Jonathan H. B. Lobl

When so many people are confused by the basics of evolution theory -- I am reluctant to talk about giants. Still, bring it on. Jonathan Lobl

In Christian mythology, 666 is the Mark of the Beast. Since I'm not Christian, I don't care. Jonathan Lobl A minor variant: There are three kinds of people. The ones who understand math; and the ones who don't. Jonathan Lobl

We are making this way too complicated. Religious people are often afraid of Atheists. People hate what they fear. Nice and simple. Jonathan Lobl

To my understanding, it is awareness of Unity, that makes spiritual healing, such as reiki, possible. It is Unity that is behind such events as telepathy and precognition. If manifestation works, Unity is behind that as well. While we live in physical existence, our grasp on Unity/Unified Field, will be limited. Jonathan Lobl

Hello Nestingwave: That could use a little editing. Not really a rant. A little long. I am familiar with the Bible. I can't quote chapter and verse the way I used to. I have read it. My piety has never recovered. When you say, ideomaterial, are you saying that the Universe is a thought? One of these days, I must tell you how I went from Atheism to Pantheism. Well, it's late. Good night. Jonathan Lobl

There is another interesting passage in Job. The long suffering Job is talking with his wife. He says to her -- "What? Should we accept only good from God, and not evil?" That is how I remember the passage. I'll have to look up the actual words. Psalm 139 also speaks to God's omnipresence, and God's dual nature. Jonathan Lobl

You are suggesting that it is not religion versus science -- but many religions versus science; some of which oppose each other. Jonathan Lobl

Fawzo: I enjoyed your comments on the Kingdom of God being everywhere. Good stuff. I read all of it. Nestingwave: I'm not sure of all of that, but the more I read your thoughts; the closer we seem to be. A few thoughts -- While the One is beyond Good and Evil; I believe I must make a choice for myself. I choose Good. I also prefer the company of others who choose Good. When I speak of God, or Unity, or the One -- I don't like to use pronouns. Not male and not female. I think the use of pronouns of any kind in refereance to the One instills a sense of separation. Most important, I feel no need to impose my vocabulary or beliefs on others. I have no need to turn the world into "me." Certainly, people of other outlooks don't need "saving." Separation from the One is illusory. Belief is meaningless. Non-Belife is meaningless. Anti-Belief is meaningless. It is what it is. Jonathan Lobl

Interesting..... I think we have different vocabularies with similar messages. I'm a Pantheist. God -- the Unity behind existence -- is beyond Duality. All dualities, including Good and Evil. Consequently, the One is neither Good nor Evil. I think your use of "Unified Field" is a similar thought. I suspect the trick is to live in Duality with a focus on Unity. Jonathan Lobl

Nestingwave: It is good to be open minded. It is not good to be so open minded that the brain falls out. Allowing Genesis into the schools as a science text is lousy science. This, science must resist. When religion decides that Earth is the center of everything; science will insist on looking through the telescope. These are not minor squables. Long view, religion and science are indeed on the same course. Short term, no. The Devil, as they say, hides in the details. Jonathan Lobl

I never do. Jonathan Lobl

I think it is time to look at the difference between religion and science -- yet again. Science is evidence based. When the evidence is clear that an idea is mistaken, a scientist will go with the evidence, and abandon the idea which is clearly mistaken. The scientist may do so with bad grace -- it can be painfiul to abandon error that he is attatched to -- but he will do so. Religion does not care about external evidence, or objective reality. I can't imagine any proof or external reality that would cause a Creationist to snap out of it. The Flat Earthers are still at it also. The religious mind is often like a dog with a bone. There is no taking their "belief" from them; no matter how foolish or grotesque or unsustainable. Yes, this is a broad sweeping generalization. Jonathan Lobl

When faith trumps external reality, I would expect a few emotional disorders. How does such a person cope, when things are not as they "Should" be? Jonathan Lobl

Yes. It is a strange science that says, that the Sun was created on the 4th day. And an even stranger mind that thinks that this is history. Jonathan Lobl

No. They are not the same. Evolution is based on science. The evidence continues to accumulate. Creationism, by it's various names, is religion pretending to be science. Jonathan Lobl

Between modern Cosmology and Quantum Mechanics and Particle Physics, science is getting plenty mystical. The extent to which science is uncovering the secrets of existence is just stagering to me. Perhaps God does have a sense of humor. Look at how we are finding out the secrets of the ages. Jonathan Lobl

Genesis is useful for contemplation. For instance, in the King James Version, we read -- "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." In an alternate translation, we read -- "In the beginning, God began creating the heavens and the earth." Such a minor difference in translation; and such a major change in meaning. I find it illuminating. It just isn't science. Jonathan Lobl

What a strange question. No, mind and brain are not synoymous. And Genesis is not a science text book. Jonathan Lobl

Intelligent Design is nothing but Creationism with a new face. Neither of them has anything to do with science. Jonathan Lobl

I want to find out about the alien's religion; or even if they have religion at all. Jonathan Lobl

Yes, now I follow your line of reasoning. God as the ultimate trickster. The world was created old. If Adam had cut down a thick tree, it could have rings showing it was hundreds of years old. If Adam had dug into the ground, he might have found "ancient" fosils and bones. God has indeed been clever in deceiving His creatures. This line of thought does not fill me with piety. Jonathan Lobl

If we take the events as mythology, they didn't actually happen anyplace. If we take the Garden of Eden as literal history -- well, why not. There is nothing in the Bible, that I know of, which actually states that these events took place on Earth. I will have to go back and read those chapters again. Jonathan Lobl

This is true. Once we take Adam and Eve as literal history -- it is true that God could put their descendants on other planets, there-by spreading Original Sin throughout the Cosmos. An omnipotent God could even change the DNA of these people; to make them native to the various worlds -- while keeping their Original Sin intact. The theology would be consistent. Is that what you meant? Jonathan Lobl

If we take the Garden of Eden as literal history; it follows that the people of North America -- being Human -- are born to Original Sin as the descendents of Adam and Eve. Are you suggesting that the people of Rigel 5 are desceded from the same Adam and Eve? If they are geneticly Homo Sapien; a case might be made for this. If the people of Rigel 5 have no genetic relationship to Homo Sapiens -- then no. They could not be descended from Adam and Eve. I am working with the assumption that the people of another world woud belong to a different species. If they are of the same species, my train of logic would be derailed. Of course, the people of a different species and world could have a completely independent Fall from Grace. In that case they would have an independent plan for salvation. That plan for salvation would have as much application to Earth as being saved by Jesus would have to Rigel 5. Jonathan Lobl

The historic structure of Christianity makes it impossible for an ET to be Christian. The basic theology is that the "Old Man" (Adam) fell from grace. The "New Man" (Jesus) restored us to grace. Unless the ET is descended from Adam and Eve -- not possible -- he does not participate in original sin. It follows that ET does not need to be saved by the sacrifice of Jesus. The entire structure of the theology is nullified. Jonathan Lobl