The Hubble, Yahweh, the Bible, and faith.

by Nickolas 269 Replies latest jw friends

  • sizemik
    Anything added to this thread by me would be pure speculation I think.

    I'm not sure I agree with you Awen . . . you're familiarity with texts and writings that are not included in the Bible "canon" as it exists today, is not something I share, for one. It was your citation of the following text which prompted me to introduce the topic of spherical standing waves . . .

    In Thomas saying 3, Jesus says,...the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.

    . . . and also referring to it as a possible area of convergence between science and religion or "spirituality" for want of a better description.

    It basically recognises that the physical world (matter) is really just energy at is most basic level. Energy that represents itself physically to the five senses we possess. It can be hard at first to wrap ones head around because ironically, our five senses tell us otherwise . . . that the physical world is constructed from "solid" matter. But the science of SSW theory is sound, based on current understanding of both the physics and mathematics involved . . . and is actually quite simple . . . not complex

    It's the implications that get interesting . . .

    It leads to the conclusion that everything in the universe is intrinsically connected . . . and that we are simply part of the overall physical expression of that energy in a spatial environment. The understanding of that energy in it's full and complete sense is by no means complete.

    On a slightly more speculative note, the semantics involved in the scientific and religious expression become remarkably close. For example; Holy = Pure, Spirit = Energy. Thus "Holy Spirit" = "Pure Energy". Equally; Sin = Corruption, or Corrupt spirit. Thus "sin" = "corrupt energy"

    Non-religious Philosophy, based on the SSW theory, concludes that remaining in harmony with (not corrupting) the physical universe around us works to our benefit as well as the benefit of the "whole". Thus, harmony with fellow humans (love your neighbour as yourself), harmony with other living and non-living things (environmentalism) become desirable from a completely non-religious direction.

    If you've followed to this point . . . you will see the obvious harmony beginning to emerge between cutting-edge science and the human need for "religion" or spirituality. And your quote from Thomas is in this context, simply a scientific truth.

    When one considers that this energy must have a source of generation of some description, then the possibilities, while speculative to a point, are manifest . . . and quite exciting. But they do find harmony with, in particular, the teachings of Christ . . . and at the same time, current scientific knowledge of the nature of the physical world.

    You may find these links interesting . . .

    This is a subject very new to me . . . but worthy of investigation IMO. It has the potential to bring some harmony into scientific understanding . . . and our place in the physical universe, and how this relates to our understanding of "God" . . . at least at a very elementary level. I find already that it enables me to discern the valid spiritual principles that harmonise with the science . . . as well as that which doesn't . . . and is therefore mythical.

  • tec

    I read this theory on another thread, and my inner reactions was "YES". I think I like it so much because a) I can see it and understand it - and b) it also corroborates something I already believe, but now from a scientific perspective.



  • AGuest

    So much to comment on/respond to, here (may you all have peace!), and one particular post has almost reduced me to tears (I will identify that in a sec). My apologies for the delay in responding; had "hard" last couple of nights (due to mind-blowing pain - anyone got any suggestions on how to "manage" that? Can't take the oxycontin or Norco they gave me... and the Tylenol 3's - up to 1.5 per dose - aren't helping any longer!! Sucking it up best I can... but not always successful... and typing seems to exacerbate the problem - Oy! But gonna respond to all that I can, here, so thanks for indulging me).

    First, to dear Nick (the greatest of love and peace to you, dear one!):

    It is not my intent to bait anyone but to understand something I at present do not.

    Lordy, I know just what you mean... and it truly confuses me that some perceive a different motive. Cannot someone simply be asking... simply to be ASKING? Not trying to "start" something or get others' chonies in a bunch, but just because you REALLY want to understand (even if that means HOW another thinks/perceives and not necessarily WHAT they think/perceive). Some of these discussions would go SO much... ummmmm... easier... if every just condescended to give each other the benefit of the doubt (that there is no covert motive, but just a healthy desire to UNDERSTAND... whatever it is they're trying to understand).

    Faith prevents one from seeking alternative conclusions, and that is why the faithful cannot see what I see.

    Could a believer not say the same of an unbeliever... that faith ALLOWS us to see... and LACK of faith is "why the UNfaithful cannot see what [we] see?"

    you want me to believe? Show me.

    Two things, here, dear one. First, He (God) did show you - all [you] need do is look at Christ... AND NOTHING/NO ONE ELSE. Focus your view on that one. However, second, it is [your] refusal to do that... look at him... because of looking at religion/the Bible (and how THOSE have "painted" God), that prevents you from seeing CHRIST. It is really no different for non-believers... than those who SAY they "see" and have faith... but do not (as to both).

    To dear Tec (the greatest of love and peace to you, too, dear one!):

    it is easier to turn the other cheek when its YOUR cheek being slapped... not when its someone else's. I think we tend to come to another person's defense more often than we tell them to turn their cheek)

    Which is no different from our Lord. The rare times he did speak up/act out/respond in opposition... was when the matter involved someone else: the money changers, turning the Father's temple into a den of robbers; the disciples who couldn't expel a demon from a tortured boy, due to their lack of faith; the religious leaders, for misleading the people. He lashed out at the first, assertived "checked" the second... and even scathingly called the third names ("hypocrites"... "offspring of vipers"... and more).

    It was with regard to HIMSELF... that he remained quiet (a lamb going to slaughter)... and turned the other cheek ("Father, forgive them..."). Regarding others, he spoke up when, in HIS opinion, the occasion called for it. Paul openly "checked" Peter (heck, he had quite a bit to scathingly say to the Corinthians, did he not? LOLOL!).

    Unfortunately, false religions teaches christians as/to be passive and complacent at all times (which is neither true nor required, at all)... and so when one asserts oneself, they are accused of passive-aggressiveness. To be expected, of course, because we humans... and particularly "intellectuals"... LOVE to put labels on everything... and everyone. The thing that this does, though, is multifold: first, it is just another form of "control" that others try to use over their fellowman ("Ooh, you're passsive-aggressive, which is almost like being a criminal!"). Of course, those playing at being "christian" get scared and go, "Oh, NO! I am being/acting like "something" others think I shouldn't be/act like! I must STOP!" But if one IS a christian (by means of anointing with holy spirit)... such things do not dictate - one simply TRIES to follow Christ, by the leadings of holy spirit. And sometimes, that means not being able to withhold indignation - particularly when another appears to have been wronged.

    Second, it creates yet another "Oh, no, I'm not/don't do..." regulation for others. Third, that one is "passive" under most circumstances, but WILL stand up and speak out in another... isn't a bad thing. Nor does it mean when the one speaks out that they're being "aggressive." In most cases, such ones are actually only being "assertive" (which is why the omission of that category - passive/assertive - is misleading). It simply means that, while most issues don't take you there, some do... and most probably should. It DEPENDS, then, on what issues bring out such assertiveness.

    I mean, heck, Peter literally cut off a man's ear when he perceived Christ being attacked! Moving on...

    To dear Awen (the greatest of love and peace to you, too!):

    I think I will bow out of this topic. It's far beyond my limited education and some of the jargon I don't quite comprehend.

    The wonderful thing here, though, dear Awen, is that the OP didn't ask for you to intellectualize... but simply give your point of view, which you did. It is unfortunate, IMHO, that some responders couldn't have just said, "Well, okay, I don't agree... but that's his POV and he's more than welcome to it." Unfortunately, they viewed the questions posed as a opportunity for THEM to "debate" what you, I, and others believe... which I didn't get to be the point of the thread.

    For us (believers), it was going to a be no-win situation, no matter how we responded: we were asked to state our sincere perspectives, which we tried to do. While I think the OP appreciated that, I am not so sure that others were even capable of that: taking our views at face value and moving on. The sad thing is that such ones are usually very convinced that those believers who do NOT state their positions don't because they're "afraid" of debate or that their positions will be shown as fallacy. They don't understand that most of don't (and I am considering that I most probably won't after this)... because it usually turns out to be an arena for being attacked. "They" (excluding the OP) don't really WANT to know what we believe... and why: they really only want us to put it out there so that they can attack and discredit it. Some apparently "live" for such opportunity. I can only conclude that these don't have much more means for "excitement" in their lives... and so debating (well, not even debating, actually, but attacking) that which they have come to hate... and those who still have faith in it... brings them some kind of joy.

    Our dilemma? Whether or not to deprive them of this joy...

    Finally, dear Size... the greatest of love and peace to you, as well! It was your last post... and dear Tec's response ("YES!")... that almost brought tears to my eyes. Because, as I have said many times, science simply cannot explain the things of the spirit [realm] NOW... because it currently does not have the TOOLS to do so... but I have never proffered that it never will. The theory that you refer to, however, actually BOLSTERS what I believe: that we are NOT solely physical... and so NOT restricted to the perceptions of the five PHYSICAL senses: there are other senses... and just a cursory observation of animals (meaning wild and domestic beasts) should tell us that, if science doesn't. If we, humans, are a bit "higher" than animals... yet, these can perceive, in SO many ways that we can't... shouldn't THAT tell us that we're not tapping into all that we have at our disposal... that it is WE who are limiting ourselves?

    Yet, Christ, taught BEYOND the body of flesh. We think science is liberating us. And, in some manners, it is. However, it is also LIMITING us... because it says, thus far, that unless we can perceive it with at least one of the five physical senses... it does not exist! This is fallacy... and so limiting as to what we TRULY are... and what we can truly DO. We are NOT just our bodies of flesh; we are also the CONTENTS of that vessel. And just as we can realize and perceive with our PHYSICAL bodies... the "man" we are on the OUTSIDE... we can, to an even greater sense, with our SPIRIT, the "man" we are on the INSIDE.

    But why DON'T we? Because there are those who tell us that we CAN'T... and we BELIEVE them. Which is why, IMHO, I can't see much difference between science... and religion. BOTH have agendas: to limit/restrict us, in some form or another. BOTH bind us... to THIS realm. Science, through its limitations TO this realm... and religion, by its LIES as to the spirit realm.

    I am hoping, with all of my heart... that either my Lord returns... or theories such as the one you refer to "find" him... so that it can all be put to rest once and for all.

    As to the theory itself, it is actually quite accurate:

    Christ, the Light... is not only the Source of all physical matter, which is really nothing more than materialized energy... but he is the MEANS by which, through which... and the One FOR which... the physical world was brought into existence. He is the PURE ENERGY... because he is the FULL essence of God: His BLOOD, BREATH, and SEMEN (seed)... the ENERGY... by means of which all that is PHYSICAL came into being... and exists. That very energy (blood/breath/semen)... is what CREATES physical matter.

    The "big bang" was the RESULT... of his "BIRTH" - his EXIT from the spirit realm/ENTRY into THIS realm... which caused the CREATION of the physical universe and its matter. It was, per OUR perceptions, a very tiny event; however, the amount of ENERGY that was involved was astronomical. It HAD to be a tiny event, however, and then EXPAND (which is why God is said to have "STRETCHED OUT the heavens"); otherwise, the amount of ENERGY involved... would have annihilated EVERYTHING: this world AND that one.

    He was "born"... when he left the "womb" of the "Woman" (the spirit realm)... and came into this world (the physical realm), initially. And it wasn't just a minor event - again, the ENERGY expended to do that... resulted in the creation of the physical world! Why did he come into this world? To bring with him... and hide... the OTHER seed of that Woman.

    What some people have the hardest time grasping is that these are PERSONS (not "people", i.e., humans). The reason for this difficulty is because they cannot grasp the concept of a consciousness... outside of some kind of EMBODIMENT. Usually, a human or animal body. Funny, they are beginning to grasp it, though, as to a manmade or artificial embodiment. But unless it has some kind of physical BODY... they just can't perceive it. And that is the folly: not all consciousness must be housed in a physical body/vessel! Indeed, spirit beings... while able to put ON physical bodies, are not ordinarily "housed" in such.

    The inability to perceive these truths, however, is the fault of both science and religion. Science, in that it attemps to LIMIT our understanding and perceptions solely to that which IS physical... which is enslaving: it does not allow us to perceive BEYOND... although WE are much more than our physical vessels. It attempts, however, to bind us to that vessel and only that which it (the vessel) can perceive. It does not ALLOW for perceptions by the CONTENTS of that vessel... the "man" we are on the INSIDE. Religion, too, attempts to enslave us... but by teaching false premises regarding the spirit and things beyond the physical body. For example, that we are only spirit AFTER we leave the body of flesh. That is a LIE - we were spirits BEFORE such vessels, while IN such vessels... and will be after putting off (for those that do) such vessels.

    Both science and religion keep us from TRULY transcending, however. Science, by its limitations to only that which is physical... and religion through its misunderstandings, misteachings, and misguidings as to the spiritual. Which is why I often say they are similar. I get that many don't SEE this... but it's BECAUSE of such limitations that they DON'T. For them, unless science PROVES that we are more than our physical bodies, we are not. How limiting! Yet, such ones believe themselves to be "free"... more so than those who ascribe to religion. The truth, however, is that both are limited, restricted, enslaved. Neither can move BEYOND the flesh NOW.

    Perhaps science will one day crack the mystery... and find God. But why wait? He's there and can be found NOW: all one has to DO... is go to Him THROUGH Christ. Yes, to do that, one must BELIEVE... that one CAN do so... and have FAITH that Christ will allow him IN. While I have personally found that to be the SIMPLER "way" to go... I have learned that, apparently, it's not the easiest for most.

    Bottom line: it all really just depends on how fast one wants to get there... and by what means.

    Again, the greatest of love and peace to you all!

    A slave of Christ, the TRUE Light... and pure energy source of God,


  • AGuest

    AGuest, I look forward to you pointing out these scriptures you mentioned. Very interesting

    Since dear Nick (again, peace to you!) has given his permission, dear Paulapollos (peace to you, as well!), I offer the following scriptures/verses. Please note, (1) most of what is written in the Bible is fluff - it is the "pearls" that are of value, and so, in that light (2) they are not in any way ALL of those that speak to what I share, but are at least foundational:

    Genesis 3:15 Revelation 12:1, 2, 5, 7-12, 17 Job 1:6-11; 2:1-5 Isaiah 54:1-15 2 Corinthians 5:1-5 Hebrews 2:14-18; 3:6 Ecclesiastes 1:9, 10; 3:15 Ephesians 6:12 Daniel 10:12-21 Matthew 13:35 Matthew 25:34 John 17:24 Ephesians 1:3-7 Psalm 78:2 Romans 16:25-27 Ephesians 1:8-14 Ephesians 4:7-9 Colossians 1:26, 27 1 Corinthians 2:6-16

    I do not expect you to understand them all, of course, or how they relate to what I've shared - it doesn't really work that way: I can share them, but it is not me who can "open" up their meaning to you. You must go through the "Door" for that, dear one, unless he comes to you (because you are asking FOR him to do so). At any rate, happy reading and please do not hesitate to let me know if I CAN further explain something... or how these relate to what I shared... if you need (as my Lord permits, of course!).

    Again, peace to you!

    YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,


  • AGuest
    @Aguest - I've just read page 2, and I'm having trouble understanding what you are saying.

    Greetings, dear TQO (peace to you!), and I understand. I will try to clarify, if I can.

    Why would an Almighty God, with limitless power, need to hide spirit beings from enemy spirits who are inferior in power to himself?

    The word of my Lord is that, although inferior, the amount of power (energy) to destroy just one of these... could have resulted in annihilation of even the seed. The aim of these enemies was to ruin the seed before it could be fertilized (by God's seed/semen) and born (of the Woman). Since they were not yet "full-grown", destroying ALL of THEM wouldn't take as much energy (by the enemy spirits) as it would take to destroy ONE of these "enemies" (which were created full-grown).

    Why could he not simply protect them from these beings?

    Protect them how, dear one? Other than destroying them? They had/have an agenda that they wouldn't be swayed from, so they only thing to do was either destroy THEM (the enemies)... or protect the seed (by hiding them FROM the enemies, until their "appointed time").

    And if these enemies of the seed don't know who the beings they are looking for reside within, why don't they just kill everyone on Earth

    It's not like that haven't/aren't trying, dear one. Heck, they even believed that if they killed the KING of the seed (the Son)... that would effect the seed ("cut off the head", etc.). Didn't work, praise JAH, nor would it have...

    who mentions Jesus/YHVH, or that isn't an atheist ?

    Because simply mentioning those names does not necessarily identify a seed [of God]. All kinds of folks use those names. True, they DO go after some, but not because of the names; because of the works they do that seem to identify them as the seed. On occasion, they do get a seed. Stephen, for example. Isaiah... some of the apostles... John the Baptist... and others throughout history: many given to the lions, stoned, burned at the stake, accused of witchcraft and more.

    They're not interested in atheists, for obvious reasons... or those that deny the Christ for some other leader. But in the fray of so MANY dying, the death of the [physical body] of the seed is often obscured. It is not a big deal in THIS world... but a MAJOR deal in that one, particularly if one maintained his/her integrity and did not curse God due to the persecution being brought against him/her (which is the accusation made against ALL of mankind, but for the purposes of the seed). It is major because it PROVES Belial to be the "devil" (liar) that he is. Each time one of us so proves him such... those in the spirit realm who are not among such enemies rejoice. Understandably so.

    Why do these enemies exist? Because of jealousy (which is rotteness... to the BONE). They DESPISE those to whom the kingdom has been promised because they consider them (the seed) to be puny, weak, whiney, selfish, self-serving, disloyal, unfaithful, hateful, spiteful, hypocritical, murderous, reviling crybabies, and more. Which most of mankind IS. They are utterly chagrined that... having served God for eons... they rulership will not be given to THEM... but that ones from among such a weak species will rule over THEM. It has brought out such vileness among them; they no longer care because they feel disregarded... even betrayed.

    But the rule was never promised to them; indeed, from the beginning it was for the seed. Unfortunately, they listened to the wrong one... and so joined in HIS bid for rule: Death. The "last" enemy. Death is a spirit being... who is more powerful than ALL... except God... and,by God's authority, Christ. By means of Christ, the seed will also be more powerful than Death... NOT because they earned it... but because of God's love... through which He shows these MERCY... by granting them power over Death. Thus, just as Death could not hold Christ... he cannot hold these, either.

    I hope this helps, dear one, and again, peace to you!

    YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,


  • AGuest
    one doesn't necessarily have to be nice to be right

    Yet, some of us are automatically expected to be nice, dear Twitch (peace to you!), simply because we profess to be christians. Even when we openly admit that we're NOT nice. No basis for such expectation, then, but expected nonetheless...

    although people will be more open to a respectful position.

    Respectful people, yes. People who are largely disrespectful themselves, not so much. Those tend to not give a hoot... unless they think someone is disrespecting THEM. Then it's all about ripping garments and tossing ashes in the air while crying, "Look what you're doing to ME!!"

    I may not always like someone's "manners" but to me, this is secondary to the point they are making and if their point is valid

    Unfortunately, that knife tends to "cut" in one direction more than the other on this board, dear one... and it's usually against believers...

    I respect that.

    Yes, and you often show that. You do. Sadly, apparently it's not something ALL have the capacity to do. Sad, that...

    Again, peace to you!

    A slave of Christ,

    SA, who, again, will speak up when she feels someone should... even if it's not the popular thing at the time. To do so... is in her "blood"...

  • The Quiet One
    The Quiet One

    Aguest - Thanks for replying, there's nothing much more I can say.. "to be puny, weak, whiney, selfish, self-serving, disloyal, unfaithful, hateful, spiteful, hypocritical, murderous, reviling crybabies, and more. Which most of mankind IS.".. - Did you mean that most people have at least one of these traits, or that most have all of the above traits? Thanks in advance.

  • Nickolas

    Whew. So much new to digest.

    Could a believer not say the same of an unbeliever... that faith ALLOWS us to see... and LACK of faith is "why the UNfaithful cannot see what [we] see?"

    yes, Shelby, but the believer cannot say the same if he or she has never seen what I have seen as a non-believer. From my admittedly limited perspective, I was a believer at one time and that did prevent me from seeing the alternatives I see now. Many years ago I would have been entirely disposed to see things the way you and Awen and Tammy and Paul do because those things would have been more or less consistent with what I believed on the strength of my faith in God. Strip that faith away and the perceptions don't mesh any longer.

  • Qcmbr

    Nick - I too 'fragrantly' break rules every now and then and have to go get a change of underwear hehe.

  • jay88

    Shelby without using the bible as reference:

    -What is the seed?

    -Why is it necessary?



Share this