(lol! of course I should have said pun not intended!)
… We are mostly “true believers” when it comes to scientific “advancement.” I’d rather trust medical doctors than medicine men.
I’ve been healed by both, and their modern-day equivalents. After rolling my car onto my wrist, I let an orthopedist deal with it. Then, a chiropractor fixed my spine. After trashing a foot, two different surgeons went to work on it. When it refused to heal, I took non-medical measures to complete their work. My rule is, do what works.
In turn, I’ve healed others, with nothing more invasive than touch. There are a wonderful variety of techniques available for anyone who cares to learn them.
To tell you the truth, I’m trying to figure out where you’re coming from. In the category “Religion” you’ve placed “physics” which I deem more science than religion. Also, “heterodoxical theism” which I’d need an explanation for. It’s apparent you bellieve in God or a god(s) since you lament the growth of atheism. It would appear that you lean to Gnosticism since you often mention the Gnostic texts of Mary Magdalene (Thomas and Judas?) which makes me think of Dan Brown and The DaVinci Code and his other tome Angels and Demons.
Issac Newton and Galileo would have disagreed with your assessment of the relationship between science and religion, as do I.
Heterodoxical and theism are both in the dictionary. I always employ standard meanings.
I found the writings of the Gnostics interesting from the historical perspective. Until studying them I’d been unaware of the rich ferment of creative thought that Christ’s teachings had fired up, and which the formalized Church immediately suppressed. Other than that, I learned nothing from them. They didn’t know any more physics than Aquinas and like him, were developing ideas in the context of incorrect physics.
One exception— Magdalene. I got the sense from reading her that she learned things from J.C. which he could not teach his apostles. Her ideas, and perhaps some of His, are incorporated in mine.
The alleged texts of Thomas and Judas were not included in the Gnostic material I read. I’ve not read Dan Brown— the movie was sufficiently stupid.
To understand your point of view, I’d like to ask a few questions, if you care to answer.
I’ll trust that your curiosity is genuine and so will answer your questions, as appropriate to the CAF rules. Kindly do not dishonor my trust.
- What is your idea of God? (From what I read, it seems you equate the universe with God, or else, you call it the true bible–whatever that means).
God is not the universe, and I am not a deist. The simplest explanation for my God-concept that would be appropriate here is to state that God is Maxwell’s Demon.
You can either do the internet research or await my book.
- What is your idea of the redeeming work of Jesus Christ? Do you believe there was a distinction between Jesus who suffered on the cross and the Chrisst who was the transcendent Savior?
Since I do not believe in the inherent evil of man, original sin, or such strange concepts, the notion that we need “redeeming” has no place in my interpretation of things.
It is fairly obvious that humans need a lot of education, and I interpret Christ in this context— as a powerful, hands-on teacher. I do not see him as a manifestation of God, but rather as a gutsy soul who was highly conscious before birth, and who deliberately took on a tough job, all by himself, that cost him his life— not unlike the many American soldiers who have done the same, but with the occasional support of their fellows, to give us the freedom to have these conversations.
- Do your religious beliefs revolve around pantheism?
Are you serious? I study stuff like physics and microbiology. I’ve seen enough of Zeus and his fellow soap opera clowns in bad movies.
(I may think of more. So far these will suffice).
Feel free to think of as much as you possibly can, of my beliefs and yours.
No, the Church doesn’t give “lip-service to science.” although the Church is not in the business of running science labs. If you’ve read any of Pope Benedict’s papal audiences as well as his Regensberg Address, you will find a Holy Father who considers hightly the work of scientists and sees the intimate connection between faith and reason.
The term “lip-service” designates those who talk, but do not act. The papal audiences and addresses are talk. There’s a country-western song addressing this issue, titled, I think, “Lots of talk, not much action.”
Maybe another Einstein will come along with a new theory, a bigger model that explains every physical property and how these properties work together to form the four elements of space, time, energy and matter. The ultimate epistomological answer is the action of God. How He did it is the subject of science.
You’ve fallen back to the old, “earth, air, fire and water” view of the universe. There are only two elements, or, as I’d label them, elemental substances.
Energy and matter are equivalent, and space is a property of energy. Time is an arbitrary fiction, a convenience for mathematical nomenclature. That leaves just energy. The other component is the stuff from which you and God are made.
The actions of God, or of any intelligent entity, require a why. Religions do not competently address this.
(before doing so He leaves a Final Message to His Creation – “Sorry for the inconvenience”). Around that time I finally admitted to myself the severe limitations/lunacy of applying logic to ultimate questions. As you say, for a believer no explanation is necessary. “Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.” – 1 Cor 13:12 NIV
