The doctrine of the trinity is false. Yes, there are good churches out there. But you've got to search a long ways to find them. They aren't on every corner. My role is I attend and am working on improving my life to be more profitable to work of God. Look up Graham and Robert Shuler (however you spell it). He made the comments on television. Very public.
ok...are you polytheistic, then? how do you make sense of this? not trying to be a pain in the butt..trying to understand your perspective.
im muslim. anyone who wishes to verbally attack me has the permission(you know, since everyone hates muzzies) hahahaha
I'm reading through some of the latter posts in this thread and some interesting stuff. The relationship between science and religion I think is one that we need to be exceedingly careful about. While its true that the two overlap and are both ways of understanding the World their central premises are different. Science is about questioning while religion is about believing. Nothing is ever really known in science and there is always some level of doubt and skepticism. Religion OTOH requires belief and while followers may question those beliefs on occasion in the end its about acceptance. For instance its no accident that "Islam" means submission to God. As the absolute belief to the existence and will of God. A scientist though doesn't submit to a belief in a theory say the Theory of Evolution or the Big Bang Theory but considers its validity based on the rational strength of the argument behind it and then considers the degree of probability that it is so. For practical discussion and argumentation one might say that such theory is true but that is only relative to the discussion. For a religious person to say that God, or some other deity or scripture, is true is a testament of faith and the belief that that is truth. Its not a matter of saying that there is a high probability of truth that can be determined through testing and mathematical modelling to this point it is saying that that is truth. This is why I would agree that there needs to be some distinction between the two. Its not a matter of saying that we don't need religion or science but that their premises are different and that confusing or mixing up the two IMO causes a lot of problems. That also doesn't mean that they can't deal with the same subject, for instance I don't see why one couldn't both believe that we were created by God but at the same time accept that physical evidence supports Evolution, but things get problematic when people start using the methodology of religion to explain scientific problems and vice versa, for example you wouldn't rely on prayer to design an airplane and you wouldn't use scientific method to understand the incarnations of Vishnu. I think science and religion can coexist, as they have for centuries, as long as we are clear what are premises are for either.
I don't even know what that word means. But the relationship is very simple. God the Father created His Son Jesus. Jesus was the first thing that God created. He spoke Jesus into existence. They are two separate beings, one is the Father, one is the Son. And then God directed Jesus while Jesus finished creation. Let us make man in our own image. The Lord possessed me in the beginning before His works of old. .....the beginning of the creation of God. ......the first and the last. God, who in sundry times in divers manners..............in these last days by His Son. ......by whom He made all things. Father, glorify thou me with the glory that I had with Thee before the world was The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand............ Father, not my will but Thine be done These are all scriptures that speak to the relationship between the Father and the Son that show that they are separate beings. It's not mystical. They are separate beings just like you and I are separate beings. We are made in their image. It's simple. It's not confusing or impossible to understand. For he (Jesus the Son) must reign, till he (Jesus) hath put all enemies under his (Jesus') feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. (Death is not under his feet until it is destroyed and no one dies anymore) For he (God the Father)hath put all things under his (Jesus the Son's)feet. But when he (God the Father)saith all things are put under him (Jesus, His Son), it is manifest that he (God the Father) is excepted, which did put all things under him(Jesus the Son). And when all things shall be subdued unto him (Jesus the Son), then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him (God His Father) that put all things under him (Jesus the Son), that God (the Father) may be all in all.
I agree on the premise, but indulge me for a moment. The effects from the premise carry upon different meanings. To the lay person, science is tangible in the form of technology. Televisions, computers, and the internet work because science works. While theories and equations are revised and modified, the gifts of science give the appearance that the questions are answered. Given tangible benefits, the average person isn’t inclined to invest time into questioning these theories. They have given a tacit belief. Religion’s effects upon a person are much different. After the acceptance of the core tenets of a religion, one is allowed to question many things within the religion because life experiences test the person’s faith and the religion’s rules or writings. In moments of great stress, even the core is challenged. Does God exist? Is a righteously lived life rewarded? Does being devout mean being righteous despite popular opinion? Religious people are forced to question these inconsistencies because the benefits aren’t always tangible. Despite their greater degree of belief, questions remain on the personal level. Higher levels of science go into abstract thinking because observing the subject in question might be too expensive or inconvenient. Whereas, religion covers our nature and it details how we can react to one another. Its significance shows itself in our actual encounters with other people whether we realize it at the time or in hindsight. So you can have two different forms of highly abstract thinking and two different interpretations in observation from science (such as psychology) and religion. People have combined the two into one thought and one interpretation because it’s reflexive and it can validate a person’s belief in both science and religion. It’s the best of both worlds. I think it’s a red herring, and that personally comes from hindsight. I approached Grizzled’s reply with the progress neuroscientists are making in the brain. Since the extreme majority of them hold the single body/spirit view, it’s their nature and duty to explore our spiritual nature and how it works within the confines of the brain.
This paraphrased from the book Velvet Elvis The bible is about Questioning as well. When God told Moses that he was to be the Prophet, Moses didn't just believe it and go on about it. He questioned it. Even fact he pretty much argued. He basically told God that God was making a mistake. Moses said that he wasn't the one. But the more Moses questioned and argued, the more God knew that Moses was the one. In Jewish history in the times of Jesus questioning was a huge part of religion. Remember when Jesus was 12 and pretty much anytime Jesus encountered religious authorities, they both questioned each other. It is true that not everyone believes religion is about questioning. But the bible has people that question God time and time again, and aren't punished for it. They become the stories' heroes.
thanks for sharing your point of view. what do you do with the beginning of John??...the Word was with God...and the Word WAS God.
Where would you draw the line, though? How would you define each ideal? Let me further muddy the water for you. At one point I’m sure people thought that Moonies and other members of some of the more extreme cults were engaging in spirituality, but science revealed the brainwashing techniques used by many of these groups, like sleep depravation, malnourishment, strict separation from your family and other cultural grounding points, etc.. So what once appeared to be a spiritual state came to be revealed, by science, as a form of mind control that could be studied and understood reasonably well. Also consider that many people look at eastern religions as a form of spirituality, and meditation as a key part of that, but there is scientific work being done now on the brains of monks to see how what happens in the brain when they mediate. So, it be hard to tell what something really is before it’s been studied, and it’s also hard to separate them before studying a phenomenon where they seemingly co-exist. I’m really not sure how the two can be divided either in theoretical or practical terms. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1847442.stm I should have read further before my above bit, but I have a couple of comments here. There a many different experiences that are commonly referred to as spiritual experiences, some transient and some lasting and transformational, so I think it’s difficult to put even those into a common group. On free will, as science progresses we come to understand more about how human behaviour works, and yet whether free will seems to be favoured or whether determinism of some sort is favoured seems to go back and forth with each new discovery. With that history I think it’s scientifically prudent to be cautious about concluding that the most recent turn will be the last one. I think what seems most likely at this point is that there is some of both going on. I’m not sure I’m following you comment on the formula for spiritual guidance. Science is supposed to be objective and not to draw conclusions past the scope of the given research project. Further studies can be suggested, of course, but if those are conducted in a sound scientific way I’m not sure what the objection would be there either. I have argued here in the past quite strongly that good science is sometimes overborne by political and other factors, but I think it’s problematic to say that we can’t trust scientists to look into one area while saying we trust them enough in others. Could clarify what you’re saying here to help me understand your point better? I get a cold feeling when I consider the word “formalize”. That’s a term that I associate with Kuhn’s normal science. From a hard science standpoint this is a new area of research, and so I think we should be especially cautious about trying to stuff it into a box in these early stages. That is the tendency of science, however, as Kuhn showed. We want to say that we’ve found the answer to something and that we completely understand the phenomenon now, but as soon as we say that we’ve left the realm of good science, because not only is there is always something new to learn, but there is also a very good chance that somewhere down the road all that we though we knew about the issue will be overturned by a major paradigm shift. And I don’t think we can shy away from an issue that has been so significant in human history and one that most of the people in the world today believe in in one way or another. You might be able to argue that we shouldn’t do work on developing bigger bombs, or maybe some forms of genetic engineering, because doing so could accidentally unleash some catastrophe on the world, but how can we justify not doing work on something as historically and currently important as spirituality? As good scientists I don’t think we get to pretend that major issues like that don’t exist and don’t need to be considered. If we are truly dealing with the world around us then we can’t edit big parts of that world out to suit our own purposes or to avoid things we may feel uncomfortable about. We need to address the world that exists.
He was God and is God. He was with His Father and he was just like his father. His Father God made him God. The Word is Jesus. He is God's spoken Word. God the Father spoke Him into existence. He is the Son God, the Son of righteousness. And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. God (The Father) , who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his (The Father's) Son (Jesus) , whom he (The Father) hath appointed heir of all things, by whom (Jesus) also he (The Father) made the worlds; Who (Jesus) being the brightness of his (The Father's) glory, and the express image (what does the word image mean?) of his (The Father's) person, and upholding all things by the word of his (The Father's) power, when he (Jesus) had by himself (Jesus) purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty (The Father) on high: Being made (Jesus was made by The Father) so much better than the angels (this was when Jesus was originally created in Heaven by His Father) , as he (Jesus) hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he (The Father) at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he (Jesus) shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world (when Jesus was born of Mary), he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. But unto the Son (Jesus) he (The Father) saith, Thy throne, O God (Jesus), is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it. Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars: She hath killed her beasts; she hath mingled her wine; she hath also furnished her table. She hath sent forth her maidens: she crieth upon the highest places of the city, Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither: as for him that wanteth understanding, she saith to him, .......................... ....................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................... And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
