A Look at God Only From What the Bible Teaches

[Yahcubs777]

..... I would like to take the liberty and add the adjective ' known ' to the ^ above ^. Known science.....
As time advances so does scientific knowledge, so we still deal with ' known science ' as it seems today.
Just a thought....

Science has so many flaws its not funny, beginning with the fact that the foundation of reasoning is inductive by nature. Secondly, science can only deal with the natural world. Thirdly, scientistis have their own priesthood and agenda. The fact that the theory of evolution comes from them, is a proof of it. And the height of lukewarmness from christians in the earth leaves them with no excuses when judgement is passed regarding this matter. There is where that theory came from, ironically, it comes from the supernatural.

I don't see science as the arbiter, so this is irrelevant to a person's spirituality. Science is powerful, but it's not all powerful. The Bible, and other scriptures are not meant as scientific texts, so to judge them by that is futile. Of course they will be found lacking, it isn't their base or basis.

Science has no power; power belongs to GOD and to GOD alone.

 

[rational experiences]

Since the Bible never calls God a cold gas, it is moot. One cannot argue against a text and what it says by arguing what it ought to have said and didn't. Well, I mean one can argue that way, but it's moot and means precious little to the text in question.

I'm not arguing about God.

My brother's in science are.

Only humans thinking talking apply names and stories.

Say and said no man is God.

Reason. You don't make a commentary unless you were challenged.

Science says I think. I name. I infer.

You stand upon a planet.

You have to be standing on a created planet that owns form to think about when it never existed.

That statement then confessed but God does exist as the science status a planet.

The argument by human consciousness.

When it wasn't a planet the preceding form did not support the form planet. As it was removing its form and presence.

If you quote before a planet you then theorise I won't allow the form planet to exist. As rationally there was no pre formed God mass.

Only given term by planet formed.

Which says a planet exists only by mass of presence. Keep removing mass one day planet might not hold form anymore.

The argument for God was common sense.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

Science has so many flaws its not funny, beginning with the fact that the foundation of reasoning is inductive by nature. Secondly, science can only deal with the natural world. Thirdly, scientistis have their own priesthood and agenda. The fact that the theory of evolution comes from them, is a proof of it. And the height of lukewarmness from christians in the earth leaves them with no excuses when judgement is passed regarding this matter. There is where that theory came from, ironically, it comes from the supernatural.



Science has no power; power belongs to GOD and to GOD alone.

Science may have many flaws, but it has incredible successes also. I believe in giving credit where credit is due, by all means. I am not in the least against science, for I LOVE my technological blessings which indeed bless my life with more ease, more good food, more safety, more warmth, etc.

Science can never be complete, but it already knows that, it is irrelevant to imagine it is supposed to be the be all, since it has never claimed that. I LOVE what it does to help us learn so vastly much more than we otherwise would have. Lets face it, religion in the Middle Ages and up into our day really did take the entirely wrong tac. Known science today has taken a few bad tacs itself, but overall I applaud it for its incredible help for humanity. Is it the only answer? I don't think so, but then I am not the final judge.

I enjoy studying spirituality also. But one does not need to denigrate science in any manner in order to enjoy, learn, and benefit from studying spirituality. I honestly don't see them anymore as antagonists. I have no idea how to reconcile them, and, truth to tell, its not that important for me to do at this time.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

..... I would like to take the liberty and add the adjective ' known ' to the ^ above ^. Known science.....
As time advances so does scientific knowledge, so we still deal with ' known science ' as it seems today.
Just a thought....

I think that is quite appropriate, thank you for that clarification.

 

[rational experiences]

Science. Never needed to be practiced. Life was good. We were healthy. Needed. Owned a family and community place. Were not mentally disturbed. Criminals. Or greedy.

We were loved.

Technology made you lazy as the rich are lazy. Let everyone else toil for me.

You cannot lie about what human choice has caused.

Medical advice always natural.

As you needed to give the machine a life it was the moment consciousness in human life said the machine will now by its life take my place.

Where possession by machines and invention in consciousness is stated. As a human inferred statement.

In reality a machine never took our place does not own our life living spirit bio energy. Yet it is theoried as if it is reality. The falseness technology introduced.

If technology assists to save a life how many lives or even unnatural deaths does technology use now own as causes?

Would you as one self equate your life lost as your owned self worthiness as compared to technology?

Not likely.

Coercive lying takes the status I am wrong made the wrong choice and could have us all destroyed. Into false status claimed.

How using words coerced belief and following. As statements prove.

When you know you are wrong. Then intellect says it needs to make some life choices for a better life subsistence.

If we use technology today. The human natural is first owner of a healthy life and food supply. Nature owns that status not technology.

As humans are first naturally living of course some technology is expressed as it's best intention. Life however always natural has to face the challenge it gave itself.

Yet rationally only the rich had that choice. Today it is an irrational statement as the rich studied by the family only believe in their personal future and not the natural family.

As the intention an artificial life.

Many times spiritual man tried to introduce technological support that would cause little harm and no profit.

Proving life by the standard the elite had owned a choice.

 

[Yahcubs777]

Science may have many flaws, but it has incredible successes also. I believe in giving credit where credit is due, by all means. I am not in the least against science, for I LOVE my technological blessings which indeed bless my life with more ease, more good food, more safety, more warmth, etc.

Science can never be complete, but it already knows that, it is irrelevant to imagine it is supposed to be the be all, since it has never claimed that. I LOVE what it does to help us learn so vastly much more than we otherwise would have. Lets face it, religion in the Middle Ages and up into our day really did take the entirely wrong tac. Known science today has taken a few bad tacs itself, but overall I applaud it for its incredible help for humanity. Is it the only answer? I don't think so, but then I am not the final judge.

I enjoy studying spirituality also. But one does not need to denigrate science in any manner in order to enjoy, learn, and benefit from studying spirituality. I honestly don't see them anymore as antagonists. I have no idea how to reconcile them, and, truth to tell, its not that important for me to do at this time.

Are you kidding? Science, the method is fine. But to claim that because something cannot be proven,or disproven by it so its not real is ridiculous. As i said, science cannot deal with the supernatural. I am supposed to respect something that has called me a b@st@rd and denied my prinicpal ancestors? Then to claim, science knows its incomplete? Science is not a being, it is a method of research, inquiry, and discovery. It has its rules as well. And those rules cannot be broken. Science has produced great things in this kind of a planet, but its also responsible for horrible things like neuclear weapons for instance... I don't hate or like science, its not a being. But when something is trying to tell me that my principal ancestors do not exist, and that my GOD does not exist, the GOD I know, then it shows itself as an enemy to my people.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

Technology made you lazy as the rich are lazy. Let everyone else toil for me.

You cannot lie about what human choice has caused.

The Sumerians had this, as did the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, etc., it's always been this way. Humans have been working for humans for eons whether as slaves or partners. Technology didn't all the sudden bring this about.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

In reality a machine never took our place does not own our life living spirit bio energy. Yet it is theoried as if it is reality. The falseness technology introduced.

Are you communicating right now using smoke signals from the top of a mountain, or are you using a computer to get your ideas across to many millions who otherwise could not possibly know what you were saying?
Machines will never take over humanity, but they certainly do help get rid of the trivialities of drudging labor so we can spend our time in other pursuits. They take the back breaking pain away from many types of labor we would otherwise have to perform. They enable us to get further in relative ease and enjoy more of this world in vastly larger swaths of area. In one day we get to see more of the world in a car than our ancestors saw in their entire lifetimes.
Life without electricity is possible, of course, but having electricity is a blessing, not a curse. Having the medical knowledge we now do and the machines which help us live vastly more pain free is preferable in my opinion. Having the technology to print writing so we can vastly increase our knowledge of thousands of different subjects is vastly prefereable to being limited to one or two views.
So, like I say, technology, science itself is not the enemy, it is more important for us to use it wisely. It isn't going away, and we don't need to let it overtake us in our humanity, which I don't think we are.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

Are you kidding? Science, the method is fine. But to claim that because something cannot be proven,or disproven by it so its not real is ridiculous. As i said, science cannot deal with the supernatural.

I entirely agree, but it never has had its eye on the supernatural, but on the natural. And it has means to guide us through a lot of mazes that we used to fumble through in our ignorance. We have learned far better how to handle natural issues with it than without it. It has nothing to do with whether the supernatural is real or not, so I don't worry about that, as I indicated before. But I am not anti-science, that, to me, is simply the wrong way to go about it. Science is powerful, but its not the end all be all. So, I give it credit where it is deserved, and go about with other means and ways of enlarging my own understanding.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

And those rules cannot be broken. Science has produced great things in this kind of a planet, but its also responsible for horrible things like neuclear weapons for instance...

It is not science per se that has caused this, but human beings misusing science. It's like saying guns kill people. No, people using guns kill people, guns without someone shooting them can't do anything of themselves. Cars can be used as weapons to kill, but that doesn't make cars evil or terrible to own. It means we responsibly use our technology to improve people's lives and be a blessing not a curse. For one to become anti-gun or anti-car because someone else uses them to kill is as silly as someone becoming anti-bow and arrow or anti-spear, or anti-rock because someone else uses them to hurt and kill others.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

If technology assists to save a life how many lives or even unnatural deaths does technology use now own as causes?

So are you willing to get rid of absolutely everything you use which has a technological base, including the computer you are right now using? The telephone, indoor heating, plumbing, windows in your house, your very house, the clothes you wear, the medicines you take, the food you eat and go directly back to just living outside? Sure bad things happen because of technology that's not the issue.
The issue is, how are we going to use what we have responsibly? Technology itself doesn't kill, human greed does. A tree made into a spear kills if the human wielding it decides to use it for that purpose, but we don't cut down all trees because of that do we? How stupid would that be? People throw rocks and kill each other with them, do we grind all rocks down to sand for that reason?

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

As you needed to give the machine a life it was the moment consciousness in human life said the machine will now by its life take my place.

Machines have no consciousness. It won't take anyone's place totally, but they can and do eliminate many very difficult tasks we humans have so we can do other more useful things with our time. Sure you can dig a well in the ground with your hands only to get to water, but using a shovel is honestly quite more useful, intelligent and time saving. A drill from a large truck is even far better to get water access to somewhere you wish to live in relative comfort.
Mankind when they began using sticks and stones and animal leather to make slings to hunt with have been using "machines" since time immemorial. Hunting with a sling made it far more likely to acquire needed food for a group of 15 than merely trying to un down an animal and kill it with your hands only. Planting using rocks, or metal made into tools is far more useful to grow far more food for a group than just using your own hands. Even King David used a sling to defeat Goliath, something quite intelligent to do. His technology SAVED his life.

 

[Yahcubs777]

It is not science per se that has caused this, but human beings misusing science. It's like saying guns kill people. No, people using guns kill people, guns without someone shooting them can't do anything of themselves. Cars can be used as weapons to kill, but that doesn't make cars evil or terrible to own. It means we responsibly use our technology to improve people's lives and be a blessing not a curse. For one to become anti-gun or anti-car because someone else uses them to kill is as silly as someone becoming anti-bow and arrow or anti-spear, or anti-rock because someone else uses them to hurt and kill others.

im sorry no. Guns are designed for killing. There is no other function for them. Cars have analogy is inconsistent.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

im sorry no. Guns are designed for killing. There is no other function for them. Cars have analogy is inconsistent.

Guns can be used for help in hunting instead of killing other humans. Again, it is not the evil that is in guns, it is in their use. Just like slings can be used for killing, or hunting, but the sling is not in itself evil. And it is a fact that life lives on life, whether animals or plants. We have to kill life in order to maintain our own. That is just the nature of it. I didn't set it up this way, I have just noticed it is all.
And the automobile analogy is exactly in the same boat. It is not technology that is evil, it is the use to which it is put to.

 

[Yahcubs777]

Guns can be used for help in hunting instead of killing other humans. Again, it is not the evil that is in guns, it is in their use. Just like slings can be used for killing, or hunting, but the sling is not in itself evil. And it is a fact that life lives on life, whether animals or plants. We have to kill life in order to maintain our own. That is just the nature of it. I didn't set it up this way, I have just noticed it is all.
And the automobile analogy is exactly in the same boat. It is not technology that is evil, it is the use to which it is put to.

How can guns be used to help people? Its only function is to kill

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

How can guns be used to help people? Its only function is to kill

With a rifle, say my 270, I can hunt an animal with much more assurance that I can get food for my family for several months as opposed to going out and sharpening a stick and using it as a spear to throw at an elk. The gun is a very useful, helpful weapon to use in order to acquire a much better amount of food for the survival of my family.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

It is not science per se that has caused this, but human beings misusing science. It's like saying guns kill people. No, people using guns kill people, guns without someone shooting them can't do anything of themselves. Cars can be used as weapons to kill, but that doesn't make cars evil or terrible to own. It means we responsibly use our technology to improve people's lives and be a blessing not a curse. For one to become anti-gun or anti-car because someone else uses them to kill is as silly as someone becoming anti-bow and arrow or anti-spear, or anti-rock because someone else uses them to hurt and kill others.

I would like to take the liberty to add to the ^above^ that I find there is a lot of misuse of ' technology ' today.
In other words, technology can be a two-edged sword: Atomic Energy / Atomic Bomb.
Yes, when King David was young he was Not anti-rock when he killed Goliath.
However, 'now' for Christians they are to lay down the sword (weapon) - Matthew 26:52
( Not meaning it is wrong to hunt for necessary food, but Not for sport )

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

I would like to take the liberty to add to the ^above^ that I find there is a lot of misuse of ' technology ' today.
In other words, technology can be a two-edged sword: Atomic Energy / Atomic Bomb.
Yes, when King David was young he was Not anti-rock when he killed Goliath.
However, 'now' for Christians they are to lay down the sword (weapon) - Matthew 26:52
( Not meaning it is wrong to hunt for necessary food, but Not for sport )

Agreed entirely. I don't hunt for sport at all, I love the wildlife. But I do hunt for food. Also I do not sport fish. When I fish, and catch a fish, I catch it to eat, not to release it. I hunt more than I fish, and I haven't hunted for a few years.

And with a nit on your above use of the scripture, that is a quite historical specific context told to one man on a specific location for a specific reason. I am aware you are aware of it, but I am not so sure generalizing from that specific point is the idea. I'm just sayin.
Now that said, I am aware that the rabbis in the Zohar don't give a blinkers squat about historic context, because that is the mere surface level of understanding. So there is that also.

 

[Yahcubs777]

With a rifle, say my 270, I can hunt an animal with much more assurance that I can get food for my family for several months as opposed to going out and sharpening a stick and using it as a spear to throw at an elk. The gun is a very useful, helpful weapon to use in order to acquire a much better amount of food for the survival of my family.

And it killed the animal. Ergo, its only function is to kill.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

And it killed the animal. Ergo, its only function is to kill.

Agreed, and it is a good function when used responsibly. Much good can come from it, especially if food acquired can be used to help out the poor. We can't get away from the way nature is set up that life lives on life. We have to kill, and to eat other life in order to live. And Genesis 1 as my OP pointed out noted that all this food given to us was Tov meod, "very good."