- HubPages»
- Politics and Social Issues»
- Church & State Relations
Science and Religion: Which Offers the Best Code of Ethics?
Several years ago, I saw a program (I believe on PBS), which arrayed scientist-skeptics against religious leaders on the questions of science versus religion.
I don't remember who all attended, but I do remember one scientist who seemed most vile in his smiling, smooth contempt of religion.
He said something about how logic and science can take care of all the ethical needs of humanity; that there is no need for religion.
I didn't know how to respond to such an idea. I was not yet prepared for such a challenge. I have loved science, but not more than God. Science is good, but far inferior to God and creation.
But how could I answer such a bold claim?
This is Wisdom
"And I will utter my judgments against them touching all their wickedness, who have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other gods, and worshipped the works of their own hands" (Jeremiah 1:16 KJV).
Those who worship the works of their own hands are sinning. Such is a crime to our very own spiritual nature. Why do you think graven images were such an abomination? That was only the tip of the iceberg.
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good" (Psalm 14:1 KJV).
Those who say there is no God are corrupt in the eyes of the Lord.
Science and Religion
In my heart, I knew that science was subservient to God and His will, but my words were not yet perfected.
Can science and logic really handle all of our ethical and moral needs?
No, they cannot. And here's why.
Science studies the products of creation—the realm of continuity (action-reaction). Morals based upon continuity are inherently selfish and relativistic. Everything is relative to the self. If something is important, then it can only be important in terms of the self—relative to the self.
So, we end up with scientists bending the rules, fudging their data fraudulently. We see scientists mocking other scientists who go against the grain and against the sacred dogma of the moment, as they did in North American anthropology with the "Clovis first" doctrine. We see scientists re-running tests until they get the data the way their masters want it, as they did in tests of a cancer cure the pharmaceutical corporations wanted quashed.
What ultimately happens in a selfish society is that every person turns to looking out for themselves. The "self" becomes the all-important "god." This "self"—the ego—is the source of all evil. Every act of theft, lying, murder, rape, rage and more—all of these come from ego.
There is only a sliver of apparent difference between marital fidelity and curiosity about that new woman who joined the firm. And there is only a sliver of apparent difference between curiosity and "innocent" flirtation. The selfishness of ego can traverse several slender barriers of apparent difference all the way to an adulterous affair. Each barrier overcome is only a small excuse on the road to shameful behavior.
Every vector of human activity can similarly become corrupted. And even logic can be put to use in that quest—to murder, as did Hitler during the "Night of the Long Knives." Any crime can be justified.
The Fate of Civilization
Civilization cannot survive such rampant "logic."
Logic is a good tool in the right hands. Logic can delve the inner workings of the atom or the hearth-fires of new suns amidst the gargantuan clouds of interstellar dust.
But logic can hold the source of resentment in place for revenge. Logic prevents, and stands as a formidable barrier against, forgiveness. It remains illogical to forgive. It is unreasonable. But it is so much more than important.
And so is walking on water. Both are acts of creation.
Science and logic, left to their own devices will fail, because they are built on a foundation of continuity—the artificial construct of creation.
For all its apparent solidity, this physical realm really is an illusion and impermanent. A good friend of mine—a scientist with a PhD—once said of this illusion, "yes, but when you stub your toe, it still hurts." The same could be said of a video game when the programming leads to a collision and the consequences of that event. It's all programming, except for the children of God who need sweet rescue. Everything in this realm is action-reaction. That is what we must avoid making as our master.
We think we are these solid, Homo sapiens bodies, and that is the trap.
The entire purpose of humanity has been one of rescuing God's children and those children are not Homo sapiens. When the mission is complete, the tool that is humanity will be abandoned.
Science can take over. Religion will no longer be a factor. Logic will be left to its own devices based upon the ephemeral foundation of physical continuity—action-reaction, perpetrator-victim and the wailing and gnashing of teeth. Without the power of forgiveness, blood feuds will become the new force of humanity. Science and logic will have won their crown in hell. The soulless bodies of Homo sapiens animals will never climb to the stars on wings of starships.
There will never be a Captain Kirk without the shining sanity of spiritual faith. Alas!
Related
Comments
- Author
@ElijahTruth, thanks for your comments.
GConeyHiden Esquire, Science and Religion/Bible are not only equal they are both began by the Bible, not one Scientist of the Beginning of modern Science did not only believe they prayed for revelation from God to help them bring forth Science endeavor! Go to the Targum page, and the Adam the First Researcher page, and the Proof in the news and Science page, as the Darwin Battle field of God and satan page, and the proof in painting and verse page of His healing page and the about us page, as the entire sites of the links given in previous comments here on LoneStar77 Great Hub about Religion and Science! The Bible prophesy biology, and Nasa, and as He promised they have both come to be.... Much Respect, ElijahTruth
@lone77star: I'm going to respond issue-by-issue.
Regarding my search for the transcendent, you let your ego ruin what might have been effective. You might want to work on that. If you don't recognize your smug pomposity for what it is, then you have a lot of work.
As for Russo and Jones in relation to critical thinking skills, no thank you. I won't be entering into that discussion, at least not here. Critical thinking, as a topic, is far too large to fit into a tangent.
As for Russo and Jones "spinning deliberate fiction as truth," there really isn't any conundrum. I believe with a high degree of confidence that Russo and Jones are disingenuous liars, and I express this confidence in strong terms. Obviously, I might be wrong. I've explained this point often enough that I don't need to explain it again.
As for the forgotten previous reply: I don't expect you to be a mind reader, but I do expect you to pay attention to context, especially where it was very clear. You accused me of claiming superior knowledge, which I absolutely did not. However, you did imply that you possessed superior knowledge, in this condescending paragraph:
"Chasuk, on 'conflated,' I think 'fused' might fit, simply because they belong together. Superior knowledge sometimes does that. But 'confused?' I suspect you merely speak out of ignorance."
No, I won't unravel the thread for you. I'm sure that you are capable of doing that for yourself.
As for Russo's or Jones's "evidence," I've spent hundreds of hours examining it, and none of it qualifies. Yes, I express my disbelief with a high degree of confidence. It all comes down to critical thinking skills. Yes, I might be wrong. However, if you want to discuss with me either Russo's/Jones's fallacious claims or critical thinking, you will need to address those topics in separate hubs or forums.
As for ego and self, I probably misspoke. I view the ego as a result of the conscious self, and I view the conscious self solely as a consequence of the anatomy and the physiology of the brain. I interpret things that you have written here as disagreement. You are correct that you have never stated your disagreement explicitly.
- Author
@gconeyhiden, I agree: science and religion are not equal. Thanks for a most thought-provoking comment.
Yes, I remember the race to the Moon. My father worked for Doc. Inc. during the 60s on their NASA contract in the DC area. Frequently, I'd get copies of the NASA press releases before the press got them on the upcoming flights.
Math and science had always been favorite subjects of mine. Even advanced algebra and trig in high school were easy. I asked questions my teacher couldn't answer, which was disappointing at the time; I was hungry to learn.
Yes, science is empirical... usually. But even scientists can get off track with the darker side of skepticism -- self-indulgent ridicule among the darkest. Sad when that happens, but that's ego getting the best of a brilliant mind.
Now, you say religion was created in the primitive mind, but with this you're generalizing and that's unwarranted. Certainly many religions came about this way, but not all of them.
How is "sacredness" any more rock-steady than the "changing idea of God?"
I agree that selfishness is bad and reverence for all life is good. Perhaps more potently, humility is something we should all strive for. The best scientists at their best work use humility and restraint. That's how discoveries are made. If they held preconceived notions, that would blind them to discovery.
Some religions are founded by divine revelation. All of the great ones strive to lift the individual to a higher, spiritual state. Why would that be important? Because that is the realm of creation. That is the state of the awakened true self. And creation is far superior to science. In fact, science merely and only studies the fruits (products) of creation. Creation puts those products there in the first place.
When Yehoshua of Nazareth walked on the Sea of Galilee, he was demonstrating the power of spirit over physical reality. When Peter stepped out of his storm-tossed boat onto that water, he left all "reason" behind -- all fear -- and stood before his master. In that moment of faith, he had found his true self, far superior to his ego and body.
Religion, in its truest and purest form, is far superior to science, because it holds the secrets of creation. And, as a scientist, I find that extremely fascinating -- even more than the delicious search for extrasolar Earths, the beauty of modern chemistry, the exquisite elegance of mathematics and computer science, and even the raw mystery of archaeology and anthropology.
But the point of this article was to show that civilization with only science, logic and math will crumble, because it would depend only upon an action-reaction viewpoint. The result of that would be wailing and gnashing -- victim-perpetrator -- endless blood feuds. True forgiveness is an act of creation, and that would be lost without religion and spirituality.
Modern religions have become corrupt, for the most part. So many of them follow ego. Even the "born again" Christians can frequently be caught up with the ego of being "right" while others are going to hell. But they don't realize that "being right" is hell. Humility is the antidote and they think they're already there, but they're not, because they think they know it all.
Like the best scientists on their best behavior, the believer needs to have a deep reverence and humility toward the unknown truth. Regrettably, they act as though they "know it all" already. And such arrogance will blind anyone to further discovery.
Science and religion are NOT equal. Some prayed The U.S. would get to the moon but it was science and math and some very talented people who got us there...and back. Someone commented that almost everything is belief, that even science is belief....Difference is science is a belief based on results and the competition of these results over time. Religion is anything but cut and dried. Science is based on objective results that are retested by different scientists to see how much truth lies in those first results. Religion was created in the primitive mind to deal with all the unknowns of the world and give them shapes and forms and names. To me the crowning acheivement of religion is the idea of sacredness, not the ever changing idea of God or God's. We do not need God or God's to see the world in a sacred light. And we should because after all there is only one world called Earth. All children should be taught from early age to respect all life...not turned into little solders or mindless consumers filled with greed.
- Author
@ElijahTruth, thanks for your comments. No, I haven't taken the time to go to the blog. I feel fortunate to have had the time recently to have responded to 3-month-old comments on my article. But thanks for sharing. So many things I could do, but I have to decide which ones I will and won't do.
- Author
Thank you, @Chasuk, for your input. I understand your idea of not "knowing," but believing. That is a nicely critical distinction.
I have to apologize. Sometimes I have fun at your expense, not that I'm trying to be mean; I'm merely trying to mix things up and get a more meaningful discussion going. I don't doubt you've given things a great deal of thought. Maybe I have, too.
I like the idea that you "have spent over thirty years earnestly seeking the transcendent." I hope you still are. Don't give up. But if what you've done for 30 years hasn't worked, then perhaps you've gone about it the wrong way. I've been earnestly seeking the transcendent for far longer, and I have found it. My connection is not yet constant and permanent, but profound and complete during the brief periods of that connection. I find your disbelief both humorous and sad. Rather than be curious about what I've found, you discount it as delusion. For that and other reasons, I seriously doubt your sincerity. And I was trying to wake you up to that. Awareness is always the first step to changing something to the better. Wouldn't you agree?
I admit that I leave critical thinking behind, sometimes. But is it critical thinking on your part to portray everything I say as "uncritical?" Generalities are frequently not worth much because they lack a great deal in accuracy.
Now, you claim critical thinking on your side. Some of what you say seems to bear this out. But is it critical thinking to say, "it counts as spinning deliberate fiction as truth." How do you know it's deliberate fiction? You didn't qualify this statement in any way. You made it as if it was unqualified fact. The blanket nature of the statement acts as a generality. Tsk, tsk! Again, not very critical. Such generalities typically lack critical thinking. If you had been specific about a Jones or Russo statement and used that as an example, it could've been more revealing. Specifics help.
You mentioned that I forgot a previous reply. Which one? Clearly you had one in mind, but I'm afraid I'm not a mind reader. Can you help out on this one?
You say, "I don't actually claim to know anything," but you state as unqualified fact that what Russo and Jones said is "spinning deliberate fiction as truth." Can you clarify how your statement about Jones and Russo was not "knowing" anything and only a personal, subjective belief?
Alex Jones has shown in his videos clips from newspaper, magazine and internet articles by major publishers that talk of the New World Order, the Bilderberg Group and more. He gives specifics. Would you care to give some? You don't believe in these things, but Mr. Jones has proof.
Could Aaron Russo be lying about his past friendship with Nick Rockefeller? Apparently not. I've seen the photo of them two embracing in a pose for the camera. Could he have lied about what Rockefeller told him? Certainly. But I choose to believe the man, because what he says fits with many other facts and events. Mr. Russo has embellished things in the past, but that does nothing to discount everything he says. As with anyone's statements, they have to be taken critically and measured against other evidence. Perhaps your non-critical statements were based on a lack of exposure. Or was it something else?
And regarding ego and self, it appears there has been a misunderstanding. What you say, I never said ("ego exists outside of self").
I know for a fact that both of us could be far better on critical thinking.
LoneStar77 have you been by the blog spot and viewed the word on the soon end of sickness and aging??? It is an Amazing day/era we live in.... TrueCure as all your followers have the right mind set, the debate of God and His Truth always brings forth Righteousness/facts... go to http://adamandeveinaction.blogspot.com/ and on the prophecy and the signs page are proven signs pointing to a righteous minister of the site go to http://www.adamandeveseedgatheringministry.com/pro... and examine the posted signs posted now over three years ago and are the likes of the Japan quake and tidal wave, and the Washington D.C. /VIRGINIA BEACH quake our Lord brought on the same day as the unveiling of the martin luther king statue in D.C./Vbeach were more quakes now come as we speak, also listed therein are many more signs that have come and are coming.... Respect to LoneStar77 and his Panel of commenters
@lone77star : No, I'm not claiming superior knowledge. In fact, I was refuting superior knowledge, not claiming it. You apparently forget your previous reply, in which _you_ did imply superior knowledge.
If you are familiar with my hubs and my comments, I don't actually claim to know anything. I believe some things and lack belief in others, to greater and lesser degrees of confidence.
I lack belief in the New World Order and in the claims of Russo and Jones because they fail the tests of critical thinking, as does your claim that the ego exists outside of self.
- Author
@True Cures, what you said 4 weeks ago about belief is spot on!
Let me add to what you've written. At least from my own viewpoint, it seems that belief is an imperfect state of certainty ranging from complete disbelief to near-perfect certainty. Even at its best, belief is not perfect. Why? Because it remains at "effect," rather than "cause."
Faith, on the other hand, remains at cause. When one has faith in walking on water, one is creating that fact, rather than merely observing a belief.
Too many people believe in big medicine, because they are wallowing in victimness. If they would merely have faith, then they would no longer be a victim and be cured.
- Author
Thank you, @gconeyhiden for you thoughtful comment.
I agree completely with your analysis, but it is an incomplete analysis.
Let me explain. Ego has polluted every institution and every group of human society. That does not mean that some institutions could not have started out as pure. Some did!
Buddhism is one. Christianity is another.
What sets religion (at its source) apart from ego-ridden religion and science is that pure religion comes from the realm of creation -- not the created.
Ego, science and the physical universe are all steeped in action-reaction mechanisms. Creation does not consist of such dichotomies. Creation is pure generosity, love, good, wisdom, etc. These are the paramitas spoke of in Buddhism. This is the realm where miracles become possible. This is where the laws of physical reality can be bent, broken or completely recreated.
That is why religion is superior to science.
The ego-ridden, false religions of today are not superior. They are worse than science. Science at least uses logic and reason to observe and learn. Ego-ridden religion wanders in darkness and delusion.
I hope this clarifies what I've written.
- Author
@elijahtruth, your faith in stem cells is interesting, but it will not free us from death. Only faith in the Holy Spirit and spiritual things will raise us from this mortal realm into the immortal. Everlasting life is not of the flesh. Read Genesis 6:3. Man is "also" flesh, so God will not always strive with man -- the physical being.
God created man in His own image and likeness, but know this: God is not Homo sapiens. That should tell you everything. Stem cells do nothing for the immortal soul -- the sleeping true self within.
- Author
@True Cures, God exists. The universe exists, therefore God. Physical cogs do not create themselves.
Perhaps my hub should have been named: Which offers the best basis for a code of ethics? Religion, definitely. But not all religions are the same; and very few, as practiced today, are worthy. Why does religion offer a better basis, because it covers the realm of creation, while science merely the realm of the created. Creation is superior to the created.
Let me give an example: when one person perceives that another has done them an injustice, it seems to be human nature to resent that assault and to want some kind of retribution. Where does this lead? Ultimately, this kind of adherence to the action-reaction-based universe leads to a decaying of civilization. It is a destructive force, not a civilizing or "creative" force.
On the other hand, forgiveness is an act of pure creation, when done properly. Forgiveness allows the breaking of the bonds of resentment and allows for the creation of new things despite the past wrongs done. This is a potent civilizing force.
Religion of today does tend to be used for manipulating the masses, but that is not true Buddhism or true Christianity. Much of both religions have fallen victim to ego. The lust for power and laziness drive so much of modern society.
- Author
@True Cures, thank you for your kind words in your reply to @elijahtruth.
Yes, so many of Christianity are following the master of this world rather than God and Christ. I find even myself doing that all too often.
What would I do with the knowledge to control immunity with clarity and ease? Teach others. Those who reject it, I would leave in the dust and find those who are ready for such knowledge.
I agree that we have built up and artificial cacoon and made ourselves afraid and vulnerable. So much BS!
Big Pharma will never come up with a cure, because it's bad for the bottom line (Mammon). They want disease to continue and they want to be the ones to maintain it.
In that way, science has been made to do the bidding of evil (ego).
- Author
Thank you, @elijahtruth, for your comment of 3 months ago. Very interesting.
Certainly, science studies the fruit of God's creation. And some of the signs of Revelation have become manifest.
- Author
@CR Rookwood, thanks for your comment of 3 months ago.
Why pit science against religion? Why, indeed? I like both science and religion. There are good and bad in both. I hoped by this article to reveal some of the good and the bad and show how the two overlap, but also remain apart.
Have faith AND use our brains? @CR, bravo! It can be easy, if we let go of ego! Humility is the antidote to egotistical blindness.
One can walk on water and perform scientific experiments in the laboratory. They are not mutually exclusive; I agree.
- Author
True Cures, I apologize for the late reply.
Looking at the spirit of the statement, "the love of money is the root of all evil," there is that which prompts the love of money -- ego.
But what does murder have to do with money? Some murders have nothing to do with currency. What about adultery? If it's not prostitution, then no money is involved. What about murder of someone because of ridicule. Such rage is based entirely on bruised ego. Perhaps the bit about money was aiming at ego and what may well be its most visible activity. But the pride of the Pharisees is also evil. They lose their position in heaven, because they have their reward on Earth.
Science as an institution certainly is impersonal, but I think some individual scientists are caring, loving people. The wheels of industry and science are closely linked. Science relies on the action-reaction world and in that mimmicks ego.
Ego perverts truth and light. Whatever good there is in science will be used for bad, like Hitler's scientists in the concentration camps. Or Bush's scientists glossing over the lies of 9/11.
- Author
Sorry for the delay in replying, Chasuk. I appreciate your dialog. It helps to get alternate viewpoints to help in broadening the effect of critical thinking.
In sincerely doubt that Aaron Russo and Alex Jones are perfect, but how do you know what they say is "deliberate fiction [spun] as truth?" Are you claiming superior knowledge? Omniscience? Even if what they say is all lies, I would suspect something like what they say is true simply from the happenings of history and current events. But even if only half of what they say is true, then we're in big trouble. I'm not claiming what they say is true, but I certainly don't buy your "superior knowledge."
You claim not to admire Hitler or Stalin, and yet you want a one-world government. Is it possible for a one-world government to remain entirely altruistic? Knowing the nature of man, ego and selfishness, I think not. One need only look at the methods of the New World Order in their grab for power -- murder, wars, lies. They used Hitler, Lenin and Stalin to shift things toward their goals. They create the monsters and the solutions to those monsters. They created Operation Northwoods, the 1962 plan of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Pentagon to murder American citizens, hijack and crash airplanes and attack their own soldiers, all to elicit public sentiment against Cuba. Flying the Cuban flag while performing these attacks would surely give us the war they wanted. Perhaps these would-be kings of Earth are worse than Hitler and Stalin. They remain hidden behind the scenes, skulking in darkness and secrecy.
I like the idea of a benign and altruistic one-world government, but realistically it will never happen. Ego strives toward power and will abuse it to maintain it.
My skepticism is warranted, Chasuk. You didn't "try" hard enough. In fact, the solution to your supposed quest is not to "try" at all. There is no "try." There is only "do" and "don't do."
And ego is not "just the conscious self," as you claim. Certainly it appears to be, but it is not the only source of consciousness. The immortal spirit can be a source of consciousness when ego is entirely subdued. But that takes humility.
Good point gconeyhiden. The well of the human mind is by far the most polluted. Humans appear to be the only life form that relies almost entirely on "belief". I do believe their is a difference between belief and faith. By belief,, I mean the fact that Americans are constantly given the opportunity to choose a belief over another belief and then allowed to run with it like it is factual.
We use more "belief" in our ever day lives than we use facts. If we lived a more primitive lifestyle the beliefs we remain so loyal to would rapidly destroy us. A drought will factually destroy livelihoods where the price and value of gold, silver and diamonds relies solely on "belief". Water is something we must have or die, gold and diamonds are only necessary as long as we "believe" in them.
Today's society lives by belief, not by the sweat of their brow or by what God has given them as reported in the bible. As it turns out, today's medical science is 95% belief at best. If it were based more on facts, there would be more cures and less profit.
I have decided to comment as I finished reading your first missed pointed made...that being that science is flawed because its egocentic. This maybe a valid point in some regards but this proves nothing about religion being superior to science because religion as it turns out also suffers from drinking from the same polluted well..the well of the human mind. Just because someone is driving around in a car with a Jesus drivers license displaying a Jesus license plate doesnt mean he is Jesus or reprsents Jesus in any meaningful way. Who's to say Jesus wasn't kicked off his donkey at a dark crossroads and what we have been seeing is highjackers driving around town for the last two thousand years dressed as Jesus.
Will this miracle stem cell be available in every home? Will it be free to all?
Will a father be able to offer it to his children or will science and medicine be offering to a father's children?
I appreciate your work and dedication to stem cell but I do not need it, I already have the capacity for complete immunity and I do not need science or medicine or anything of this world. It is free and I do make it available to all however no one really wants it because it does not generate mammon/profit.
Stem Cell generates mammon/profit so everyone wants that and they will pay dearly for it. What I have is free and no one wants it.
No casting truth before your brothers is not feeding swine, but again I must mention that stems cells make all blood cells from Red to white/immune cells! So for God's word to become pure again this day we must develope a better defense against the sickness called aging and death/satan Matthew 4:1-10 and Revelation 1:17-18 and Isaiah 25:8-9, He came to fight and destroy death with His Word and He is the Great Physician/Biologist, as He explains in His Word, and Science is His Word creation, which now has death cornered.... Examine the sites at http://adamandeveinaction.blogspot.com/ and http://www.adamandeveseedgatheringministry.com if born of Adam and Eve we have a soon cure to the filth called death..... Respect
Elijahtruth, I do not discount your passion for doing the Lords work. However we all speculate as to what is the Lord's work and what is not.
Adam and Eve did not have the technology to do stem cell research, did God love them less? Does God love all those who have passed away after long term horrible suffering less? If stem cell was a real viable cure or prevention it will be the first medicine and science has come up with since they learned to control small pox and malaria (mind you they do not cure either).
Here is the problem I have with religion, specifically Christianity. Stem Cell research is a carrot used to string society along. Medicine has no intention of improving society's health or preventing the needless deaths. There is a reason for this, there is no such thing as a senseless or needless death. Every person who dies from a horrible disease is population control. The world powers will never ever ever ever ever get in the way of population control. That is why medicine does not cure diseases anymore.
That is why Americans and the Brits have shoved all the Africans off their prime land into shanty towns. Disease will kill off many of the Africans the genocides didn't get.
I asked you a hypothetical question that you didn't answer directly but I got your answer loud and clear. If you could cure people without any products, technology, prayer, woo woo guru drama or medicine what would you do? You would bury it and promote stem cell science because it pays the bills.
I mean no disrespect by that observation. It shows wisdom because doing anything else would wreck everything you believe in. It has wrecked everything I believe in. Because you choose to 'believe' it is impossible to control your immune system for complete immunity it leads me to question Christianity. In my 'opinion' a Christian should know better.
In my 'opinion' the only thing in the way of you believing in your temple and it's capacity for immunity is your faith in modern technology and medicine, something that fails time and time again with NO evidence of anything ever getting better.
To answer the question of this hub, NEITHER. Both science and religion are businesses and tools used to manipulate the masses. I would like to believe in Christ but it is hard for me to do when most Christians have the urge to burn me at the stake for dare suggesting that today's medicine is of the world not of God. Stem Cell work is of the world and not of God.
Because I'm sure EVERYONE disagrees I question whether there is a God or not and I KNOW if there is a God He or She will forgive me before He or She forgives those who believe in Stem Cell work. Though I stand alone, there are other perks for fleeing the ways of the world as I try to do, IMMUNITY is a perk.
The question is, do I continue to tell people about their capacity for immunity or is it casting my pearls before swine? That's the question I wrestle with.
Yes stems cells are soon to go where prescribed and are that which make our white blood cells, yet is the stem cells part of our Soul and God's? Yes, now proved from the Bible!
And you are correct my friend, the Lord told us long ago in this epic generation of Destiny He was/is calling upon His servant/servants/me being one to do what? Leave those who say they are Christian/bidden for His wedding, and go out on the highways and byways to gather WHO? THE GOOD and the Bad/us! Matthew 22:1-15.
He told us that He is the soul/God who heals us Exodus 15:26, stem cells are part of God's army of LIFE! Go view the sites and comment on what you doubt or believe... Respect
Elijahtruth, I've grown to be suspicious of any written word. Capitalism and marketing has twisted everything.
All I can say is I hope you and the words you study are correct. I personally cannot see any other way for improvement or be convinced there is any other way other than Revelations.
My doubts about Revelations only comes from seeing little to no Christ in Christianity.
I feel if Christ was in a Christian, that person would have some means to discern the truth to some degree.
I understand that Revelations goes into considerable amount of detail about how in the end self proclaimed Christians will be burned as stubble. Not that I am wishing ill will of anyone but I see little example of Christ in today's Christianity.
I have a healthy respect for the author of this hub and anyone else who is willing to recognize how far off the path Christianity has gone yet remains determined to bring people back in.
I really hope you are right. I am curious to know your opinion on a hypothetical question and would like to know lone77star's opinion as well.
Hypothetically speaking, suppose you learned that it is scientifically possible to completely control your immunity with as much control as you would control your arms, legs and body in a tennis match or golf swing what would you do with that knowledge or talent?
True cure, we are on the threshold of having the cure for the infection contracted by Adam and Eve in the Garden! He explains to us that He made earth for instruction and knowledge! As He told Adam in the beginning to examine and name all things, that was the beginning of the research of all not of God's book of Life!
The mystery has been finished Rev:10:7 and His mystery was/is ending His enemy and our's death/aging/satan with His Word creation called Science! He prophesy in several areas of the Book that He would bring forth technology and also spoke that He would return in the days of Biology, when we understand His way of Life! Go to the Lord's website and examine the Targum page { Hebrew for translation/definition } Also go to the Adam the first researcher page as all pages, the prophecy and the signs page very waking this days news written years back, for this days waking! Respect
elijahtruth, If God is the Light and the Truth than truthful science will be of God. I don't think we can call technology of God because if it were something we really needed Adam and Eve would have had it don't you think.
I often tell Christians that it is unreasonable to suggest God would put us on this earth to suffer from disease until science fiction medicine comes up with a cure. The cures were here all along. There just isn't anyway for society to function with them, mostly because society serves mammon instead of God.
I speak from my own experience. I know that even you have the capacity for complete immunity and you could have it within the month if you chose to. It is the world that has people believing they cannot be cured not the Bible or any other religion.
There are many social obstacles to overcome. Disease drives our most powerful industry and it controls the population.
I hope the bible is true because we are indeed in need of a HUGE change of biblical proportions. We will have to come to love God instead of mammon because man cannot serve two master, he will love the one and hate the other. I serve mammon 6 days a week and Sunday I'm too mentally and spiritually drained to serve God so I expect hell awaits me.
I'm hoping to gain some favor through my honesty.
Lots of people died of malaria and smallpox but it wasn't eradicated by modern medicine, it was successfully treated by modern medicine. We have the ability to successfully treat and prevent any disease with modern medicine and we cannot blame it on the pharmaceutical companies alone unless we agree that all medical research and science comes from pharmaceutical owned research and science centers.
In regards to human health we have three options. The first option being the one we use now where science is fraudulent for the benefit of selling medicine, not just the drugs but all medicine including payroll.
A second option that would severely damage and possible destroy the medical industry would be to effectively medicate to cure and prevent diseases. We have the ability to cure any disease with drugs. It's not even a challenge. The challenge for the industry of medicine today is how to keep people believing disease is too complicated to be cured hence the never ending patent process for drugs. It takes a lot to convince people they cannot be cured when a cure would be so easy.
The third option and the one in my expertise is the option that requires no medicine or technology at all. No products either. This option would destroy the world as we know it. After all health care is where the jobs are at. As for proving this, it can't be done on paper, it simply has to be done. Humans have the full capacity to be immune just like a wild rat or a fox.
Living conditions by the way where the main cause of death in regards to small pox and malaria. Our scientist know this which is why society is noted for cramming the less desirable people into squalor or shanty towns. Chasuk, if you were a rat you would be immune to pretty much everything. You could live in the sewers rolling in pathogens and eating filth and be as healthy as can be. Of course you wouldn't have ONE single "belief" or belief system to sabotage your immunity or subconscious. Your only concerns would be cats and birds or prey.
When it comes to disease and health their is no real science today only science fiction for profit.
Fact is, with today's "belief" systems and the utter lack of real tangible reality, it will be difficult for most people to evolve to their full immune capacity. Living conditions are not conducive to proper health and it has nothing to do with the types of foods we eat or do not eat. It has to do with stress, lack of peace of mind and most of all incorrect "belief" systems that are extremely profitable but do little if anything to improve our quality of life.
I'm not entirely trusting of pharmaceutical companies, but it would take an awful lot of evidence to prove to me that humans are capable of being immune to all diseases. Do you know how many people have died of malaria, or of smallpox before it was eradicated by modern medicine?
I do see your point. I guess the point I need to make is the fact that the term "science" is entirely too broad. I can respect science in the form of technology though technology hasn't improved our quality of life. Technology or the science behind it can be proven and naturally it proves to be very profitable.
It is the science made up of hypothesis that I can prove false and a fraud. Some might not even consider technology science.
I can prove the science behind medicine is a fraud but I shouldn't have to because it should be understood when we look at how technologically advanced we are and yet we cannot cure diseases anymore like we once did before all the powerful technology.
With technology, real solid factual science is profitable but in medicine that kind of science would destroy the industry of medicine. I don't know if God created man, but I do know that man is fully capable of being immune to all diseases and the bible does suggest it too. In that regards the bible is far more scientific than today's medical industry.
@True Cures; You write, "I can't prove God does or doesn't exist but I can easily prove that today's science is a fraud."
On the contrary, the fact that you are reading this proves that today's science is not a fraud. Scientists refine silica and form it into giant, silicon crystal ingots. Other scientists take these ingots and lathe them into wafers. Another group of scientists take these wafers and expose them to a complicated multistage process known as photolithography. The final result is a CPU containing 2.5 billion transistors. All of this is due to fraudulent science.
Science and the Word/Religion go hand and hand as explained in the Bible, His mystery has now been finished by Science Revelation 10:7, Science is God's Word creation! Go to the websites at http://adamandeveinaction.blogspot.com/ and http://www.adamandeveseedgatheringministry.com/pro... and examine the signs prewritten news of this day written three years and more ago, and are the likes of the Japan quake and Tidal wave, and the Virginia beach / Washington D.C. quake { which another now comes to Virginia beach and washington will feel it also } and the Suns record disturbances and the floods and hail storms of record with more signs listed there which now come, for the waking of Science whom I call each day around earth! Go examine the waking of God's seed of Adam... Respect { many methods for contact on all sites } { One can Also can find links at the Hub The Lord's mystery is finished Rev:10:7 }
I don't feel we use our brains. I don't see people thinking either. Maybe in a creative way we people think a little but for the most part people simply believe what they are told.
Let's take the disease known as herpes for example, scientist and researcher do their "thinking" on the premises that the disease known as "herpes" is caused by a virus. They are told herpes is a viral disease and researchers and scientist start their research with the "BELIEF" herpes is caused by a virus. If those researchers used their brains they would first accept one very important fact, there is no evidence of any ugly outbreak being caused by any kind of virus, matter of fact no scientist or researcher can prove there is such a thing as a herpes virus.
That is why today's science isn't science at all. The medical industry blames the troublesome OBs on a pathogen that cannot be proven to even exist because it insures there will be no cure for the suffering.
Because scientist are all bought and paid for by the medical industry or other industries involved with huge profits the public will never ever know the truth about the sores known as "herpes".
If any of you believed in evolution this discussion would be entirely different. Oh sure you believe certain animals evolve but you don't believe humans are evolving. How could you, humans are the most fragile devolving species on earth despite today's science and technology. You can't go out in the wilderness and drink the water from creeks and ponds like the wildlife does because you have been taught to be afraid of inferior little pathogens that are only harmful to humans.
"Using our brains" is almost impossible in this information age. It's so much easier to Google it and believe it than it is to think. We could use our brains but unless it is to manipulate people it will do little to improve one's wealth or livelihood. Products of the brain that cannot be patented and sold have little value these days.
Today's science completely ignores the capacity of the human immune process or the ability for humans to evolve in the same manner all other life evolves.
I can't prove God does or doesn't exist but I can easily prove that today's science is a fraud. I can prove that man is designed to be immune to all diseases without any of today's technology or medicine. I can't prove how we came about this design but there certainly is no reason at all to cling to today's science for answers or even help.
I don't know why people keep pitting science against religion. The two are not mutually exclusive for most people. Lots of scientists are religious persons, lots of religious people are interested in science. Michael Shermer isn't really a scientist, he is a 'debunker'. He decides something is stupid, then looks for a theory to 'prove' that thing really is stupid, or a rational alternative explanation and then he says, see! There you go! I mean, there you go nothing. He's just selling ads, just like we poor folks at Hub Pages.
I do worry about the runaway quality to science though and take some of your points on that score.
I think it's possible and desirable to have faith AND use our brains. But maybe it isn't easy. :)
I have to be honest I am suspicious of the bible. I called myself a Christian most of my life but have begun to question whether or not being Christian is pleasing to God if God indeed does exist based on what I witness in today's world of "Christianity".
This hub's author has given me some hope for Christianity through this hub and his other hubs.
Lone77 you said in this hub "This "self"—the ego—is the source of all evil."
One of the things I fervently believe in the bible is that "the love of money is the root of all evil". Maybe the ego creates the act but love of money is the root of the act.
As for science, gosh today's version of it has to be the worst thing that ever happened to man. Today's science is operated out of pure greed. I state this as a matter of fact not as belief, today's science has no concern for our personal well being.
We started the industrial world which gave way to the world of technology causing real science to quickly give way to science fiction.
Because "the love of money is the root of all evil" whether you believe in the bible, God or not today's science is fraudulent.
People don't pay for real science, the pay for science fiction and the patents that follow.
It seems much of this discussion is based on man's current position in this world. The industrial world did not lead to more peace of mind and so to has the technological world failed. Everything man has created has failed us. Having a one world government will not fix that.
Today's science is based wholly on hypothesis not because we cannot be more scientifically factual but because real science is based on truths and there just is NO market for truth or real science.
Maybe this is my ego speaking but until a person can actually experience what man is truly capable of without technology, industry or today's science all they have to offer is opinion. Today's science and it's profits are destroying man not aiding him.
No, I think "conflated" fits. I'm aware of Russo's claims, and of Alex Jones' claims, but none of it counts as superior knowledge. Neither does it count as ignorance, but as something worse: it counts as spinning deliberate fiction as truth, knowing that there is an audience eager to believe it.
If you suppose that I have any admiration for Hitler or Stalin, then you suppose wrongly. I have no admiration for zealots. I blame zealotry for most -- if not all -- of the orchestrated monstrosities of history.
Maybe there is a world outside of the physical universe, and maybe there isn't. As I have already expressed, I want the transcendent to exist. Unfortunately, I see no evidence of it that isn't better explained by delusion.
I have spent over thirty years earnestly seeking the transcendent, and your (unwarranted) skepticism doesn't change that. You don't know me well enough to judge me, despite what your ego may tell you.
- Author
Thank you, @ib radmasters, for trying.
What you say makes perfect and reasonable sense from a purely physical standpoint. And I'm sorry you don't appreciate analogy, even if it is a movie one.
Like so many fundamentalist Christians, you take things too literally. That's ego speaking.
You will never experience a miracle with that attitude. Pity. Trapped in physical continuity may seem okay to you, but I can only feel pity for such a narrow outlook.
If your physical body steps in front of a fast moving train, splat! Unless you take full responsibility as an immortal child of God; in which case, anything is possible. It's all a matter programming, only most of us have forgotten how to program.
And Earth, imperfect? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
- Author
A. Villarasa, good points. I still struggle with the distraction of the 5 senses, but I'm starting to learn how to follow the strands of "physical awareness" back toward source and to analyze the connections and judgments made about them. I'm starting to see the "importances" ego has placed on them which help to keep me trapped in them.
I have been free of them for only brief moments this lifetime. But once free, then the true self (Holy Ghost, within) can wake up and then 5 senses continue, but aren't the distraction they were.
Like the monk in a story my late father told a long time ago, who looked just like an escaped murderer. When he wouldn't stopped after being called by a policeman, the official took his machete and hacked at the monk's arm, almost lopping it off at the shoulder. The monk merely turned to the policeman, moved the arm back into place with his other hand and said, "Officer, you have the wrong man." And then, again whole and fully-healed, walked away.
Did he feel the pain of the machete? Of course, but without ego, he no longer was capable of being victim to it.
- Author
Chasuk, on "conflated," I think "fused" might fit, simply because they belong together. Superior knowledge sometimes does that. But "confused?" I suspect you merely speak out of ignorance.
Try these on for size:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGAaPjqdbgQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3v4QUQpYjc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlWSv0NZBRw
Where murder and deception are tools to achieve worldwide domination -- your one-world government -- the result is only tyranny. And most, if not all, of the wars in the last 200+ years were likely instigated by these one-world tyrants. Just as an example: the first US central bank was let die, and the next year we had a war (1812). Andrew Jackson let the second US central bank die, and had an assassin try to eliminate him for it. These guys cause trouble. You want them ruling you? Good luck!
I'll take a little chaos over tyranny any day. Chaos doesn't scare me. And really, neither do the NWO bunch of treasonous lunatics. It's going to happen, regardless. That much has been planned for at least 2000 years.
And I suppose you would've been thrilled with Hitler and Stalin in their day? Could it be that George Bush (both), Obama and the Rockefellers are just as evil... or perhaps worse?
---------------
On ego, we're talking about the physical universe, pseudo-self construct which obeys the laws of action-reaction, cause-effect. This is the vulnerable self which is easily bruised and source of all selfishness and importance. From this, all evil is borne. I'm afraid you really are blind, my friend, for ego is not the only consciousness possible. And that's the point of all religion -- freedom from the false self and the re-awakening of the true, immortal self, within. And that's why you'll never "get it." Your definition of ego doesn't really apply here; it's too limiting.
Ego exists as a decision to turn away from our spiritual self. The great fall from grace was a turning away from the "oneness" with the Father of all creation. The 5 senses came much later, when Homo sapiens was created in order to give us a chance to get out of here. We needed its stable consciousness; dreams are too imperfect and unsettled, even for an immortal.
--------------
And on "liking to be wrong," how hungry are you for that, Chasuk? I dare say, they sound like empty words. What would you do if you really meant them? How much do you really want to know what's "out there?"
It's almost as if you're standing in a burning building, afraid to step out on the platform which will lead to safety. It takes faith -- a fearlessness that ego finds difficult or impossible. The reliance on physical continuity is too great. Ego exists not because of the 5 senses, but it certainly uses those senses to justify its position. It "reasons" with those senses and the data derived from them.
Like the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
--------------
And on "any type of zealotry will do," bravo!
Any zealotry is ego making something important. I still fall into that trap, from time to time. That's where evil starts. Like the zealotry that the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Bushes and their ilk have for money and power to the detriment of their fellow humans -- murdering thousands in 9/11, and blaming it on a convenient Al Qaeda, in order to take over Iraq and Afghanistan and milk tax payers on a deliciously unending war. Look at the videos. They could be a real revelation on your one-world government.
--------------
World peace is a good thing. But the bad hats are using that carrot to lure people like you into their trap. Good luck with that. I don't envy that future. But Armageddon is coming. We have the signs in Revelation already happening. And yes, it really is all connected (fused) in one sexily orchestrated monstrosity of corruption and degradation. Go ahead, Chasuk, follow that path of ego, selfishness and degradation. But just like the suicide perpetrator who steps off of a skyscraper, prepare yourself for the consequences.
@A.Villarasa: I have absolutely no idea whether I'm wrong or not. I hope that I am. As for man's final degradation and devaluation, any type of zealotry will will do.
lone77star
That was a long way around the barn and yet not move a step.
I haven't heard an argument like yours since I went to Cal State Long Beach and I was listening to two philosophy students talk about something, but it was not meaningful.
Virtual Reality is by definition Not Reality. And referencing movies like the Matrix have no real life experience, unless you are on heavy medication.
If you step in front of a fast moving train, then you are dead. And that is a fact, and when you are gone, no one here was be communicating with you. If you come up in some other dimension, or other manifestation, you will never be the you that you are now.
So you can continue with your philosophical mind games, but it does nothing to validate the topic of your hub.
There is no place for ethics here, you can be very ethical and yet totally wrong in your beliefs.
The fact is that the universe looks like it was thrown together, and maybe the Earth is the only place where it stuck together. But, if this is a creation of a God, then it is a failure. The universe serves no useful purpose for us here on Earth. If this a creation of a God, then God should have spent more time on the earth. And ironically these flaws are referred to as Acts of God.
As my original comment here stated, I am confused as to the point of this hub. Nothing personal, it is just my conclusion after reading the hub and your comments.
I tried.
@Chasuk,
I can almost hear you saying......"but in this case I am not wrong".
Talking about other ego-driven ideas...atheism has fpund, not surprisingly, expression in objectivism and reductionism. These isms are what would contribute to man's final degradation and devaluation.
@A.Villarasa: I don't believe that such such a thing as "transcendental reality" exists, but I'd like to be wrong. :-)
To Chasuk,
You misconstrued what I meant by the word "ego" in my initial post. I used the word in the context of someone's lack of humility by believing that there is no other form of reality except the physical, or that there is no higher form of reality except the one perceived by our 5 physical senses. So many folks on hubpages are so ego driven, that when they come across someone who has , not only a material but also a spiritual view of the universe, they immediately label
them irrational, illogical, delusional. I would argue that those of us who belives in a transcendental reality have a a more lucid, liminous and levitating understanding of the universe.
The ego is just the conscious self, A.Villarasa. As such, when we communicate with each other -- on this page, for example -- we have no alternative but to engage ego. Every word on this page is meditated by ego. That ego exists because of our five senses, not despite it.
One of the best hub that your very creative mind has produced. Those who still cling to the ego driven idea that all things in the universe are physical/material are robbing themselves blind of their inate capacity to conceptualize without first being enticed by their 5 physical senses.
Conflated: Rigged elections. Engineered wide-scale illness. A "blue blood" mafia-like group bent on enslaving everyone. The Rockefellers and microchips. The "mark of the beast." The Federal Reserve and income tax. The women's liberation movement. The Patriot Act. NDAA. SOPA and PIPA.
Fear: Well, I'm excited about a one-world government. It's about time. We haven't done a very good job of keeping peace in the world so far with all of our artificial boundaries, so maybe eliminating some of those boundaries would be a good thing.
:-)
- Author
@Chasuk, that was a very interesting response. Thanks!
Conflate? Can you give me an example?
And fear? Another example?
I love a good conversation and you have provided many helpful and interesting points. You are most welcome, and I thank you for your participation.
I misspoke (misstyped?) before, and shouldn't have used the word "derived." Harris essentially argues that morals evolved in the same manner that other human behaviors evolved.
As for the rest...
I agree with some of what you say, Lone77star. However, you conflate too much, and some of the things that you fear I embrace. I think that our main point of departure is that you believe in the spiritual, and I don't.
Still, thank you for an interesting discussion.
- Author
Thanks, @pinktaxi, for your comment. I have no idea what Steve Jobs experienced. Perhaps it was endorphins kicking in from the imminent shut down of his body.
Or perhaps he truly did have a spiritual experience. Only he and God know, for sure.
- Author
Thanks, @ib radmasters, for at least stopping by and reading.
Einstein certainly had some powerful things to say.
In your building analogy, the virtual building would be science, because it studies the products of creation, but has no power over it. The products of science can manipulate the laws into new and interesting combinations -- like the doping of silicon to yield the transistor effect. Genius. Or combining our increased understanding of various physical effects to get a bead on the collapse of an interstellar dust cloud and the initialization of the formation of a newborn star. But these are all continuity-based things. They are part of the virtual reality -- the "programming" that is this physical reality. And it is indeed "virtual." But science can only work within the framework of this "virtual" universe. Yes, from our viewpoint it seems real and tangible. See "The Thirteenth Floor" or "Matrix" for an idea of how "virtualness" in programming can seem real. Collisions and their effects have pre-programmed results.
All of these constructs are built on a foundation of creation.
I have seen the reduction of a created "thing" down to an instantaneity. The Nazarene talked about this when he said that knowing the truth will set you free. The Buddhists describe this as "as-it-isness," and the Scientologists call it "as-isness."
And I have seen the opposite effect -- the elevation of an instantaneity (the essence of a creation; the "word" or "template"; or in programming parlance, the "class"), into persistence. This is the taking of an idea and making it manifest contrary to all physical law, or current physical states. This is the heart of Shiva -- the creation and destruction of things. But it only comes from a spiritual source. No rock can create a universe. And contrary to Stephen Hawking's pronouncements, gravity cannot create a universe, either. "Gravity," along with space and time came after the instantaneity of the "word" of God. And interestingly, persistence (the added dimension of time) came with God "resting." What the Buddhists call "allowing."
Einstein had a great idea, suggesting that one needs to know the mind of God. Science accomplishes a great deal, but it cannot climb the entire ladder, because some of that ladder will not allow physical things to pass. Ego cannot enter into the realm of creation, because it contains vectors of continuity (time/persistence); it remains a created "object" obeying the action-reaction laws of physical reality. And sadly, too many people have been fooled into thinking that their ego is the real them.
- Author
Chasuk, good points, but a code of ethics derived from science and based purely on physical continuity doesn't stand a chance when attempting to overcome the power of selfishness. It's like fighting fire with fire.
I have a few other hubs which explore various aspects of this -- "rigged elections" in America (currently under way), engineered wide-scale illness under the heading of "cancer statistics," and my own spin on "predictions for 2012."
There is a "blue blood" mafia-like group bent on enslaving everyone. The late Aaron Russo talked about this in his last interview with Alex Jones (YouTube). The enslavement has been methodical, inexorable and very, very logical. And the microchips the Rockefellers what to implant in us all sounds just like the "mark of the beast" described in Revelation 13. Logic cannot overcome that kind of brutal "logic." We already have lost so many liberties in the United States -- The Fed and income tax were two nails in the coffin of liberty. Then women's liberation (and I bought the lie on this, too), the unPatriot Act and now NDAA. They almost got our Internet with SOPA and PIPA; perhaps that will fall later.
The only way to "fight" such injustice is with the power of "turning the other cheek." It's a spiritual thing -- not giving in to the apparent "power" of physical continuity.
If Jobs's dying words have any relevance, then they have relevance despite his vocation. However, I am not suggesting that they have any relevance.
pinktaxi
I have no context for the Steve Jobs words. But, he was a marketeer, and not a scientist. So I doubt whether his words on the subject were meaningful to the issue.
Professor Albert Einstein would have been a better choice to quote.
Comparing Science to Religion is like comparing the Empire State Building to a virtual building. The virtual building doesn't really exist, so how can you compare the two buildings.
The debate of science vs God will remain forever. I think Steve Jobs summed it up best with his final words, "oh wow, oh wow, oh wow."
I am sorry but this hub's point eludes me.
Science doesn't offer a code of ethics. However, a code of ethics can arguably be derived from science, as some have tried. Th most notable recent attempt is that of Sam Harris, in his book "The Moral Landscape."
57