. When we act as a body with all the myriad personalities and capacities it will be towards the accomplishment of the same purpose and goal. Each of us will be a physically distinct member of the universal family, but we will work in concert toward fulfilling the same goals. That is what The God desires among our church fellowship here on earth. We love one-another to the point where we merge our unique abilities and personalities to the achieval of a common goal: the Salvation of our fellow beings. There is One Church, but many members. There is One God but three distinct personalities.

Sincerely,

The Seeker