# Debunking the Myth that Science Disproves the Bible



## LittleDrummerBoy (Mar 1, 2016)

Science was born from man’s desire to acquire knowledge with greater certainty and objectivity than is available from “authoritative” sources and “expert” opinions. Since human opinion is fallible, a method was invented to provide greater objectivity through the testability of ideas ...
Read More


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Mar 2, 2016)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Science was born from man’s desire to acquire knowledge with greater certainty and objectivity than is available from “authoritative” sources and “expert” opinions. Since human opinion is fallible, a method was invented to provide greater objectivity through the testability of ideas ...
> Read More



The greatest misconception I've read repeatedly on this forum, both by people of faith and those opposed to it, is that science was created by God. To say such a thing could easily be considered blasphemy. There's a difference in natural laws and "science." 

Let God be true, and every man a liar.

I believe only God.

Good blog.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 2, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> The greatest misconception I've read repeatedly on this forum, both by people of faith and those opposed to it, is that science was created by God. To say such a thing could easily be considered blasphemy. There's a difference in natural laws and "science."
> 
> Let God be true, and every man a liar.
> 
> ...



Do you let your kids take science class? Do you go to the doctor? Buy any electricity that was made from a nuclear power plant?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 2, 2016)

To me science proves God exists even more.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 2, 2016)

Can science prove the existence of God?
Our planet was created by the Great Architect to have the science requirements we need to exist. It's hard to think it's just coincidence and not from God. 
God even created gravity to keep us on the ground. He created sex as a way for us to bond as one and procreate. Does one really think the human body is not a miracle with all of it's complex scientific systems?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Mar 3, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Can science prove the existence of God?
> Our planet was created by the Great Architect to have the science requirements we need to exist. It's hard to think it's just coincidence and not from God.
> God even created gravity to keep us on the ground. He created sex as a way for us to bond as one and procreate. Does one really think the human body is not a miracle with all of it's complex scientific systems?



You still can't seem to grasp that what you're talking about are natural laws and not science.

Did you read the blog entry?


----------



## Israel (Mar 3, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> The greatest misconception I've read repeatedly on this forum, both by people of faith and those opposed to it, is that science was created by God. To say such a thing could easily be considered blasphemy. There's a difference in natural laws and "science."
> 
> Let God be true, and every man a liar.
> 
> ...



Bless you brother. 
I think sometimes it gets confused with no ill intent, not understanding that natural law is not science, just man's attempt to discover the relationships of natural things in it.
Kinda like when folks attribute the "discovery" of gravity to Newton.
I know this kinda hurts the ears and mind of those who understand science as a methodology that seems to allow men to make a small step from "how" to "why" when it affords, in reality, neither. 

Just a cataloging of what some have observed and their interpretations of it (them). Most often for other men to set out to either expand upon, or disprove.
In some sense it is the nails on blackboard sensation a believer may get when confronted with the seeming refutations of faith supported by "scriptural authorities have determined..." or "a noted theologian has stated". 

Bob Dylan sang "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Mar 3, 2016)

The sphere of science is the laws of nature (the natural world) as determined my repeatable experiment.  When limited to its proper sphere and executed properly, it is very good at testing hypotheses and eliminating errors.

The sphere of the Bible is things of the spirit and how the supernatural interacts with the natural.  This is a sphere about which science is incapable of speaking.  People of faith who are knowledgeable about science usually only doubt science when it reaches beyond its sphere of the natural world and begins to make claims about things that belong to the sphere of the Bible.

The point of the linked article is to articulate more clearly how people are pushing science beyond its appropriate sphere when they claim that its conclusions somehow contradict the Bible.

Original Article


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 3, 2016)

I agree with Little Drummer Boy in post #8. To me the laws of nature can be two different things. The scientific laws of nature such as gravity and the laws of nature that pertain specifically to man given from the Creator. Another way to explain it would be Divine Natural Law and Secular Natural Law.
There are things beyond the Laws of Nature that are spiritual and can't be explained by science.

I still believe science was created by God. He is the greatest scientist. He used science in his creation. He usually stays within the boundaries of science within his daily operation of bringing his plan to fruition. He has and does have the ability to operation outside of science. This is the spiritual part that science can't explain.
Science is more than just man's explanation of God's creation. Science is God's creation. God chose science. God uses science. It's one of his greatest attributes with love being his greatest.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Mar 3, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> I agree with Little Drummer Boy in post #8. To me the laws of nature can be two different things. The scientific laws of nature such as gravity and the laws of nature that pertain specifically to man given from the Creator. Another way to explain it would be Divine Natural Law and Secular Natural Law.
> There are things beyond the Laws of Nature that are spiritual and can't be explained by science.
> 
> I still believe science was created by God. He is the greatest scientist. He used science in his creation. He usually stays within the boundaries of science within his daily operation of bringing his plan to fruition. He has and does have the ability to operation outside of science. This is the spiritual part that science can't explain.
> Science is more than just man's explanation of God's creation. Science is God's creation. God chose science. God uses science. It's one of his greatest attributes with love being his greatest.



God does not hypothesize; God does not experiment; God does not make 'mistakes' for which he has to revise his Word: God does not do or use science. God is a spirit, and, as described in your referenced post, science has no bearing whatsoever in things spiritual, and to try and make it so is to lower the enterprise of faith to a level which tries to speak to the carnal rather than the spiritual. To consider science "just another part of faith" is a dangerous thing to do and could be a sign of weak faith. Believe God; if science happens to agree, so be it, but it's importance in the life of the faithful should be non-existent.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Mar 3, 2016)

Israel said:


> Bless you brother.
> I think sometimes it gets confused with no ill intent, not understanding that natural law is not science, just man's attempt to discover the relationships of natural things in it.
> Kinda like when folks attribute the "discovery" of gravity to Newton.
> I know this kinda hurts the ears and mind of those who understand science as a methodology that seems to allow men to make a small step from "how" to "why" when it affords, in reality, neither.
> ...



I've never gotten the impression of ill-intent, just misguided instructions, and, therefore, misguided notions. But, to me, having spent a little time with things of scientific nature, I know what it does and does not do; and, when compared to what it doesn't do, what it does do is not even worth discussing. We still die; we're still separated from the Lord; we're still blind, in the dark, groping, unsure of our steps; but, The Lord is faithful, and He will direct my way: All this, a knowledge of Physics or Biology notwithstanding.


----------



## welderguy (Mar 3, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I've never gotten the impression of ill-intent, just misguided instructions, and, therefore, misguided notions. But, to me, having spent a little time with things of scientific nature, I know what it does and does not do; and, when compared to what it doesn't do, what it does do is not even worth discussing. We still die; we're still separated from the Lord; we're still blind, in the dark, groping, unsure of our steps; but, The Lord is faithful, and He will direct my way: All this, a knowledge of Physics or Biology notwithstanding.




⬆⬆ Truth
Good post!


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 3, 2016)

Should a Christian get a colonoscopy?


----------



## hummerpoo (Mar 3, 2016)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Science was born from man’s desire to acquire knowledge with greater certainty and objectivity than is available from “authoritative” sources and “expert” opinions. Since human opinion is fallible, a method was invented to provide greater objectivity through the testability of ideas ...
> Read More



This article should be read, probably studied, by every believer moved by God toward understanding the structure of His economy.  At this point I have only read it once, leaving the possibility that my question has been answered and I missed it.

Could not, or should not, the three potential causes for man’s preference for material explanations identified under the heading “Is God a Trickster?” : “1) Human fallibility... 2) Demonic deception… 3) The Bible reveals that God often allows people to be fooled.”; be applied as potential causes for varied results reflecting “our own [in]ability to understand and explain” His word, when the following paragraph from the article is applied:

“Faith is believing in God, in the word of God, and in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ above everything else. God and his word are more reliable than our own ability to understand and explain. God and his word are more reliable than the collective ability of philosophers, theologians, and scientists to discern or describe truth by any method other than carefully reading Scripture and crying out to God for wisdom in understanding it (Pr 2:6, Jer 33:3). Anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and rewards those who earnestly seek him (Heb 11:6). Let God be true, and every man a liar (Rom 3:4).”?

The question should not be understood to reflect any doubt of the reliability of God and His word; only a desire to better understand our inability.

In light of your post #8 (the point of the article), if you consider this question "off topic" please PM and I will be happy to delete it.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Mar 3, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Should a Christian get a colonoscopy?



*sigh*... nevermind.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 3, 2016)

Maybe this topic is too deep for me. I see God as spiritual and I see us as spiritual but at the same time I see a physical world full of physical things. Mountains, stars, planets, animals, and humans. All interacting in a physical environment.

I can also see beyond the physical and see the spiritual. Science proves God's existence to me as he made all of this physical stuff from the spiritual world.


----------



## gordon 2 (Mar 3, 2016)

hummerpoo said:


> This article should be read, probably studied, by every believer moved by God toward understanding the structure of His economy.  At this point I have only read it once, leaving the possibility that my question has been answered and I missed it.
> 
> Could not, or should not, the three potential causes for man’s preference for material explanations identified under the heading “Is God a Trickster?” : “1) Human fallibility... 2) Demonic deception… 3) The Bible reveals that God often allows people to be fooled.”; be applied as potential causes for varied results reflecting “our own [in]ability to understand and explain” His word, when the following paragraph from the article is applied:
> 
> ...




Darn Hummer.  It did not take long. Question:  Is `our inability`  related  to some kind of `` no free will``doctrine with regards to the allowance to being fooled.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Mar 3, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Maybe this topic is too deep for me. I see God as spiritual and I see us as spiritual but at the same time I see a physical world full of physical things. Mountains, stars, planets, animals, and humans. All interacting in a physical environment.
> 
> I can also see beyond the physical and see the spiritual. Science proves God's existence to me as he made all of this physical stuff from the spiritual world.



It's not too deep, really. If I can get it, so can anyone. Science, as described, is a five step process by which natural laws can be described; no spirituality needed, and, in many cases, none welcome.

"The Heavens declare the glory of God, and firmament showeth his handiwork. Day unto day utereth speech, night unto night showeth knowledge; there is no speech or language where their voice is not heard..." Long before science existed, the knowledge of the truth of God was available by looking to nature; as you have noticed, that has not changed, but science and nature are not two terms that can be used interchangeably, much like Marxism and Socialism cannot be used interchangeably. Science is limited to the physical realm where even there it's subject to vast limitations, as described in the blog post; spiritual things should not be sought in it's bounds. 

In other words: simply believe God.


----------



## hummerpoo (Mar 3, 2016)

gordon 2 said:


> Darn Hummer.  It did not take long. Question:  Is `our inability`  related  to some kind of `` no free will``doctrine with regards to the allowance to being fooled.



I don't understand what I take to be inferences in your question, but I'm pretty sure that the answer would be "no".


----------



## gordon 2 (Mar 3, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Maybe this topic is too deep for me. I see God as spiritual and I see us as spiritual but at the same time I see a physical world full of physical things. Mountains, stars, planets, animals, and humans. All interacting in a physical environment.
> 
> I can also see beyond the physical and see the spiritual. Science proves God's existence to me as he made all of this physical stuff from the spiritual world.



It is not too deep for you. I might be for me however. Yet, I`m reading the article slooooowly and taking notes. The writer makes essential points which are stated directly usually in one sentence or two in each sub heading.

This is what I get so far. Science is not equipped to prove or disprove spiritual reality (ies).

----------------

I would agree and perhaps science does also. However,  my gut questions might be... is not science equipped with discipline and objective to test the consciousness of the faithful in such a way as they do to any other group in society and draw observations that are repeatable, similar and predictable.

So Art, you and me, let`s slow the class down and ask the same questions five times if need be. 

I read up to the point where I got a shock in the doctrine department ( something about scripture being the rock and mortar of spiritual consciousness) and will return when I get over my impatience with smart-wits.


----------



## gordon 2 (Mar 3, 2016)

hummerpoo said:


> I don't understand what I take to be inferences in your question, but I'm pretty sure that the answer would be "no".



Ok... good.  However, when does God fool people on purpose... in scripture...


It`s just that I inferred, perhaps incorrectly, that in the cases people are fooled it was God`s doing as opposed to people fooling themselves--within a narrow focus mind you.

( Why do I get the feeling that`s I`m talking in class, when I`m not supposed to. Hum...)


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 3, 2016)

Maybe man in every culture & nation in times past has been more spiritual in explaining God's creation. They knew God by his creation. Yet as they advanced in knowledge they abandoned God and worshipped science. They claimed to be wise, yet they became fools.
They exchanged the truth for a lie.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 3, 2016)

Is it wrong to explain the rainbow scientifically? Maybe it's OK to use science to explain how God's creation works as longs as we don't use science to explain how he created his creation.


----------



## hummerpoo (Mar 3, 2016)

gordon 2 said:


> Ok... good.  However, when does God fool people on purpose... in scripture...
> 
> 
> It`s just that I inferred, perhaps incorrectly, that in the cases people are fooled it was God`s doing as opposed to people fooling themselves--within a narrow focus mind you.
> ...



God has given you excellent perception.
If you complete your homework successfully, your questions, or at least the inferences contained, will go away.


----------



## gordon 2 (Mar 3, 2016)

hummerpoo said:


> God has given you excellent perception.
> n.If you complete your homework successfully, your questions, or at least the inferences contained, will go away.


----------



## Israel (Mar 3, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I've never gotten the impression of ill-intent, just misguided instructions, and, therefore, misguided notions. But, to me, having spent a little time with things of scientific nature, I know what it does and does not do; and, when compared to what it doesn't do, what it does do is not even worth discussing. We still die; we're still separated from the Lord; we're still blind, in the dark, groping, unsure of our steps; but, The Lord is faithful, and He will direct my way: All this, a knowledge of Physics or Biology notwithstanding.


Amen.
I did not mean to imply you judge without mercy, but rather...some of us of the misguided instructions carry a bent toward those misguided notions you speak of.
The authority assumed to itself of the preeminence of the "scientific method" and the assumptions of benefit that have accrued to its exercise is in many ways insidious.
I don't think Oppenheimer was trying to be poetic at all, I think in whatever measure, he had an epiphany.
Men can love knowledge, and its pursuit, to death.
And only One can get any man past death.


----------



## hummerpoo (Mar 3, 2016)

gordon 2 said:


>



Yes, I know ... sarcasm control is not my strong suit.
My excuse is "this woman you gave me".
Proper attire when in Sweetie's presence is chain mail.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 3, 2016)

Has the Creator released his creation to include man to start an evolutionary process of it's own?
Another way of asking is does Nature have free will? Does the earth make it's own random earthquakes? Does a river possess the will to randomly make a canyon through erosion? What about a local rain shower that erodes my driveway?
Do viruses and bacteria evolve or mutate randomly? What natural laws or scientific laws control processes such as these in line with God's master plan?
God's master plan is for man to evolve or process through life to become more like him. Some times along the way man evokes war. I don't know if we can call war evil or why man starts war. Some how God's process of us becoming like him evolves the wrong way.
Viruses evolve the wrong way. Cancers spread and blood arteries clog. Rivers overflow their banks and change their routes completely. Yet we know God is in control. Why would God make things and then let them do what they want? 

Does he start a process and then allow it to operate on it's own such as colon cancer? Does he allow man the capacity to remove the cancer just to let man think he is in charge of his own destiny?
Do we get medical check ups and colonoscopies thinking our days aren't numbered? Thinking we can control our destiny with science.

What purpose does man gather knowledge to explain God's creation? Then we use this knowledge to control or harness God's creation through science. Is this really all an invention of man? God doesn't have any control over man to use science over his own creation? God didn't invent the atom but somehow man discovered it and harnessed it's power beyond God's control? Doesn't this knowledge allow man to control his own destiny? Can knowledge allow man to evolve to the point of becoming like Jesus or at least to get to the "place" to see Jesus as he is?

John says this about our personal evolution;
1 John 3:2
Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

What will we become as we evolve, change, and progress towards our final destiny? When we finally see Jesus as he is and become like him.

Must we leave the physical realm at some point to become like Jesus? Is it OK to use science until that time approaches?
Maybe just to think we have some control of our own environment, shelter, food, destiny, life, health, children's destiny, knowledge, etc.
Could it be that all of man's wisdom is foolish? I do like my air conditioner though and the grocery store. Oh and the doctor and science's medicine. I hate tooth aches.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 3, 2016)

Genesis 1:29
Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

Is it a coincidence that God made plants that contain medicine and that man discovered these plants? While it is true that early man didn't know the scientific process of why each medicine worked the way it did, the plant was given from God.  
Therefore the science of how the medicine worked was from God. You can't say a rainbow was a sign from God without saying the scientific explanation isn't.
You can't say that our universe and nature's laws are very finely tuned and that without them we wouldn't exist without knowing God had to make those natural laws of "Science." 
Everything had to be just right for life to exist on the Earth according to God's plan. This ideal was God's plan. If science wasn't necessary for his plan to work then he could have placed man on Jupiter. Water and oxygen would not have been needed. God could have just as easily given us the capacity to live on Jupiter. He could easily have used completely different shapes for each planet instead of spheres. He could have used different unknown elements for each planet in his universe instead of mostly carbon. He could use atoms and molecules for our solar system and other building blocks for other solar systems. 

Since he didn't it only shows science proves God's existence. To say science wasn't created by God could easily be considered blasphemy.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Mar 3, 2016)

Israel said:


> Amen.
> I did not mean to imply you judge without mercy, but rather...some of us of the misguided instructions carry a bent toward those misguided notions you speak of.
> The authority assumed to itself of the preeminence of the "scientific method" and the assumptions of benefit that have accrued to its exercise is in many ways insidious.
> I don't think Oppenheimer was trying to be poetic at all, I think in whatever measure, he had an epiphany.
> ...



I read somewhere recently that there are some Physicists who propose the scientific method should be scrapped and that, should a theory (not the proper use of the word, but none-the-less it's what they used) carry enough "weight," and be "sufficiently elegant;" it should be accepted into the compendium of knowledge amassed by the community with no need or request of empirical evidence. You can understand the vehement, perhaps rabid distaste with which someone like myself would meet such a proposal. Empiricism is the only thing that prevents "science" from being treated like a world religion: Without it, what usefulness science did serve quickly dissolves and its already insidious nature would be magnified many times over.

I don't want to misrepresent myself (as I feel I may have done): The progression of science is real and powerful and no one should deny it; but I draw the line at saying that, where science rubs against my Lord in such a way as to call into question a teaching of His, science could "win out" over God... that is unpalatable, devilish, and unquestionably insidious.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 3, 2016)

hummerpoo said:


> This article should be read, probably studied, by every believer moved by God toward understanding the structure of His economy.  At this point I have only read it once, leaving the possibility that my question has been answered and I missed it.
> 
> Could not, or should not, the three potential causes for man’s preference for material explanations identified under the heading “Is God a Trickster?” : “1) Human fallibility... 2) Demonic deception… 3) The Bible reveals that God often allows people to be fooled.”; be applied as potential causes for varied results reflecting “our own [in]ability to understand and explain” His word, when the following paragraph from the article is applied:



Would you say that #1 above under  "the three potential causes for man’s preference for material explanations" is total depravity? That man being incapable of seeking God has caused him to seek explanation through science?
#2 Would be that science was invented by Satan to deceive?
#3 I haven't a clue what you are alluding to. God allowing people to be fooled? Please explain?

I would have to assume whether #1, 2, or 3, it's part of God's plan as we evolve from Adam's creation to seeing Jesus as he is.


----------



## hummerpoo (Mar 3, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Would you say that #1 above under  "the three potential causes for man’s preference for material explanations" is total depravity? That man being incapable of seeking God has caused him to seek explanation through science?
> #2 Would be that science was invented by Satan to deceive?
> #3 I haven't a clue what you are alluding to. God allowing people to be fooled? Please explain?
> 
> I would have to assume whether #1, 2, or 3, it's part of God's plan as we evolve from Adam's creation to seeing Jesus as he is.



#1 is not relevant to the OP or my question.
#2 is not relevant to the OP or my question.
#3 It's in the OP.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 3, 2016)

Would it be wrong to use science to overcome the pain and suffering inflicted on us by God to produce endurance?
Medicine, food, heating and cooling, transportation, weather forecasts, nuclear power, agriculturalist advances, etc.?

Romans 5:3-5 says: “We rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us."

Is it even possible to use science to overcome God's trials and tribulations? How can we learn about pain and suffering if we can take medicine? Yet he provided the plants needed to achieve the relief from the pain and suffering needed. The science needed to warm our bodies and shelter ourselves from the elements?

The process or evolution of our journey from physical to spiritual is indeed complex. To finally see Jesus as he is and become like him. The final destination. The inheritance.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 3, 2016)

hummerpoo said:


> #1 is not relevant to the OP or my question.
> #2 is not relevant to the OP or my question.
> #3 It's in the OP.



All three were in the OP. I guess # 3 is my struggle. Seeing God blind man by science is a hard concept to swallow.

2 Corinthians 4:4
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

That would be #2. I never thought of science being used by Satan though.

John 12:40
He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

That would be #3. I've just never thought about God using science to do that.

The OP used this verse  for #3;

Isaiah 29:14
Therefore once more I will astound these people with wonder upon wonder; the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."


Oh well, I did learn a lot about faith from the OP. I haven't given up on the positive aspects of God's uses for science. I can see where God could use it strengthen or weaken one's faith depending on whether he wanted to harden or soften one's heart.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Mar 4, 2016)

hummerpoo said:


> This article should be read, probably studied, by every believer moved by God toward understanding the structure of His economy.  At this point I have only read it once, leaving the possibility that my question has been answered and I missed it.
> 
> Could not, or should not, the three potential causes for man’s preference for material explanations identified under the heading “Is God a Trickster?” : “1) Human fallibility... 2) Demonic deception… 3) The Bible reveals that God often allows people to be fooled.”; be applied as potential causes for varied results reflecting “our own [in]ability to understand and explain” His word, when the following paragraph from the article is applied:
> 
> ...



Very astute question.  

I think your observation is correct as long as you do not insist on a perfect correspondence too rigidly.

The "our" we had in mind in the paragraph discussing "our own ability to understand and explain" is a possessive pronoun intended to refer to believers as the antecedent.  The set of people in mind when the potential three causes of misunderstanding are enumerated is the broader group of all humans.  Though the three potential causes of misunderstandings do seem to apply more broadly than the question of origins to both groups, there is a fourth issue that is hopefully confined to unbelievers.

Note the careful wording "many humans prefer to believe materialistic explanations of human origins."  We did not articulate the likely common issue among unbelievers of refusing to love the truth and simply choosing not to believe in cases where God has made the evidence plain enough.  Scripture describes the Man of Lawlessness in this way:

 9 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, 10 and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

Thus we should recognize that demonic deception can work together with a refusal to love the truth in those who are perishing.  

This is in contrast to those who may not yet have faith, but who want it and are looking for it in the sense of:

"Lord I believe, help me overcome my unbelief."

In many ways coming to faith and retaining one's faith involves choices and prayers and searching and longing.  We tried to reflect this in the article as a whole, but we should probably have enumerated a fourth reason why many people prefer materialistic explanations.

Thanks for a great question.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Mar 4, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Oh well, I did learn a lot about faith from the OP. I haven't given up on the positive aspects of God's uses for science. I can see where God could use it strengthen or weaken one's faith depending on whether he wanted to harden or soften one's heart.



https://biblicaltheologyofscience.wordpress.com/2015/07/15/role-of-mankind-and-the-fall/

If you read more of the blog posts, you will see that I make a strong case that God's purpose in science is fulfilling the commission given to Adam in Gen 1-2 and repeated to Noah in Gen 9. "Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it." etc.

Thus, we properly understand science as a gift from God for practical uses such as improving food yields and empowering greater population densities by battling disease, providing clean water, providing energy, etc.  Since the advent of science, filling the earth and subduing it owes much success to science properly applied.

However, filling and subduing the earth require the parts of operational science available through the scientific method and repeatable experiment.  The sleight of hand which is apparent when one claims contradictions between science and the Bible is more attributable to the devil and fallen man.  The two logical errors are 1) confounding operational science and history and 2) claiming science has disproven supernatural claims which it is not capable of testing.

Confounding operational science and history closes man's eyes to the documentary evidence of Scripture and the eyewitness testimony of Jesus (he was there) and of Yahweh who wrote of creation on the stone tablets.  Man is left with only the physical evidence and his attempts to interpret it.  But by faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command.  Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.  

Demanding scientific proof of miracles is absurd, because the scientific method is incapable of testing (affirming or falsifying) supernatural claims.


----------



## Israel (Mar 4, 2016)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> https://biblicaltheologyofscience.wordpress.com/2015/07/15/role-of-mankind-and-the-fall/
> 
> If you read more of the blog posts, you will see that I make a strong case that God's purpose in science is fulfilling the commission given to Adam in Gen 1-2 and repeated to Noah in Gen 9. "Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it." etc.
> 
> ...


My first take on the red area leaves me asking a question in consideration of the things in which Jesus tells the hearer: "Take no thought..."

Is it by men's advancements in knowledge the world is to be subdued, the employment of those things yielded by the "scientific method" that this is made real...or by faith?

Without having to explore all my own inconsistencies there, (which any, if so inclined, are free to probe) of grace, God has provided far more than enough triumphs to keep me hungering for the day of satiety through Him alone. 

The suspension, or better put, elevation of ourselves over all law through Christ, certainly including what is called "natural law", if only through my experience of it, has been made real in ways marvelous, unexpected, and miraculous.

That there are many testimonies of this amongst us all, I am sure. (One brother's recent testimony reminds me, and encourages me, strongly).

But, one may say..."these things are merely anecdotal" while faith may rejoice "truly nothing is impossible to our God".
We have, (and by the we I imply all of us who yet are coming out of the darkness, and into the light of Christ) been called from the place of law which testifies against us, and invokes the judgment of "lacking". 

The loaves and fishes blessed, to us is miraculous to the extreme, and God well understands our marvel. 

But herein is the question reiterated by Hummerpoo of which all men must give answer..."Is God a trickster?" Who of us does not understand the plaint of Hebrews "led out"..."has God only led us out into the wilderness to die?" Who, in trial, has not asked of himself, "if only I had been better prepared!" Really declaring "I shoulda seen this coming...who hid it?" What causes a man to not see...what is plainly to be seen?

Jesus tells us there is only one thing to seek after, and that all others (things) shall be made way for. It seems the most foolish of ignorances...to all but God. Is it anything less than to ignore everything clamoring (or previously clamoring), and stay at this one thing? I am more than convinced the "first" there is quite exclusionary, not as in "first seek the kingdom...then you can worry about food, clothing...and your own life" but First, always, and only...to the exclusion of thought about all that would show "lack". 

It could be that to look to anything else, that is precisely what man will always discover...lack. But as to the unending abundance of the "thing" we are told to explore, hunger after, seek to know in fullness, we shall never be disappointed, nor discouraged...for it is unending.
How much forgiveness is there? Mercy? Truth? Righteousness?

Yes, for those not won to any interest in these "things", there remain other "things" to be considered...and a man might spend all his days occupied of such if he cares to (as he cares to). But in the end, only one will "hold his mind"...and it shall either be Fullness promised or the emptiness (chosen by default through neglect of the former) he will discover he has pursued with all his heart...


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 4, 2016)

Hummer, what was your question in response to this;

"This article should be read, probably studied, by every believer moved by God toward understanding the structure of His economy. At this point I have only read it once, leaving the possibility that my question has been answered and I missed it."

I think I need to read the OP a few more times. When we get to man's need or desire to know more in the OP in answering the 
three potential causes of materialistic explanations of human origins. 

My question is or contradiction that I see is, we can't use science to explain God's creation but we can use it to explain everything after the creation. In other words if God was in total control during creation when did he let nature take over and control itself?
It's not like God created and then set back and watch everything "just happen" by randomness to his creation.
What is the starting point of using science? Erosion in my driveway? The Grand Canyon? The AIDS virus mutation or origin?
My own destiny?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Mar 4, 2016)

Israel said:


> My first take on the red area leaves me asking a question in consideration of the things in which Jesus tells the hearer: "Take no thought..."
> 
> Is it by men's advancements in knowledge the world is to be subdued, the employment of those things yielded by the "scientific method" that this is made real...or by faith?
> 
> ...



I would say, and I think it's scriptural, that when we allow something, anything, to overcome our love, respect, and admiration for the things of God, the true nature of a thing is revealed when its whole summation is examined. Things that are empty; things like science, poetry, art, medicine, and everything else; will remain empty in our own pursuit; but The Lord's strength is made perfect in weakness. Things that were once empty become full, even overflowing, when God's face is the initial "seeking." A purposeless life will be given purpose; an unhappy spirit will be given joy to see through sorrow; a dark soul will be given light: We become new creatures governed by new principles, not that those principles never existed before, they did; but that we were unable to recognize them for what they were, are, and always will be.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 4, 2016)

“have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky and over the livestock, and over all the earth,

Dominion; 
1. the power or right of governing and controlling; sovereign authority. 
2. rule; control; domination. 
3. a territory, usually of considerable size, in which a single rulership holds sway. 
4. lands or domains subject to sovereignty or control. 

Does this mean that after creation God gave man the free will to use science to "control" his environment? Things like medicine, grain manipulations and nixtamalization as with corn, erosion control, weather reports, air conditioning, fire, etc.?  Creatures that are co-creators.

Thus in some ways or forms we CAN control our own destiny. Perhaps not our beginning or end but the time in between. Then again if we have no control over our beginning or end why give us control of anything in between? If we read scripture and see where God controlled the beginning of Creation, Adam and Eve, the complete Old Testament, the birth, death, and resurrection of his Son, and finally his return. If God has predestined all of that, why give me a desire or even a way to control any part of my existence?

Now how can we compare this control with God controlling the alpha and omega of his creation? When we read scripture we see that God starts and ends he creation as he is the Alpha and Omega. We read where he hardens hearts to make his plan come into fruition. Where he blinds individuals for his purpose. Perhaps using science as the OP suggests to blind individuals.
God using the 1, 2 and 3 of the article in the OP. The three potential causes of materialistic explanations of human origins. 

If we take the OP beyond just the 1,2, and 3 of human origins into the destiny of humans. God using science for his purpose.


----------



## Israel (Mar 4, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> “have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky and over the livestock, and over all the earth,
> 
> Dominion;
> 1. the power or right of governing and controlling; sovereign authority.
> ...



Learn what is found here...and rejoice.


And He answered and said, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." But she said, "Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters' table." Then Jesus said to her, "O woman, your faith is great; it shall be done for you as you wish." And her daughter was healed at once.


----------



## PappyHoel (Mar 4, 2016)

The God Particle Documentary in my opinion proves the existence of intelligent design.  

If you have Netflix you can watch it.  It's called 'particle fever'

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt1385956/

In the documentary they theorize either chaos or ordered design.  They don't necessarily say God but the chaos theory was disproved when they actually captured the particle in the collider.  The documentary doesn't go out of its way to push religion at all, only science.  The physicists in the doc are brilliant and very intriguing to listen to.  One of the best docs I have seen.


----------



## apoint (Mar 5, 2016)

Man creates nothing but does "try" to explain why for the creation. Call it what you like


----------



## Israel (Mar 5, 2016)

apoint said:


> Man creates nothing but does "try" to explain why for the creation. Call it what you like



Yeah.
I think if love could be explained...it wouldn't be...love.
But, it can be known.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Mar 5, 2016)

gordon 2 said:


> Ok... good.  However, when does God fool people on purpose... in scripture...
> 
> 
> It`s just that I inferred, perhaps incorrectly, that in the cases people are fooled it was God`s doing as opposed to people fooling themselves--within a narrow focus mind you.
> ...



1 Kings 22

19 But Micaiah said, “Listen to this message from the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne. All of heaven’s army was standing around him, some on his left side and some on his right side. 20 The Lord said, ‘Which of you will go fool Ahab into attacking the Arameans at Ramoth Gilead so that he will be killed?’ The angels discussed many different plans. 21 Then a spirit went and stood before the Lord and said, ‘I will fool him!’ The Lord asked, ‘How will you do it?’ 22 The spirit answered, ‘I will go to Ahab’s prophets and cause them to tell lies.’ So the Lord said, ‘Yes, that will fool Ahab. Go out and do that.’"


----------



## gordon 2 (Mar 5, 2016)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> 1 Kings 22
> 
> 19 But Micaiah said, “Listen to this message from the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne. All of heaven’s army was standing around him, some on his left side and some on his right side. 20 The Lord said, ‘Which of you will go fool Ahab into attacking the Arameans at Ramoth Gilead so that he will be killed?’ The angels discussed many different plans. 21 Then a spirit went and stood before the Lord and said, ‘I will fool him!’ The Lord asked, ‘How will you do it?’ 22 The spirit answered, ‘I will go to Ahab’s prophets and cause them to tell lies.’ So the Lord said, ‘Yes, that will fool Ahab. Go out and do that.’"



I had never seen this before. Thanks. Ahab was certainly a man to use deception to get his ways. He deceived (fooled) even the church to commit murder and was hit by an arrow while disguised. He certainly died by and as a consequence of his sinning.

So I take it that all are fooled and not unlike in the manner of Ahab. Funny thing though is that Ahab seems to declare that he knows he has committed evil---but he continues with the deceptions in lieu of seeking repentance. It`s like his faith does not permit him to repent. David comes to mind when I think of Ahab. Two great  sinners, but only one fool.

( I`m very, very busy right now, but plan to read and study the article soon and try to better understand what the participation in this tread is about .) The political forums are all fired up lately for some reason. So I spend  my time now, the little I have, studying the wisdom there--because them fires tend to burn out with time, unlike the life here.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 5, 2016)

Genesis 1:27-28
27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." 

I understand that God created man. Then he gave man the command to be fruitful & multiply. Then he gave man dominion.
What part of dominion gives man freewill and the ability to be fruitful or not? 
What if my parents weren't fruitful on the night I was conceived? Am I a created being or has my soul always existed? How much say so or dominion did my parents really have if God had always knew me?


----------



## Israel (Mar 5, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Genesis 1:27-28
> 27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
> 
> I understand that God created man. Then he gave man the command to be fruitful & multiply. Then he gave man dominion.
> ...



I am going to hazard a guess...they weren't thinking about "you" at all. (are you sure it was night?) But, they didn't have to. Because someone else always had you in mind, they were free to not try and "conceive" what was inconceivable...to them...then. You.

Oh, yes, they may have had "baby" in mind, in hope...as some do...and some also don't...but regardless...here "we are" now, for now. Accident...or purpose...but we have to admit...to make even that "choice" of decision...implies we are assuming a purpose "to know".
And made for the knowing...we are.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Mar 6, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I read somewhere recently that there are some Physicists who propose the scientific method should be scrapped and that, should a theory (not the proper use of the word, but none-the-less it's what they used) carry enough "weight," and be "sufficiently elegant;" it should be accepted into the compendium of knowledge amassed by the community with no need or request of empirical evidence. You can understand the vehement, perhaps rabid distaste with which someone like myself would meet such a proposal. Empiricism is the only thing that prevents "science" from being treated like a world religion: Without it, what usefulness science did serve quickly dissolves and its already insidious nature would be magnified many times over.



In the last 150 years, there have been numerous attempts to redefine science in ways that amount to the appointing of human arbiters of truth rather than repeatable experiment.  

One of our papers points out:
_
How far is this from defining sound science as “what scientists say” (with appropriate homage to peer review)? At this point, is science really a powerful, objective epistemology for exploring natural law, or have we merely replaced one set of authorities (the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages) with another (the scientists of the 21st century)? 

We must not replace experimental repeatability with peer-reviewed observations as the ultimate arbiter of scientific validity. Only repeatable experimental results qualify as scientific observations. Observations of physical and documentary evidence of historical events do not warrant equal status with repeatable experiments.
_

See:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0812/0812.4932.pdf


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 6, 2016)

Israel said:


> I am going to hazard a guess...they weren't thinking about "you" at all. (are you sure it was night?) But, they didn't have to. Because someone else always had you in mind, they were free to not try and "conceive" what was inconceivable...to them...then. You.
> 
> Oh, yes, they may have had "baby" in mind, in hope...as some do...and some also don't...but regardless...here "we are" now, for now. Accident...or purpose...but we have to admit...to make even that "choice" of decision...implies we are assuming a purpose "to know".
> And made for the knowing...we are.



In other words God created me through the science of human reproduction. My mother was a surrogate for God's creation. It wasn't exactly like an emmaculate conception as I had an earthly father and mother. My Father was a surrogate father for my real Father.
My body's blood was genetically the same creation as Adam. Therefore in that sense I was created by God.  My soul  was then (created?) by God at conception and placed in this newly formed created body.
Unity, God in me and me in God. Unity, as I return to seeing Jesus as he is. Unity as i become an heir like Jesus.

At what point did my parents have any free will or dominion in this process?  I guess if they had not procreated that night(day) then God would have just waited and created me on another night or day. Perhaps even through another couple. 
I was coming one way or another.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 6, 2016)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> In the last 150 years, there have been numerous attempts to redefine science in ways that amount to the appointing of human arbiters of truth rather than repeatable experiment.
> 
> One of our papers points out:
> _
> ...



Would the answer be to have more God believing scientists?


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 7, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Would the answer be to have more God believing scientists?


The best a Christian scientist can do is to defeat arguments by using the same flawed methods. His science would still not prove anything.


----------



## Israel (Mar 7, 2016)

gemcgrew said:


> The best a Christian scientist can do is to defeat arguments by using the same flawed methods. His science would still not prove anything.



amen.

The insufficient light is the starting point of all scientific inquiry.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Mar 7, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Would the answer be to have more God believing scientists?



No. But having ordinary people, like you and I, not get "starry eyed" at scientific self-indulgences would be a good start; this would begin by understanding what science is and isn't.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Mar 7, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Would the answer be to have more God believing scientists?



Scripture says that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.  The Word of God has the same power to speak to the hearts of scientists as to the hearts of any other sinners.  

The other half is realizing that being a scientist can be as noble and godly profession as any other: carpenter, farmer, tent maker, plumber, etc.  Faith-based families too often steer their children away from science thinking it is inherently godless.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Mar 7, 2016)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Scripture says that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.  The Word of God has the same power to speak to the hearts of scientists as to the hearts of any other sinners.
> 
> The other half is realizing that being a scientist can be as noble and godly profession as any other: carpenter, farmer, tent maker, plumber, etc.  Faith-based families too often steer their children away from science thinking it is inherently godless.



They believe it for good reason.


----------



## Israel (Mar 7, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> They believe it for good reason.



I am a nurse by profession. 
Perspectives gleaned, or better, honed, in the being of a thing by advantage, does not disqualify a better sight, nor a better understanding. But, that being said, the advantage_ may_ be there.

As a believer, but knowing now in the being "on the inside" of this profession, I have come to see the common assumptions promulgated. But...and here is where perspective becomes either honed, or jaundiced, it helps me see "the others" I am not. To one another "the inside" dialogue is far different than to those "outside".
My FB page is loaded with the laudatory declarations: "If you have ever...or your family has ever blah blah blah...then...Thank a nurse" "It's not the doctor who keeps you alive at 3 am when your blood pressure crashes, it's me, the ICU, nurse"...etc. You get the drift. The implication often...nurse is "good" as a priori, and the worse of it..."nurse is often better than..."

That the believer comes to be aware of self back slapping seems inevitable. (yes, my FB is also loaded with not so vague posts about the superiority of "believers") as I count many nurses and believers as friends there.

It is perhaps, made plain to be endemic in our navigations.

The "we know what you don't" or "we have what you don't" or "we see what you don't", "we do, what you can't"...which, if even true, when devolving to such utterances, if either plain or thinly veiled, produces an odor.

When around simple believers, (I so often wonder, is there any other "kind"?) it is amazing from where I find this odor originate, and I am reproved.

To the outside we present a thing. But on the inside where all the "in fighting" and struggle for preeminence is less visible, where deals are cut, with corners also, and compromises are couched to confuse in jargon, well, an insider cut with Lord's sword is always a help.

It makes me think of this:
Then one went out into the field to gather herbs, and found a wild vine and gathered from it his lap full of wild gourds, and came and sliced them into the pot of stew, for they did not know what they were. So they poured it out for the men to eat. And as they were eating of the stew, they cried out and said, "O man of God, there is death in the pot." And they were unable to eat. But he said, "Now bring meal." He threw it into the pot and said, "Pour it out for the people that they may eat." Then there was no harm in the pot.

Though, at best, I may long to be a man who does no harm, as seeing it most often as afar off...dimly...but there...I am happy for those willing to "tell on themselves" who encourage me, for in their doing they show me the knowing of the only One who has taken the sting from it.

The meal, added to the pot.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Mar 7, 2016)

Israel said:


> I am a nurse by profession.
> Perspectives gleaned, or better, honed, in the being of a thing by advantage, does not disqualify a better sight, nor a better understanding. But, that being said, the advantage_ may_ be there.
> 
> As a believer, but knowing now in the being "on the inside" of this profession, I have come to see the common assumptions promulgated. But...and here is where perspective becomes either honed, or jaundiced, it helps me see "the others" I am not. To one another "the inside" dialogue is far different than to those "outside".
> ...



I hope I have not given the impression of being superior in knowledge on this, or any other subject. Your are correct in saying such assumptions and subsequent speech produces an unpleasant odor. (I feel correct in saying I'm the "smelliest" one here.) 

It's my habit to, not thoughtlessly but perhaps carelessly post "catchy little one-liners" that neither leave room for instruction and reprove, nor facilitate the best of discussions in many cases. With that in mind maybe it would be good if I were to extrapolate on my earlier post.

I don't think science is similar to farming, nursing, or any of the other professions mentioned. All scientists I've met (and I don't claim to have exhausted the cosmos in that regard) live in their heads; their bodies are something they use only to carry their brains around. I think the reason this is the case is simply for the fact that Science is a profound enterprise (I speak as a man). With the use of its contents we have been to the moon, seen the stars, "saved" lives, built marvels of engineering, and a host of other awe-inspiring things; these contributions make science, rightfully so, an all-encompassing thing, and it's no surprise that anyone who finds themselves practicing science becomes completely enthralled by its teachings. There is, however, a catch: As described in the OP's blog post, Science does not and cannot speak authoritatively in many areas, but to those who are "all-in" it's of great interest to make it so. To the believer it is plainly seen that "Science" produces nothing of cause; that all good things come from above, and that Science accomplishes nothing good accept what The Lord allows. But to the Non-believer, such recognition is "beyond" them, and, in fact, even the saying appears to be foolishness, as was warned would be the case. This is not to suggest that we should "Beat the Holy Spirit into them," quite the contrary; it is not our purpose to strive with men, but to show love and patience to all. (This is something I work on, daily.) 

Science is different from Farming in that, at least in my case, to learn science requires hours of alone time with books and chalk boards, reviewing and rewriting and reciting principles, equations, and musing of men, seemingly, far more intelligent than myself. It is a scriptural principle that nature "teaches" there is a God. It is also scriptural that it's difficult to be taught when one is not in the classroom. All the principles and equations are nice, but I think, when given too much "weight," they can obstruct from "real" learning. Farming, IME, has the opposite effect.

Science is not, inherently, godless, no more than a tree or grass would be; but we, in our natural state, are: Anything we try to accomplish in our natural state becomes tainted by, and for, it.


----------



## Israel (Mar 7, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I hope I have not given the impression of being superior in knowledge on this, or any other subject. Your are correct in saying such assumptions and subsequent speech produces an unpleasant odor. (I feel correct in saying I'm the "smelliest" one here.)
> 
> It's my habit to, not thoughtlessly but perhaps carelessly post "catchy little one-liners" that neither leave room for instruction and reprove, nor facilitate the best of discussions in many cases. With that in mind maybe it would be good if I were to extrapolate on my earlier post.
> 
> ...


No, you have never given me the impression of considering yourself being superior. Quite the opposite.

When I read "they believe it for good reason" I (perhaps wrongly)  assumed you were referring to the suspicion/conviction of some christians to teach their children a caution regarding it, as mentioned in the post previous to that. That is what blessed me, knowing you labor "among them".
It's far more usual to see men willing to use the backdoor of exalting themselves, by exalting their pursuits, rare it is for a man to see neither good nor bad ascribed to himself by his field of endeavor.
I do meet the humble surgeon, the one who does his work simply knowing it makes him neither better nor worse than the next man, some admit to even being blessed to be able to do it...but it is not unusual to see how "our doing", when presented in a better cast of our own choosing, is really for the maneuvering the spot light.

Especially noticed when a man who labors long in many difficult things, things to be frank, the majority cannot fully appreciate...is able to say this of himself...and his work.

The enthralling "of things"...that so often "feels so durn right" to the doer, is often our worst enemy.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Mar 7, 2016)

I'm ashamed to admit I'd never heard Emperor or Ice-Cream. It's a lovely poem, and, given my first impressions, and impressions "honed" after reading a few interpretations, I think it would be applicable to this thread.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Mar 8, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> They believe it for good reason.



Science has turned increasingly godless in the past 150 years, but a careful study of the history of science shows that its godlessness is acquired, not inherent.  

As a soldier can trust too much in his weapons, a driver can trust too much in his car, a scientist can trust too much in his mind or in his profession.

But it need not be that way.


----------



## gordon 2 (Mar 8, 2016)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Science has turned increasingly godless in the past 150 years, but a careful study of the history of science shows that its godlessness is acquired, not inherent.
> 
> As a soldier can trust too much in his weapons, a driver can trust too much in his car, a scientist can trust too much in his mind or in his profession.
> 
> But it need not be that way.



Yes exactly.

But what would be your reply  to the question " Define the presence of God, (be it the presence of the Holy Spirit or Jesus), as claimed by Christian believers?" from both traditions, scientific and faith?

 I have found, so far,  that both provide similar answers yet one group claims the participation of the heavenly in the world as cause and the other that it is an extension of the adaptive nature of our biology?

What do you make of this? One group may well claim over reliance on faith and the other science.

What's up, what's down?


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 8, 2016)

Anybody else having trouble viewing this thread? I can't see past post #59.


----------



## gordon 2 (Mar 8, 2016)

gemcgrew said:


> Anybody else having trouble viewing this thread? I can't see past post #59.




For some reason I had problems with post 59 which is mine. It won't let me edit  and is asking me for a quick reply. It is also telling me who is viewing the tread for some reason.  However I can see posts after 59 no problems. I really don't know what gives. Tried to figure it out yesterday, but it is beyond my edjumacation.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 8, 2016)

A 3 page dissertation.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Mar 12, 2016)

Israel said:


> No, you have never given me the impression of considering yourself being superior. Quite the opposite.
> 
> When I read "they believe it for good reason" I (perhaps wrongly)  assumed you were referring to the suspicion/conviction of some christians to teach their children a caution regarding it, as mentioned in the post previous to that. That is what blessed me, knowing you labor "among them".
> It's far more usual to see men willing to use the backdoor of exalting themselves, by exalting their pursuits, rare it is for a man to see neither good nor bad ascribed to himself by his field of endeavor.
> ...



You're assumption was correct.

Embarrassingly, I sometimes have to be reminded that knowing Quantum Mechanics does not place me "above" my grandfather who was a farmer. Being a man of profound sensitivity and perception, he knew a little time spent with hands in the dirt, and hooks in the water does a soul good in realizing "importance."

I must decrease, and The Lord must increase.




LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Science has turned increasingly godless in the past 150 years, but a careful study of the history of science shows that its godlessness is acquired, not inherent.
> 
> As a soldier can trust too much in his weapons, a driver can trust too much in his car, a scientist can trust too much in his mind or in his profession.
> 
> But it need not be that way.



Agreed.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 12, 2016)

If God didn't create science, how is it possible that a created being such as a man, has the capacity to invent science as a way to explain God's creation?
How can a man invent a whole system of explaining the solar system or the human body if the scientific systems weren't there in the first place?
If the reproductive system is just a figment of our imagination, and we all know that our vary existence is from divine intervention, then why did God give man the sperm & eggs, and all of the equipment necessary for scientific reproduction to take place?

Why didn't God make life so unexplainable that man could nave have the capacity to explain it? No gravity, no blood pumping to organs, no mutations, not containing atoms to split, no atmosphere, no water, no sun, no reproduction by intercourse or cell division, no basic elements, etc. 
If one can't see that all of that is from God, how did a mere man come up with it all? If God didn't put mold on bread & cheese for medical purposes, how in the would could a mere man discover that usage?

I think ya'll give man more credit that he deserves. If science isn't a part of God's creation then it wouldn't be there for man to discover.
There is just no way that even the smartest man in the world could invent science as a way to define my "systems" if God didn't create my systems using the science needed for his creation to survive.
Otherwise God could have easily created me not needing air, water, food, and shelter.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 12, 2016)

Anthropology is a social science. It shares techniques and methods with other behavioral sciences and also draws upon physical and biological sciences and is unique among the social and behavioral sciences.

Anthropology of religion is the study of religion in relation to other social institutions, and the comparison of religious beliefs and practices across cultures.

We could see this as a way of man using science to explain why we all are of the religion of our parents and native country.

Otherwise we could us Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

An anthropologists would use science to define why a person is of another religion. A Christian might say it's because he is evil, we haven't witnessed to him, the Potter made him that way, or his "election" hasn't been made aware to that individual yet. 
Either way, he is without excuse. 

Why would God make a planet so big that his "Word" couldn't be discovered or his election couldn't be given if world religions wasn't part of his plan? He had to know that people would make up ways of explaining creation if they were not offered a way to the truth & light from knowledge.
Some how one would think God has offered a "way." 

If one is going to exchange the truth for a lie then God should at least provide him with the "truth." This has to be more than evidence through creation or we wouldn't have so many world religions and we'd have more elected "world" Christians.

Maybe through the science of anthropology God can reveal why.


----------



## Israel (Mar 13, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> If God didn't create science, how is it possible that a created being such as a man, has the capacity to invent science as a way to explain God's creation?
> How can a man invent a whole system of explaining the solar system or the human body if the scientific systems weren't there in the first place?
> If the reproductive system is just a figment of our imagination, and we all know that our vary existence is from divine intervention, then why did God give man the sperm & eggs, and all of the equipment necessary for scientific reproduction to take place?
> 
> ...



Art, are we all not scientists in some measure?
The systematization of the means by which we know things, and do things, may not be as rigorously enforced as among those (or, perhaps not?) who wear that specific label...but who of us has not...come up with an idea, wondered if it would work, laid out the means of testing it...and there discovered...
Yes 
validated! 


Or no. 
A single 2x4 is not sufficient for supporting a 4 man  hunting blind.


Now, this is way advanced "science" for some of us, not in the sense of its being "intelligently complex"...but in the sense of...most of us started in infancy or shortly thereafter.
We may not wonder, at first "I cry"...this happens. 
But eventually...a link is made...between cause and effect.

How long before "the louder I cry" the sooner this happens? The more persistently I cry increases the likelihood of such and such happening?
Take it to whatever place you want, from stick ball games in the street, to looking for that first kiss. Holding the stick ball bat a certain way, to wearing the hair a certain way.
"what is needed for such and such to take place?"



We catalog every experience, no, not in white coats...but we learn, trial and error, confirming certain things, (for whatever our reason) and some things confirmed are also learned to not be done again. 

We, not being the professional, but using "a" method not at all unlike what is called the scientific method, go through life much the same...this works, that doesn't...and each of us, to whatever degree we care to explore the reasons of the why's and how's
Now, admittedly, we (who do not wear the label, scientist)...generally are about "some other pursuit" into which either, our science...or "their" science is interjected for the purpose of something more(?)...or less(?) than just "the knowing". 
I don't much care about Bernoulli effects, wind shear patterns etc...but when I want to build a house on a very windy precipice...it could behoove me to borrow some of "their" info. But, the way I hammer that nail, baby, that's all me. Learned and practiced over years...even if...and here's the part...it's all wrong. At least in the sense of being "wrong" that it really is not accomplishing the best (I have presupposed it to) in my doing. Now...if I really wanted to know whether angling a nail slightly to its neighboring nail increases the "pull out power" needed over a 32 sq/ft piece of plywood, not just my supposition...well there are ways of finding that out.
Do I want to do that? Do I have time to do that? Or...has some scientist working for Weyerhouser already compiled something I can check? A guy paid for his time (even if he builds houses "on the side") to do all the work necessary for me to know. The guy who has already done "those experiments".
Here's where chicken and egg often get "in the mix".
A guy's a fisherman. He loves fishing. In fact he hates Mondays, because to him, that's the start of his non fishing days. He's learned some techniques, he's been a careful observer and cataloger of experiences while fishing, some would call him a scientific angler. He plays with lure molding. He finds something through trial and error that is irresistable...and thinks..."if I can just market this...goodbye Monday!"
Yet, if he is successful, how long before Monday shows back up...in business meetings...promotional tours, posing for adverts, site inspections for new stores...accountant reviews? I only use this example for all the "unintendeds" we invite to our party of "look what I found!"

Like Evergreen mentioned...the "purer" scientist just wants to know for the knowing, the brain seeing the body as mere transport system. He may not love fishing, may not have a house to build, or a first kiss to seek. 

My friend who loves all things Einstein says he was asked by Princeton..."what do you need for your work?" (thinking some sort of stipend or salary)
"A cot and a bowl of soup occasionally" was what he said according to my friend. 

But, they said "what about your wife?"
Whether this story is apocryphal or not...embellished or not...the truth it speaks to is not far from what Evergreen alluded to.

So, there's a spectrum of science...and scientists. 
As haphazard as the experiment of swinging a hammer with a greasy handle (not set out to strictly be an experiment at the time)...to the vacuum sealed,  temperature controlled, light excluding chamber to "see"...what happens when this happens.
Results...get cataloged.

But here is where we are "undone" in all our science.
Whether we be purist nerd with pocket protector or guy just looking for more fishing time...we come to enshrine, make an idol of...the nature of repeatable results. We then, thinking we handle, and can handle according to these, but now find we have made of them a prison.
For one man it may mean "I knew it...I was RIGHT! I can publish!"
For another it may mean "MONEY IN THE BANK! No more Monday"
For still another...it may mean...both.

But here's the thing, when dealing with "reality"...and what we presumptuously call the "nature of reality" and its exploration. We are not dealing with a system. We are approaching a person...who already knows all our intent.


In secret things...in the very most "top" secret things, matters are shared only upon a need to know basis.
"what about this?"...we ask... 
What is your need to know?
Just curious. 
OK...then you get a curious answer.

What is your need to know?
It will make me look clever.
OK, then you get a clever answer.

What is your need to know?
I'm dying...and rightfully so. And alone...and rightfully so. and I'd just like to sit by you till the end, may I? I need to know that. May I?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 13, 2016)

Israel said:


> Art, are we all not scientists in some measure?
> 
> In secret things...in the very most "top" secret things, matters are shared only upon a need to know basis.
> "what about this?"...we ask...
> ...



My need to know? Look at the advances in Medicine? Look at the science that allows us to grow abundant crops to feed creation. Look at our advances we've accomplished in harnessing our natural resources for energy.

None of these discoveries by man wouldn't be possible if God had never designed creation without science as his basis.

Man could never split the atom for energy consumption if God had never designed his creation with atoms.

When God created things in the physical world he decided to use atoms.  It's his creation and his choice. Again he didn't have to design with atoms, yet he chose to.

Why?


----------



## Israel (Mar 13, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> My need to know? Look at the advances in Medicine? Look at the science that allows us to grow abundant crops to feed creation. Look at our advances we've accomplished in harnessing our natural resources for energy.
> 
> None of these discoveries by man wouldn't be possible if God had never designed creation without science as his basis.
> 
> ...




That's the answer...why.
We are the one's stuck in the why...and we might ask...why?


----------



## Israel (Mar 13, 2016)

Jesus said, as of children in the marketplace... "we have piped for you, and you would not dance, we have played a dirge for you and you would not lament..." Speaking of himself, and John the Baptist.
One came in mournful warning, one came in joyous announcement, but to both was said plainly "WHY...should we believe or follow you?"

Our "why" is only satisfied when put to death in contentment.
And we may have as much discontent as we desire, or perhaps need...but it will never produce one answer to the "why".
Maybe because we still don't see it's enough to just be a person...we need to be a person "with an answer"... a person plus!
Maybe a beginning is heard when in all our striving, all our twisting on points...and we get reduced in this faith, if we can get reduced in this faith to the unutterable truth of an "eye" upon us...and there either ask "why do you love me"...or even "why do you hate me" and hear what we may have feared to hear..."because you are just like everyone else".
When we hate the eye, we desire indulgence.
When we see who sees, something else happens.
Mercy is everything indulgence was created in deception to hide.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 13, 2016)

Israel said:


> That's the answer...why.
> We are the one's stuck in the why...and we might ask...why?



I think the answer of why God created with science is where we could advance as his creation multiplied. It was his way of feeding his creation. His way of providing renewable natural resources and agriculture to keep his creation renewable and ample.

We have dominion. We have choices. We can even choose to procreate or not. We have the ability to provide health care for God's creation. We have the ability to split God's atom and provide heat for his creation.

We are his stewards of his creation. We have dominion. He used science for his creation so that we could provide dominion as we procreated.

We should probably use more dominion in procreation if our procreation task our resources faster than we can advance in providing food and shelter for this procreation.

That could be one answer. Either that or science was invented by man and God is in total control with man having no free will or dominion.


----------



## Israel (Mar 13, 2016)

perhaps...


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 13, 2016)

Israel said:


> perhaps...



I like!


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Mar 15, 2016)

gordon 2 said:


> Yes exactly.
> 
> But what would be your reply  to the question " Define the presence of God, (be it the presence of the Holy Spirit or Jesus), as claimed by Christian believers?" from both traditions, scientific and faith?
> 
> ...



Science presupposes all observations can be ascribed to natural causes: this is methodological naturalism.  It is not even open to the possibility of supernatural agents.

See: 

https://biblicaltheologyofscience.w...and-key-assumptions-of-the-scientific-method/


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Mar 17, 2016)

Thank God for science!        It's the reason 8 out of 10 of the smartest people in the world believe in God, (btw 6 of those 8 are Christian      Science has shown how miraculous a planet like earth is (1 in 700 quintillion   ) and how impossible the origin of life by time and chance is!  (1 in 10 to the 150th power)    


Has to suck to be an Origin of Life scientist


----------



## welderguy (Mar 17, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Thank God for science!        It's the reason 8 out of 10 of the smartest people in the world believe in God, (btw 6 of those 8 are Christian      Science has shown how miraculous a planet like earth is (1 in 700 quintillion   ) and how impossible the origin of life by time and chance is!  (1 in 10 to the 150th power)
> 
> 
> Has to suck to be an Origin of Life scientist



Good post!
That made my day.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Mar 17, 2016)

should make anyone LOL when they read where NASA has found another "earth-like" planet!        I know I do....      200+ prerequisites for a planet to be 'able' to support intelligent life like on earth.    

We are alone in the universe!        (Unless, of course, God designed it somewhere else)


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Mar 18, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I don't think science is similar to farming, nursing, or any of the other professions mentioned. All scientists I've met (and I don't claim to have exhausted the cosmos in that regard) live in their heads; their bodies are something they use only to carry their brains around.



Most of the scientists I know who are genuine people of faith are exceptions to this common pattern.

I try and separate what is most common from what can and should be.  The whole point of my blog The Biblical Theology of Science is that from God's perspective, the purpose of science is the same as farming, to fulfill the commission, "Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it."

I wouldn't dream of pursuing science (or farming) without the essential exercise of faith and prayer.  See:

Faith and Prayer in the Pursuit of Science

Science is just one way for man to exercise his God-given authority over the natural world.  

Knowing God’s thoughts are probably best accomplished by reading God’s word and walking alongside of the creator with eagerness and enthusiasm for the great mandates of Scripture (NT: making disciples of all nations; OT: being fruitful and multiplying, filling the earth and subduing it). We reject any suggestion that people with a given professional gifting or calling (to math or science) are somehow better equipped to know God’s thoughts than other professions (farmers, fishermen, carpenters, etc.) The farmer who has to pray for rain in season, confront the thorns and thistles, and then struggles to harvest his crop before it is destroyed by fungus, insects, or other pestilence is probably walking more closely with the Creator than the mathematicians and scientists who more likely spend time in human, intellectual, and self-dependent frames of reference.


----------



## hummerpoo (Mar 19, 2016)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Most of the scientists I know who are genuine people of faith are exceptions to this common pattern.
> 
> I try and separate what is most common from what can and should be.  The whole point of my blog The Biblical Theology of Science is that from God's perspective, the purpose of science is the same as farming, to fulfill the commission, "Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it."
> 
> ...



Those are wonderful and inspiring thoughts.

Do not God’s creatures, in their natural condition, view all things as to the advantage or disadvantage imparted to the holder of that thing.  Romans 2:1-16 argues, no … proves, that even the advantage of reading God’s word, and the possession of whatever knowledge is gained, is of no eternal advantage.  Believers are told that they bring upon themselves condemnation when they judge themselves to have advantage over the unbeliever, thereby having denied that they have only that which they have received from God.  Romans 2:17-29 then proves that those with superior knowledge of God’s word have no eternal advantage.  Holders of that superior knowledge bring condemnation upon themselves when they judge themselves to be advantaged over those of less knowledge in that their knowledge makes them no more capable of obedience.

Therefore, those chosen by God to walk alongside Him: seeing, hearing, thanking, and praising with humble gratitude are the eternally advantaged.  Truly believing that God has freely and unconditionally provided us the only advantage of eternal consequence will make us truly humble, and create in us the only acceptable attitude toward our fellow creatures.


----------



## hummerpoo (Mar 19, 2016)

If there is then no eternal advantage given to those with knowledge of God’s word over those with no such knowledge, and no eternal advantage given to those with superior knowledge of God’s word over those of lesser knowledge; is there then temporal advantage given?  Paul gives us the answer in the same passage, using the Jew of his time as the example (Rm. 3:1,2); yes, “Much in every way …”; but that only for the obedient (Rm 3:4ff).  Paul had given us three examples of the temporal advantage previously in this passage when he said “the Jew first and also the Greek”:

Rm. 1:16 “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. “
The power of the gospel is enhanced by knowledge of God’s word.

Rm. 2:9 “There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, “.  (for the advantage see R. 7:1ff)
Tribulation and distress are enhanced for evildoers (disobedient) by knowledge of God’s word.

Rm. 2:10 “but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.”
Glory and honor and peace are enhanced for those who do good (obedient) by knowledge of God’s word .

Knowledge of God's word is to be desired by God's people, but that knowledge gives us no eternal advantage, nor does it in any way elevate us in the kingdom, or in the world, it serves our Lord by making better servants of His people.


Sorry about that rabbit trail, the farmer and the scientist, and the reading and walking, got me headed that way and I just had to run it out.


----------



## Israel (Mar 20, 2016)

hummerpoo said:


> If there is then no eternal advantage given to those with knowledge of God’s word over those with no such knowledge, and no eternal advantage given to those with superior knowledge of God’s word over those of lesser knowledge; is there then temporal advantage given?  Paul gives us the answer in the same passage, using the Jew of his time as the example (Rm. 3:1,2); yes, “Much in every way …”; but that only for the obedient (Rm 3:4ff).  Paul had given us three examples of the temporal advantage previously in this passage when he said “the Jew first and also the Greek”:
> 
> Rm. 1:16 “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. “
> The power of the gospel is enhanced by knowledge of God’s word.
> ...



I'm not.

It seems there's a place knowledge brings me to that "dumps" me precisely where it is of no advantage. In fact, in that dumping (so to speak), that I would attribute to following a path laid with the bricks of that knowledge, I come to the place where for all of me, surely, it seems I know nothing...at all. It seems, at that time, the very place where all "knowledge" is actually manifestly contradicted.

In my imagination, "my grasp", "my understanding", that place, of which I would say within myself..."I am ready, I am equipped, I have gathered the right things...I know it's going to be tough (I been told...by those I "should" believe)...but I know now, I can McGyver my way through it. I'll use the bits I have gathered, and find there what is at "hand"...and surely come up with something there...I am ready to face...my future".

I don't know...maybe a smarter man would be less inclined to reveal his inner dialogues, but also in those inner dialogues...I am the smartest man that has ever walked. For "everyone else" has "everyone else's view"...but I...of all men, are privvy to "my own"...I am after all ME, and no one, of all "the others"...is that. Never has been an anyone...since creation...ME. Or, so "I" think.

Oh, I can give assent, I can mark agreement, I can bestow a respect...that acknowledges, in whatever sense my esteem (of another), in other words I can "deem" others of a worthiness...but that is always, ultimately "of my"...of ME.
I am always arbiter...I give, I withhold, I agree or I withstand, I esteem, I revile.

This, I pretty much "enjoy" daily. Unknowing what I am doing. Completely...oblivious.
But that place. That place where none of this, by which the "all of this" takes me...works there. It is the place where all of the "ME" is contradicted of its benefit. There is absolutely no advantage to me being ME, there.

If there is a dialogue then, and there, that might be mapped, decoded to plainness, all superfluous words of straw burned away, all uprising thoughts mere flotsam in evidence of a sinking, pared down to essential nub...it is "SAVE the ME" For I am where the ME cannot be, with far more truth than just the saying "I am insufficient"...for "the ME" here is manifestly negated. All of will, practice, experience, efforts,  "knowledge" held of the me (yes...even "of God")...whoosh...

nevertheless, I live.

As a somewhat hilarious aside. I find myself talking to my Lord on my way to work. Some might call it something else, what matter? In my efforts to be as plain speaking as I know, I had come to a point I have come to in past exchanges where words seemed to fail at the uncovering of a sensing in myself of something I was trying to expound...the feeling of the "thing" the seeing of the "thing" was for me plain, but...the words...insufficient, and so I said, at that point, what I have said so many times before in "our" exchanges...I said "do you know what I mean?"
And this suddenly apparent, lightning shining from east to west, came.
"Oh, I know exactly what you mean, it's you who have no idea of what you mean."

It's right for any and all to laugh at a man like that. For whatever years I have been calling myself a believer, to, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye be awoken to a something I have probably said a thousand times...if not more. As though I "knew" it.

Do you know what I mean?


----------



## gordon 2 (Mar 20, 2016)

Israel said:


> I'm not.
> 
> It seems there's a place knowledge brings me to that "dumps" me precisely where it is of no advantage. In fact, in that dumping (so to speak), that I would attribute to following a path laid with the bricks of that knowledge, I come to the place where for all of me, surely, it seems I know nothing...at all. It seems, at that time, the very place where all "knowledge" is actually manifestly contradicted.
> 
> ...




Not I. I don't. But the essence of a thing is changed through God's favor. And so what understanding I have must come from what was changed by Him through grace. So I am resigned to love you in your prayers for a charisma, for example. Sometimes maybe it is our will to not stand in the way of Christ as he goes by so that his will be done. But then again, sometimes it is a sincere will that puts itself in the way of Christ, and stops Him even, with a plea not unlike blind Bart... "For heaven's sake my "I" needs you! Stop!"

And so it is perhaps one asks, with all kind of "things" glue to the "I", like the thief on his cross, and receives.

But no bros. I have no clue on what is God's gift(s) for you, your "I". What are you asking for? What favors? The simple illiterates might just have the "heart of Jesus", and the hubbub of the saints in heaven with their many places to stop Jesus. What do you have? How many places?


----------



## Israel (Mar 20, 2016)

gordon 2 said:


> Not I. I don't. But the essence of a thing is changed through God's favor. And so what understanding I have must come from what was changed by Him through grace. So I am resigned to love you in your prayers for a charisma, for example. Sometimes maybe it is our will to not stand in the way of Christ as he goes by so that his will be done. But then again, sometimes it is a sincere will that puts itself in the way of Christ, and stops Him even, with a plea not unlike blind Bart... "For heaven's sake my "I" needs you! Stop!"
> 
> And so it is perhaps one asks, like the thief on his cross, and receives.
> 
> But no bros. I have no clue on what is God's gift(s) for you, your "I". What are you asking for? The simple illiterates might just have the "heart of Jesus", and the hubbub of the saints in heaven with their many places to stop Jesus. What do you have?



A need to be...stopped.

And yes 





> "For heaven's sake my "I" needs you! Stop!"






As if He didn't know. And done it perfectly, already.

Eternally grateful he didn't have anything better to do...than STOP...for me.


----------



## hummerpoo (Mar 20, 2016)

Israel said:


> I'm not.
> 
> It seems there's a place knowledge brings me to that "dumps" me precisely where it is of no advantage. In fact, in that dumping (so to speak), that I would attribute to following a path laid with the bricks of that knowledge, I come to the place where for all of me, surely, it seems I know nothing...at all. It seems, at that time, the very place where all "knowledge" is actually manifestly contradicted.
> 
> ...



Yes ... Among men, how often have I, in seeking to impart knowledge which I possess, stumbled, not knowing just how to proceed; or completed my presenting, only to receive a response clearly indicating that I had failed to communicate; being clearly shown, in the former,  that I did not have that which I wished to give, and in the latter, that I did not understand where the gift would fit.

Then to go from that place, having displayed ignorance, to seek intercourse with God, rather than seeking to be fed by Him, thus denying to source of knowledge ... UUGGHH!!!


----------

