Re: Scientific theory

In a message dated 12/9/2004 6:40:44 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Don Winterstein" <dfwinterstein@msn.com> writes:

>DW:  We're talking about how we practice science here.  Name me one article in a respectable scientific journal that invokes God as a direct cause.  Formal scientific intercourse in our world excludes God as a cause--except metaphorically, as in "God doesn't throw dice."  That's how God could ever be (and is) excluded.

rich:
God is not excluded. Men describe the manifestations of God because they can never experience God directly. That is self evident to me, but you make a separation and believe scientists can kill God because feeble as they are, they choose not to attribute any of his manifestations to him. That is a result of their free will, not God's absence.
There is also a large body of scientists who are hostile to religion, especially Christianity and would never use God language at all.

DW:  I agree that the physical world witnesses of God--but it's not without its shortcomings.  There's an old saying that the gods mess up anything that's close to perfection so that it can't compete with them for glory.  The physical world, I think, is a few degrees less competent than God himself.  It's a thing, and God is a person.  As for the marionettes--while I dislike that metaphor, it's a major theme of the Bible from one end to the other:  God from time to time injects himself into human affairs in special ways to change things.  While the Bible may be unscientific, I can't accept that it's "completely unreligious."  And what's science got to do with it?

rich:
The Bible is not only scientific, it's Darwinian and religious at the same time.

Don:
>Matter of fact, now that I think about it, while "ineffable" might sound like a good word for God, it's not a word to my knowledge that has much currency in old-time Christianity.  The NT doesn't use it.

rich:
"Ineffable" is the very word rabbinical Judaism uses to describe God. Now, I know that my willingness to invoke Jewish theology may be considered a faux pas in Christian company but let me give you an example of just how enlightening such invocations can be.
When Menachem Schneerson died (arguably the most powerful rebbe of modern times) a commemorative brochure was printed. In the brochure I found the following story which I could not find in any of my Bibles:
"Moshe and the Jews reached the Red Sea. Even though they had just witnessed so many miracles, they stopped short there. G-d told Moshe to command the Jews to go forward. Behind them were the Egyptians and in front of them was the Red Sea. No one made a move - unitl one man, Nachshon ben Aminodov (the leader of the tribe of JUDAH) jumped into the water and walked further and further until the water reached his head. At that moment, Moshe raised his stick over the waters and G-d caused the waters to split. Imagine how the others must have felt who were standing near him. Wouldn't they too have desired to have this strong belief?"

Now, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty certain that in this story lies the reason Jesus walked on water in the NT. His faith was as great as Nachshon's but he was God and would not even be submerged as Nachshon was. In this story I find the justification for reading every bit of Biblical commentary I can get my hands on to broaden my understanding of Jesus Christ.
Received on Thu Dec 9 18:04:17 2004