tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138285268662828982.post4814227056123572606..comments2023-12-30T05:19:59.115-08:00Comments on Good Grief, Linus: Theo-ScienceMark Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04982524614308121228noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138285268662828982.post-56715610942195492782010-10-20T21:03:52.375-07:002010-10-20T21:03:52.375-07:00Some thoughts IN BLOCK on the statement of Jesus. ...Some thoughts IN BLOCK on the statement of Jesus. <br /><br />What then of Jesus’s saying: ‘be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell’? <br /><br />THIS IS A TYPICAL JESUS CHALLENGE/TAUNT TO THE SYCOPHANTIC/HYPOCRITICAL BELIEVERS IN HADES/HELL AND SATAN/DEVIL. <br /><br />This certainly reminds us that our Maker has the sovereign authority to do more than destroy our present embodiment. <br /><br />SUCH PERSONIFICATION OF 'OUR MAKER' REALLY DESTROYS UNIVERSAL TRUTH AND ALSO OUR RESPONSIBILITY AND RESPECT FOR ALL LIFE. <br /><br />But does this use of the word soul (psyche) imply a separate kind of non-physical stuff that attaches to our bodies when we are alive and detaches from them at death, <br /><br />SUCH DUALISM IS CONTRARY TO NATURE AND CON-SCIENCE AND RE-LEGION.<br /><br />or can it be read as a way of indicating that from the point of view of the Creator our identity extends beyond space and time?<br /><br />SCIENTIFICALLY, WITHOUT ANY CREATOR, IDENTITY MUST AND DOES SO, AS ORIGINALLY BEYOND OUR CURRENT SPACE AND TIME, IS BOTH THE EXISTENT AND NON-EXISTENT; BOTH THE NEVER AND YET THE ALWAYS,INFINITE AND ETERNAL.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12109400644100084062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138285268662828982.post-75164943371991888852010-10-20T20:33:49.878-07:002010-10-20T20:33:49.878-07:00Some thoughts IN BLOCK on why the argument for re...Some thoughts IN BLOCK on why the argument for religion as primary is invalid. <br />Creation and Evolution Not Creation or Evolution R.J.Berry<br />Summary<br /><br />This paper argues that it is a misconception to oppose the concepts of creation and evolution.OK<br /><br />‘Creation’ is a theological term acknowledging the dependence of all that exists upon the authorship of the Creator.<br /> <br />ACCORDING TO A TRULY SCIENTIFIC READING OF BOTH OT AND NT, CREATION IS A SCIENTIFIC TERM DESCRIBING THE OPERATION BY WHICH THE INVISIBLE IS MADE VISIBLE OR THE MATERIAL MANIFESTED OR THE PROCESS OF LIFE SET IN OPERATION. IT IS NOW ETERNAL.<br /><br />BY CLAIMING AUTHORSHIP OF THIS EVOLUTIONARY EVENT BY A 'CREATOR' IS SURELY TO 'DUMB DOWN' ANY SUCH A CREATOR AND CONTRADICT THE GENESIS OF EVOLUTION.<br /><br />‘Evolution’ refers to our current understanding as to how God has brought biological diversity into being.<br /><br />SCIENTIFICALLY, THE GENESIS OF EVOLUTION IS MORE THAN BIOLOGICAL, IT IS EXISTENCE ITSELF.<br /><br />Both accounts are required to do justice to what we as scientists observe.<br /><br />NOT SO, ONLY THE COGNITIVE CAPACITY AND COSMOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE TO CONCEIVE OF AND THEN PERCEIVE OF THE NON-DIRECTLY OBSERVABLEUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12109400644100084062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138285268662828982.post-74871617051272512362010-10-20T19:39:10.425-07:002010-10-20T19:39:10.425-07:00Does my work qualify?
1. The qualities sought in ...Does my work qualify?<br /><br />1. The qualities sought in a Templeton Prize nominee include creativity and innovation, rigor and impact. <br />OK<br /><br />2. The judges seek, above all, a substantial record of achievement that highlights or exemplifies one of the various ways in which human beings express their yearning for spiritual progress. <br />I'm a LIVE! <br /><br />3. Consideration is given to a nominee's work as a whole, not just during the year prior to selection. <br />I'm 69.<br /><br />Nominations are especially encouraged in the fields of:<br /><br />4. Research in the human sciences, life sciences, and physical sciences. <br />YES, it's a cosmology !<br /><br />5. Scholarship in philosophy, theology, and other areas of the humanities. <br />YES, it's cognitive!<br /><br />6. Practice, including religious leadership, the creation of organizations that edify and inspire, and the development of new schools of thought. <br />Wherefore the Sole Practitioner?<br /><br />7. Commentary and journalism on matters of religion, virtue, character formation, and the flourishing of the human spirit. <br />My work is a Cognitive Cosmology: its key concept can be expressed as the Con-science of Re-legion.<br /><br />8. Its fundamental product is the synergy of the accounts of existence in OT Genesis 1 & 2 and NT Gospel of John 1. <br />To thus enable a unified scientific interpretation to refocus tnose now existing. <br />Which cannot coincide, being invalidated by the competing truths claimed by religions.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07277411648287456496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138285268662828982.post-28454460612809815052010-10-10T04:38:25.433-07:002010-10-10T04:38:25.433-07:00Well spotted Ophelia. It feels like the Templeton ...Well spotted Ophelia. It feels like the Templeton tentacles are quite long!Mark Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04982524614308121228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138285268662828982.post-23788185428440691502010-10-09T16:53:55.581-07:002010-10-09T16:53:55.581-07:00So...
"Dixon's also contributed to Scien...So...<br /><br />"Dixon's also contributed to Science and Religion, New Historical Perspectives, with fellow ISSR members Geoffrey Cantor and Stephen Pumfrey, which has this blurb:<br /><br /><br />The idea of an inevitable conflict between science and religion was decisively challenged by John Hedley Brooke in his classic Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives (Cambridge, 1991)."<br /><br />You forgot to see if John Hedley Brooke has any Templeton connections, so I did it. Well guess what.Ophelia Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08000353980872079468noreply@blogger.com