Burl

The issue with scientism is the treatment of science in manner more befitting religion. More often than not, the validity of the claim is not examined at all. Three good examples are vaccine effectiveness, cancer and global warming. All are active and important areas of research, but there are attempts to use the judicial system, foundation financing, peer review and media control to silence the research of unpopular hypotheses. Researchers on the wrong side of the political correctness fence are essentially deemed heretical and shunned, and the public gets a one-sided view. I do not think stifiling dissent is appropriate for science and I don't think you do either.

Romansh, we are lucky that our education included Karl Popper and the philosophy of science. The vast majority of the public do not understand science is based on testing which hypothesis is statistically the least false. They think when they click on a science article it is a proven fact. They overgeneralize, mistake correllation for causation and have no way of judging qualifications and competencies. It's not that different than the way people who are nominally religious get their entire spiritual content from the sporadic sermon applied to a juvenile chatechism.

photos upload A retirement award for a Dean of a theology school. Ebony and some burl - I use miscellaneous cut-offs from the scrap bin. I know it's too big. Mea culpa. Moses only used text so tablets were sufficient, but images and tablets are a different story.

A lucid, intelligent and accessible longread on scientism. I rarely post links like this, but the subject is important and the essay is exceptional. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism

Well stated, Soma! Scripture is a road map, not a driver's manual.

Paul, when I finally get an image up you will be tempted to sell your pizza oven and buy a wood lathe. Australia is probably the greatest country in the world for turners.

You are right in that I did dip into hyperbole, but when two out of the three top medical journal editors publiclty state that less than half their published studies are valid I think it's fair to say science has a problem. These editors described a pervasive, corrupt system of industry control. The lead CDC researcher evaluating vaccine safety research recently confessed that his committee deliberately destroyed any data which showed vaccines caused damage. Openly admitted fraud at the top levels of scientific review. I did speak too broadly, but this is a casual conversation where comments are brief. I think we will end up largely in agreement.

Getting closer.

I'll try again. Seems my files are too big to upload. 25k max? We need some loaves and fishes style action around here. . . . . . 150 px sq and still too big? Is my ex-wife on this site? ;-) . . . . . BTW, cute kid. Looks just like her dad :-)

Largely agreed. If you substituted tradition for science that would be a perfectly Wesleyan statement. Unfortunately, science in the modern world has become thoroughly corrupted. The editors of the Lancet and the NEJM agree that science has dissipated into a money chase fueled by egos, cliques and corporatism. Money now buys the scientific imprimature without regard to to reality. "Science" today is ruled by funding, grants and academic incest. Novel hypotheses are siderailed if they might potentially collide with the money train. True science (per Karl Popper, a statistical exploration not of truth but of what is the least false) is unfortunately just a remnant of the the Rationalist's ideal. It has been replaced largely by Scientism, an absurd modern theology where scientists are immune from human weakness. We laugh at the old cigarette advertisements where four out of five doctors agree Chesterfields are best, but scoff if someone suggests herbs might be effective remedies for common ailments. I don't dismiss science, but I will not worship it either. Science grew out of theology, not vice-versa. True science detects the fingerprints of God, but is useless in matters of ethics and morality.

Two ways of looking at the issue. In the old school, 'search for the historical Jesus' theme the argument is that it it more likely a biblical passage is reliable if it works against self interest. People do not confabulate inconsistencies if they are pushing an agenda. Liars do not intentionally reveal their own lies. An inconsistency shows the author is reporting accurately and not according to their prejudice. My personal belief is that Scripture is essential for discriminating right from wrong per 2 Timothy 12-17, and that requires a comprehensive inclusion of all scripture (Jesus is the litmus test). All scripture must be interpreted twice: once when it it is written and once when it is received. Inconsistencies flag the need for deeper consideration, not rejection.

Nope. We have native oak, walnut and ironwood burl which are world class, and an astounding variety of figured maples but no jarrah. Australian burls command astounding prices here and are in much demand by turners. Exceptionaly grand lathe tucker. I've made several presentation chalices, but don't know how to attach a pic to this software.

This Progressive Christianity article is one I can fully endorse. Your opinions? http://progressivechristianity.org/resources/inconsistent-scripture-why-the-bibles-errors-are-actually-good-news-for-christians/

Agreed.

Panentheistic.

I believe God often chooses to work through unlikely people. Jonah. Paul. The Hebrews. Moses. Ruth. This elementary biblical theme is ancient in both Christianity and Judaism, yet on this Christian forum some find this completely orthodox concept novel. I really did not expect all this brouhaha over such a simple comment.

Malcom X was the heir apparent to Elijah Muhummad and gave up his life, his income and his power. Muhummad Ali gave up all his titles and his income for quite a while. I would say both acted out of conviction and against pragmatism. JFK and Smedley Butler similarly suffered willingly for the benefit of others. It's precisely that willingness to suffer for the benefit of others that is evidence of divine action.

I think so. You have another possibility in mind?

If God chooses Trump as a divine vessel it will be undeniably obvious.

"No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of." Luke 6:43-45 Malcom X is the clearest example I listed. A virulent racist and second in command of a rich and powerful cult, he performed the hajj and was dumbstruck by the equality of men before God. He resigned from The Nation of Islam, converted to Islam and became a severe critic of Elijah Muhammad proclaiming the equality of men. He was assassinated by NoI because of his change of heart, and his life continues to draw an uncountable number of people to God I submit this is undeniable proof Malcom X was transformed by the grace of God, and that he was utilized as a divine vessel. There is no other possible explanation.

As I said, I'm voting for Dr. Stein. I reject both uniparty candidates. But we can tell a good tree by its fruit. If Trump becomes a divine vessel the character change will be undeniable proof.

"A divine vessel is a divine vessel unless it is not a divine vessel". The statement is self-referential. I'm sure you had a valid point in mind but that statement does not communicate it. If you don't pull Schrodinger's cat out of that box how can anyone know it actually exists?

Your statement was not missed. It is illogical as it begs the question.

My list of unlikely vessels would include Malcom X, JFK, and Gen. Wm. Smedley Butler. I do not consider anyone on your list to be divinely inspired.

God tends to pick unlikely vessels. I would not be at all surprised if Trump wins and does a decent job, but I'm voting for Dr. Stein based on honesty and brains.