by AGuest 53 Replies latest jw friends

  • AGuest

    I guess it would do me well to heed the counsel at Luke 9:5, as well, dear Nick. And so I will.

    As always, peace to you.

    Your servant and a slave of Christ,


  • Nickolas

    Peace back atcha, sister.

  • tec

    Well, I'm not sure what was so deluded about the opinion of the OP in regard to this topic? What science proves as being true is rarely to never infallible... and I think that's because scientists know that there are always new advancements to be made, new discoveries to find, new technology to help find these things.

    So what is true (or at least theoretically true and accepted) today might not be true tomorrow, or at least not fully true, because of some new discovery that shed further light on some particular subject. And yes, it is the scientific version of 'new light'. And while the facts have no biases or ambitions, sometimes the scientists behind them do. Their work (or false/sloppy evidence) won't hold up under scrutiny, true, but in the meantime, a lot of people will take what they have said as 'truth', until someone proves otherwise. Everyone here must know this to be true. I don't know what the big deal is. There are few people of faith on this board (if any) who will jump in at this seemingly slight surrender with a 'ha ha, you admit that science can be wrong and so we've been right all along!'

    I mean, I don't have a problem admitting that religion can be (and has been) wrong in their understanding of God, Christ and also scripture. But those mistakes don't change God or Christ, or even scripture... any more than scientific mistakes or current technological limitations change the natural world around us. Only our understanding and perception is what changes.

    Before someone decides to say that I am one of those who thinks science is untrustworthy, understand that I have no interest in proving any scientific theory right or wrong. I trust what scientists discover and/or prove too... I just know that it can change; even be recanted. But none of it matters to me in regard to my faith, since I believe God is behind whatever is true.


  • Curtains


    Well, I'm not sure what was so deluded about the opinion of the OP in regard to this topic?

    nothin deluded about the opinion of the OP - I agree . I was referring to what came after - Aguest spin

    But apart from that I think in this thread the distinction between NASA and science needs to be spelled out and emphasized as there does seem to be some confusion. NASA seems to me to be a state organisation - whereas science itself is neutral. I think if the scientists in this case had been left to get on with experimenting and verifying their experiments they would not now be in this positon of seeming to have rushed their experiments.

    Then there is a huge difference between scientific truth and spiritual truth. To draw analogies between the two in order to suggest that personal spiritual truth goes through a process (albeit a different process) of verification like science is deluded. what I mean tosay is that juxtaposing the two processes is deluded. Scientfic truth is repeatable under laboratory conditions whereas spiritual truth is not, although I get the impression that Aguest suggests that her experiences with Jesus Christ are repeatable in christians and that if they don't experience what she is experiencing they are not working hard enough or not doing it right. I would be glad to be corrected on this.

    I want to be clear though that I am not denying the realness of spiritual experiences but the fact that these experiences are real does not mean that they can be placed side side with the facts of science.

Share this