Voting in favor of your Bible POV - God's Word

[JacksBratt]

"Thing is... most of these scientists with all the letters after their name... are atheistic Darwinian evolutionists....trying to prove to themselves that this universe was not fearfully and wonderfully made by an intelligent designer." That is so wrong that it baffles the mind. Science, to a large degree, has created the miraculous world that we live in today. We have more tools to use today in every field from science to education to economics to the digital world including the very computer that you and I and millions of others use to communicate in cyberspace (via satellites), than ever before in world history.

The science that we have today is not incompatible with God. Except to those who can't accept reality.

If you re-read my post, you will see that I acknowledge solid science.

It is the science that is pseudo science of scribbles on a black board that only 5 or six people can even make some sort of sense of that I'm talking about.

Science like NASA forming this... This is NASA's scientists telling us that this picture represents the shape of our universe... Must be right... nobody can prove them wrong...

 

[K2K]

I dunno. I am sitting at my physical desk typing on my physical computer in my physical house. Am I missing something when you say it's all about the spiritual/heavenly realm around me?

Are you listening to God - God is spirit?

And considering that all flesh is like grass and fades away, how long are you going to be sitting at the physical desk.

There is a place in the OT which about Christ coming it is said that He will come and in an instant be taken away. So 33 years became an instant. So I guess at this instant a person by be able to physically sitting at a desk, but not much longer than that, right?

Still you are correct to say "I dunno'! We first must realize that so that then we might consider that God does know. Then we just have to believe He is there as the "I AM" and ask Him and listen to Him. Then we won't say "God knows", meaning we listen to Him.

Yeah - you might be missing something.

 

[pescador]

Are you listening to God - God is spirit?

And considering that all flesh is like grass and fades away, how long are you going to be sitting at the physical desk.

There is a place in the OT which about Christ coming it is said that He will come and in an instant be taken away. So 33 years became an instant. So I guess at this instant a person by be able to physically sitting at a desk, but not much longer than that, right?

Still you are correct to say "I dunno'! We first must realize that so that then we might consider that God does know. Then we just have to believe He is there as the "I AM" and ask Him and listen to Him. Then we won't say "God knows", meaning we listen to Him.

Yeah - you might be missing something.

I dunno. I am sitting at my physical desk typing on my physical computer in my physical house. Aren't you missing something when you say it's all about the spiritual/heavenly realm around me? (Clue: the answer is yes.)

Jesus was a real person who lived in the real world. I am also a real person who lives in the real world. It's real even if you can't grasp the concept.

 

[K2K]

I dunno. I am sitting at my physical desk typing on my physical computer in my physical house. Aren't you missing something when you say it's all about the spiritual/heavenly realm around me? (Clue: the answer is yes.)

Jesus was a real person who lived in the real world. I am also a real person who lives in the real world. It's real even if you can't grasp the concept.

If you are seeing Jesus as a real person who lived instead of a real person who is living with you via His Holy Spirit, you are missing it!

In that case you are the person who is dying in this "real world" as you call it. The reality is that if you have life it is not of this world. Have we not read that we are in this world by not of this world? Yet that may not apply to all?

I am in this world but My Lord is not of this world. God is spirit and we talk. He explained to Pilot that He is a King but His kingdom was not of this world. And so it is that He also send angels to minister to me, so that I have gotten to know angels also. So why are you saying "I dunno" instead of He knows.

John 8:43 Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word.

If you are hearing from the Lord on days called "Today" then wouldn't you understand that it is not about this world? If you are going to be like the angels in heaven, and they are all ministering spirits, why are you thinking about sitting at your physical desk instead of seeking first the Kingdom of God?

Yeah - I am in this world but not of this world. I might need to consider the things in this world because I, for a brief moment in time and in it, but if I am looking at eternal life then my focus can not be on this world but needs to be on heavenly things.

Phl 3:13,14 ...but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

How is it that we are focused on this "real world" when we are pressing on toward "the upward call"? If this world even that real? That desk you are thinking of as being so real is mostly just empty space defined by the structure of atoms which are made of virtually nothing but the atomic force or energy, or has not knowledge increased like God said it would? And I was reading on a NASA web page about dark matter and dark energy, of which very little is known other than it seems that it seems to be holding the universe together. Apparently, are that we can see (this real world as you call it, or "normal matter" as they called it) is only about 5% of what is out there. So they wrote and questioned whether they should call it "normal matter" when it is not the normal at all, but is only what we can see.

You can't see spirits with your 'normal or real eyes', but only with your spiritual eyes. You don't hear the Holy Spirit with your 'real or normal ears' but those who know the Lord hear His words. And have we not read that the Kingdom of God is in our midst. Now I dunno how it all works, but I do know the Lord. Him and I are friends. I also know that He is the King of kings and the Lord or lords, so He has a kingdom which includes heavenly being who I also can hear from. I know that because I hear His words to me. And I have been told that when this "real fleshy body" of mine goes away, because all flesh is like grass and fades away, that I will go on and be like the angles in heaven. So that is my hope and I have reason to believe it. I thus look to it and press on towards it, and listen with my spiritual ears, and I am lead by the Spirit of God who brings the words of God to my spirit.

I guess I don't have very much in common with the man concerns with His desk instead of My Lord. It seems this 'real world' is not the real thing I am looking towards. So I am not so much concerned about Jesus being in the flesh 2000 years ago but that He and I are friends now and for all time to come. That appears to have been made possible by Him some 2000 years ago, according to the timing of this world, but I like Paul there is on thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the price of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

Why are people thinking this physical life is what gets them eternal life? God is spirit.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Basic Science does not say "most likely" or "may have been".

The word you're looking for is hypothesis, and hypotheses are most definitely part of the scientific method and process.

Perhaps part of the problem here is that you don't quite understand science as a discipline. Science does not deal in "laws", those things called "laws" aren't immoveable, unchallengeable statements. For example Newton's "Laws" while still generally being mostly true in most cases have been corrected, modified, and placed in a better context through the work of later scientists, such as Einstein, with his theories of general and special relativity. Newton's "laws" are not complete, they are not perfect explanations that cannot be challenged, modified, and given better explanations through new discoveries in science. Which is exactly what happened and continues to happen. Not even Einstein's theories are the final say, after all, in order to explain things at the very, very small we have to turn to the weird world of quantum physics. And even now, in the world of physics, there is no unifying theory of everything, it's what physicists are trying to find, a theory that can adequately unify the theories which work at the macroscopic level and those that work on the microscopic level--that's what things like string theory are attempting to answer. But, as of yet, there is not a single unifying theory of everything, and so even though our theories about big things work and our theories of small things work, they don't yet work together; which means our knowledge is massively incomplete.

So when there are questions of "how did this happen", science observes, it considers what we already know, and then proposes a hypothesis, an educated guess; and then a hypothesis is then tested, put through the rigor of the scientific method. The hypothesis may be true, or it may only be partly true and needs to be revised, or maybe it was completely wrong. But that doesn't make it any less science.

Maybe the reason Venus spins retrograde is because there's a magical elf that lives on the surface who has a machine that makes it spin that way--always possible. But more likely there is a better explanation than that, and given what we do know about gravitation and its interaction upon massive bodies, that Venus' axial tilt has been affected by gravity, and that this accounts for its strange spin, is in keeping with the things we know about the universe already. A more definitive answer than this will continue to need more study and more observation.

This is basic science. This is how science works. This is what everyone was taught in elementary school.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JacksBratt]

The word you're looking for is hypothesis, and hypotheses are most definitely part of the scientific method and process.

Yes, I agree.. It is the first step.. Not the conclusion.

If you have a scientific process which ends with "most likely" or "may have been".... It was not conclusive. It would not stand as a "result".

Would you pay for any investigation on any issue that, in the end.. stated "most likely" or "may have been"?

I................would not.

Perhaps part of the problem here is that you don't quite understand science as a discipline. Science does not deal in "laws", those things called "laws" aren't immoveable, unchallengeable statements. For example Newton's "Laws" while still generally being mostly true in most cases have been corrected, modified, and placed in a better context through the work of later scientists, such as Einstein, with his theories of general and special relativity. Newton's "laws" are not complete, they are not perfect explanations that cannot be challenged, modified, and given better explanations through new discoveries in science. Which is exactly what happened and continues to happen. Not even Einstein's theories are the final say, after all, in order to explain things at the very, very small we have to turn to the weird world of quantum physics. And even now, in the world of physics, there is no unifying theory of everything, it's what physicists are trying to find, a theory that can adequately unify the theories which work at the macroscopic level and those that work on the microscopic level--that's what things like string theory are attempting to answer. But, as of yet, there is not a single unifying theory of everything, and so even though our theories about big things work and our theories of small things work, they don't yet work together; which means our knowledge is massively incomplete.

So when there are questions of "how did this happen", science observes, it considers what we already know, and then proposes a hypothesis, an educated guess; and then a hypothesis is then tested, put through the rigor of the scientific method. The hypothesis may be true, or it may only be partly true and needs to be revised, or maybe it was completely wrong. But that doesn't make it any less science.

Maybe the reason Venus spins retrograde is because there's a magical elf that lives on the surface who has a machine that makes it spin that way--always possible. But more likely there is a better explanation than that, and given what we do know about gravitation and its interaction upon massive bodies, that Venus' axial tilt has been affected by gravity, and that this accounts for its strange spin, is in keeping with the things we know about the universe already. A more definitive answer than this will continue to need more study and more observation.

This is basic science. This is how science works. This is what everyone was taught in elementary school.

-CryptoLutheran

In order for something to be real science "Law".. It must be observable, repeatable and testable.

"Law" tells us what happens.. "Theory" tries to explain how and why.

Too many "Theories" are mistakenly called "laws".

Much of the science that you are talking about is mathematical scribbles and symbols.

There is, however, solid science that allows airplanes to fly, computers to work, medical medicine to be studied and other such concrete factual events.

Like I posted before, Tesla said it best.... Even when he was alive, scientists were scribbling on black boards, things of speculation that rarely come close to reality.