Jump to content

About This Club

Science and Faith, are they brothers or enemies? What kind of conclusions can we draw from scientific research results? When science deals with the origins of Live and the Universe, can we find there implikations for the existens of God?

  1. What's new in this club
  2. The Existence of God If a Christian, and especially a Jehovah's Witness, is asked to provide proof of the existence of God, it is very likely that he will quote verse four of the third chapter of the letter to the Hebrews, "every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God". The reasoning may be right, nothing came from nothing but everything on earth is due to the will of a designer, it is still good to note that Paul was not trying to argue about the existence of a Creator. He spoke to his Hebrew Christian companions who certainly did not question the fact that the universe was ruled by a powerful being who is behind everything. Moreover, in antiquity the problem was certainly not the non-belief in God but rather the opposite: people tended to believe in a multitude of gods. Furthermore, Paul, on one occasion, noticed that an altar dedicated to an unknown god had been made, certainly for fear of forgetting to revere a deity. As always with the Bible, but the modus operandi is valid on all occasions, everything we read must be considered in relation to its context. In this passage, the apostle is talking about the house of God. This house is composed of the "holy brothers, partakers of the heavenly calling". Christ "was faithful as a son over God’s house". As in the case of a building we honour the builder and not the house itself, similarly in this case the honour does not belong to those who make up the house but to its creator, God. Does this mean that we cannot take Paul's illustration as a basis for reasoning? Of course not, the idea itself is valuable. We must simply be careful not to attribute to the apostle anything other than what he intended to say, so that we cannot be accused of distorting God's Word. Although the denial of divine existence has been a particularly striking phenomenon since the second half of the nineteenth century, history tells us that atheism has always existed. Cicero had already pointed out that most philosophers said that the gods existed, but that Protagoras was in doubt while Theodore of Cyrene and Diagoras of Melos maintained that there was none. Heraclitus (535-475 BC) claims that the world was not made by any of the gods or men, but was and is and ever shall be ever-living fire. All this ends up giving birth to epicureanism, the search for individual happiness on earth in a human world without God1. The psalmist tells us that the foolish one says in his heart: "There is no Jehovah". The rejection of God finds its roots in the immediately post-diluvian world where, to protect themselves from a new flood, men began to build a tower whose summit would reach the heavens2. It is not so much the existence of God that men have rejected, but the submission that he deserves. So, the origin is in the rejection of the authority. And how to justify this desire for freedom other than by denying the existence of the one to whom we are accountable? From the rejection of Jehovah (the Pharaoh himself to say: who is Jehovah?3), it was easy to proceed with the complete negation of a creator. It was from the first half of the sixteenth century that the idea emerged that all religion is an invention of the powerful who take advantage of the ignorance of the humble (De tribus impostoribus4). Religious practice suffered a sharp decline, especially in the nobility and the bourgeoisie. In this case, it is centuries of tyranny on the part of religious leaders that generates this state. God was rebuffed, but in reality it was those who claimed to be his representatives that were rejected. While philosophy is generally seen as the antithesis of the belief in God, as we have seen above the greatest Greek philosophers were theists. Voltaire himself questioned himself: the universe embarrasses me, and I cannot think that this clock exists and has no watchmaker. Chancellor Francis Bacon said: a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion. How can we convince ourselves and defend the existence of a Creator? First of all, atheism is not as widespread as one might think. For example, according to a study, more than seventy percent of the Americans would be believers. It is a fact that some of those who pretend to be atheists never really thought about it. A simple discussion will reveal that most have not given serious consideration to the issue. People often reject God because they reject organised religion. The reason may also be that the person grew up in an atheistic family, just as children often continue to believe in God once adults because that is what they taught them. For example, the sons of members of a religious community generally become members of this community; in this case too a simple discussion will often reveal that there is not a sincere reflection upstream5. This is just the perpetuation of a family tradition. We will make the same observation in various organisations, such as political movements6. Charles Darwin is often presented as the father of modern atheism. But his own writings show that he believed in the existence of a creator, an initial force at the root of everything, even if he rejected the Christian faith. If he wondered why life was full of pain, he did not see this as an argument against the existence of God. Towards the end of his life, he wrote that he has never been an atheist nor he denied the existence of God. This does not preclude Richard Dawkins, the high priest of twentieth-century atheism, from writing that he could never have been an atheist before Charles Darwin. In fact, it suits unbelievers to present Darwin as the one who opened the way to atheism, exposing his theory as a fact that put God at the forefront of the fables of dark times. By claiming that life has a chance origin, one think he can escape accountability. It should not be understood that atheists have a less developed moral sense than theists; it is the kind of affirmations we've read in the Watchtower's publications7. One could even say that sometimes it is the opposite: abuse in the name of religion have led to the rejection of God by people who have had their moral feelings shocked. However, refusing to be held accountable to God could lead a person to think that he is free from certain constraints. Now, these constraints are usually those imposed by men and not by God himself. It is undeniable that believe in God entails obligations, if only by the duty to bear witness. But if we look closely, Christianity as preached by Jesus has only two commandments: you must love your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind, and you must love your neighbour as yourself. This is not a heavy yoke, to paraphrase Christ. – Matthew 11:29, 30 So, is science necessarily in opposition to religious faith? This is what many publications on the subject would like to lead us to believe. Even if the rate of believers is lower among scientists than in the rest of the population, we should not think that all are atheists8. One can try to prove the non-existence of God by giving a rational explanation of the origin of the universe without intervention of anyone. If they did, it would not necessarily establish that God does not exist, but in any case it could be a serious blow to his defenders. However, despite decades or more of studies on the subject, we are still at the stage of hypotheses, which sometimes contradict each other and do not find consensus within the scientific community. The Big Bang, for example, still encounters oppositions (although weak, it must be recognised). It is nevertheless interesting to know that one of the initial promoters of this theory was a Belgian Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître. For him, there did not seem to be any conflict between the two parties, the religious party and the scientific party. Above all, the Big Bang does not explain the origin of the universe, but only the state where it would have been at a given moment. Nothing is said about what was before or what is the origin of this universe. We must admit either that it always existed, or that time did not exist, that it was initialised by this original explosion. It seems that this last explanation gains the most approval today9. If God is at the origin of everything, then who created God? In either case, whether the universe is the result of an initial explosion, whether it comes from another previous universe, or that it was created by an intelligent being, one must always admit that something had always existed. Each of the assertions only moves us one step backwards. Is it more scientific, or reasonable, to believe that for ages there existed matter, or some other substance, which a fine day gave birth to our universe, by some unknown force resulting from the most complete chance, rather to admit a designer living from eternity to eternity having intentionally done all that surrounds us? In all instances, it is a question of faith, if we want to give the word a meaning that is not its own10. – Psalm 90:2 We can read in some popular science book that with the "Big Bang" the time has come to existence. And so, that would solve the problem of what was before. Let us admit that before the beginning, time did not exist; and in this case it is wrong to say "before the beginning", since it is precisely the beginning of time, so there was no 'before'. This is exactly what the first book of the Bible tells us in his first chapter and his first verse: in the beginning God created… Yes, the Bible begins with a scientific assertion: there was a beginning, a beginning of time. God started by creating time as one of the dimensions in which we live. Does this contradict what the researchers tell us? It seems like no, since they claim that with the beginning of the universe time came to existence. If, then, our knowledge of the origin of the universe does not allow us to invalidate or confirm the existence of a creator, will we have more chances with the other fields of science? The theory of evolution may seem to have sounded the death knell for believers. Now, as we have seen previously, the father of the theory, Charles Darwin, believed in a god. Moreover, some religious denominations accept the idea of a world that has evolved under the guidance of an initial designer11. Even if one managed to prove the origin of life according to evolutionary theories, it would not call into question his existence. Even today, about one hundred and sixty years after Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species", we still use the word theory when we talk about evolution. Why? Because there is no fixed explanation of this doctrine. According to its supporters, this is the most consistent interpretation found, yet the definitive proof is yet to come. What does evolution mean? This is the transformation of living species over generations. That is to say, the fact that a form of life is modified to adapt to its living environment. Everyone may still remember the pictures posted on the walls of the science classes representing a large fish coming out of the water, which undergoes various transformations until becoming a man. And to explain to us that, one day, this fish decided to leave its aquatic environment to go on earth; and magically, legs sprouted. Later, he decided to fly, to jump in the trees, to walk on two legs, etc. We do not know why he wanted to get out of the water. We are told that this is adaptation to its environment. But what about the other fish that stayed in the water? Why did not they adapt too? If really it was a means of survival, why do we still see fish in the sea?12 If we admit that man is the most accomplished species, why in this case are there still other species that populate the earth? Why are not all individuals of one species transformed themselves? Man is certainly the species able to adapt to all terrestrial conditions. But he is still a human, whether he is an Inuit living in the extreme conditions of the north, or a Berber daily facing the heat of the desert. Everyone adapted to their environment, that is all. Take the case of the Peppered moth (biston betularia). This moth has a colour that starts from gray to go to black. For proof of the evolution, evolutionists use this example: in England, before 1850 gray individuals were preponderant. But things changed in the years that followed: there was a proliferation of black individuals. At the same time, it was observed that the bark of the birches was blackened by the soot deposited there due to the smoke of the surrounding factories. In the sixties, the gray moth revived, while at the time campaign was conducted to improve the quality of the air. It seemed to be the proof of the transformation and adaptation of a species to its environment. However, the explanation is simple, and moreover it is the one provided by the evolutionists themselves: when the bark is clear, the light moths merge with the colour of the tree and therefore the predators feed mainly on dark individuals. When the bark is black, the clear population is more visible and therefore more likely to fall into the hands, or rather into the beaks of the birds that feed on them. In one case or the other, one colour develops since less subject to pressure while the other collapses. But are these moths no longer moths? Did they turn into another species to escape their predators? No, they were moths, moths they remained. No doubt there has been natural selection but no evolution in another species. That individuals experience some variation from their environment is a proof of divine wisdom. Imagine that all men are cut out for arctic life, we would all be crammed into the far north while the tropics would be empty. Years of genetic mutation experiments, especially on the fly, have only led to failures. No mutation has proved beneficial, on the contrary. Virtually all individuals are either dead, disabled or infertile. Really, there are no profitable mutations. Each one modifies an existing structure, but in a disorderly way. Each disorganisation causes the death of the individual13. The mutations found among the victims of Nagasaki or Hiroshima, as well as their descendants, or to be closer to us, among the victims of Chernobyl, generated only handicap, malformation and death. And in no case the creation of a new and viable species distinct from the human species. The vapourware of paleontologists is obviously the famous missing link thought to be intermediate between the anthropoid apes and man. It has been missing for so long, despite regular announcements, that it is doubtful that it will ever appear. To this day, no evidence has been provided of a link between an apelike fossil and man. The proof is the controversy surrounding the discovery in Chad by Ahounta Djimdoumalbaye of Toumaï who, having all the characteristics of a chimpanzee, is undoubtedly a ... chimpanzee. Despite this, his discoverers insist to see in him the ancestor of the man14. Note that we rely on a skull, five fragments of jaw, a few teeth and a diaphysis of left femur probably having belonged to nine different individuals! With this, they reconstruct a skeleton, they give it a face (similar in any point to that of a monkey) and they decide that it is one of our ancestors. But the goal is not to denigrate the work of scientists. It is not reprehensible to dismiss God from the field of hypotheses when we seek the explanation of a natural event. For millennia men have attributed to God actions that today have quite grounded explanations. If we had persisted to think that way, we would still believe that lightning is the expression of divine wrath. It is normal to ask questions or to be curious. Otherwise, God would not have created us with the desire to learn and understand. Please do not get me wrong: there is no question of asking unbelievers to prove that God does not exist. So, I can very well argue that the laughing chicken exists. When I am asked for evidence, I can affirm that it is not up to me to provide it but up to those who refute my assertion15. Would it be honest on my part? Surely not! It is therefore our duty, as believers, to demonstrate the existence of God. On the other hand, what is valid in one direction must be valid in the other: when we are told that man is the result of an evolution from fish to all other forms of life, there so they have to be able to prove it. Otherwise, it is necessary to say that this is a hypothesis having the same validity as that of theism. Evolutionists regularly accuse creationists16 of credulity. But what should we conclude when we are told that no competent person is questioning the evolution, that all reputable biologists admit that it is an established fact, or that anyone who is free from old illusions and prejudices has no need for additional evidence? Is it not the same kind of reasoning as saying that we believe in God because the church says it, all the great religious names admit that his existence is an established fact or that belief is a matter of faith and does not require additional proof? Out of a thousand evolutionists, how many have seriously studied the subject? Out of a thousand creationists, how many have seriously studied the subject? In either camp, it is important to know what we are talking about when we support something. Is there more credulity in the assertion that God is at the origin of all than there is in the allegation that the universe appeared one day from nothing? Besides, how can it come from nothing? If I take a blackboard and ask a mathematician to write a series of zeros, multiply, add or divide them, from what point will he succeed in extracting a single unit? And yet, this is what we are asked to accept by some proponents of a universe that comes from nothing and who accuse us of believing in fairy tales17. Others will call us sweet dreamers if we maintain that God has always existed while they will have no trouble accepting that the universe, or what preceded it, had no beginning. What is the evidence about God? The fact is that atheists cannot prove that there is no God (but that is not what we ask them), and above all, they cannot prove the theories they put forward. Moreover, these theories do not necessarily demonstrate the absence of God, as we can see by observing that some religious feel that we can very well reconcile these hypotheses with a Creator18. But can we prove the existence of God? Paul tells us that "his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable". What does nature reveal to us? Nothing but intelligent design, perfect harmony. To deny the existence of God is to say that mere chance is at the origin of our environment and of mankind. That this remarkable chance has happened millions and millions of times. Is it reasonable? Let us imagine that I am on a height on a rainy day and that I haphazardly throw a million bricks and bags of cement down that mountain. Let us say that two bricks fall perfectly on each other and that the cement is impregnated with rainwater and joins in between. Let us go so far as to say that this occurrence repeats a second time. Let us be generous and go up to three! Will it ever result in a habitable house? Even recommencing the operation with a second million bricks, it is doubtful whether we could build a mere doghouse. In the meantime, two million bricks will have been reduced to nothing. If there were anything below, nothing will be left now, crushed under the pile. I could throw as many millions of bricks as I want and nothing good will come out. And would that be the case, I would have prove that it took someone to throw the bricks, they will not have thrown themselves alone! Clearly, chance never produced anything good in a sustainable way. To repeat the example above, if I ever managed to mount an embryo of wall by throwing bricks and cement, it would be immediately destroyed by the following bricks. How can one seriously argue that a causality of events spanning billions of years can engender a functioning universe and an earth capable of harbouring millions of species? For one lucky event, how many billions of disaster? It is therefore the order in the world that surrounds us that demonstrates the existence of a Creator. It is not even credible that this author simply started the process and then let chance do the rest. What kind of industrialist, wanting to manufacture a product, would rely on luck? Our environment and the way we, humans, are made denote wisdom, harmony and love. While evolutionists, on the basis of a conclusion, search for the facts that can prove it, believers take the facts and draw the only possible conclusion: there is a benevolent God who created our space. A God who loves us and proves it every day, while the majority of humans do not want to take him into account in everyday life. One is interested in him when misfortune occurs, but forget him when everything is fine. And yet, even the hairs of our head are all numbered; no sparrow will fall to the ground without his knowledge. – Matthew 10:29, 30; Psalm 52:1; Titus 3:4-7 Someone will argue that wars, diseases, famines, pollution, etc., give the lie to the statement that love rules our world. We cannot answer this objection in two words, but the Bible gives satisfactory explanations that we will have the opportunity to examine later. It is enough to take the time to read and study it seriously, while asking God to give us his spirit. If we are sincere, everything will become clear. – Romans 5:5; Psalm 52:8 Of course, with this essay I do not pretend to have convinced a single atheist. This belief is too deeply rooted for this to be done just by reading a few pages. I also did not want to do a scientific thesis, and it may be that some errors have crept into this text (I thank those who will report them). I only hope that the logic of the words strengthens the reader's faith, giving him some keys to defend his beliefs. ––– 1 Epicureanism does not deny the existence of God, but rather his involvement in the world. According to the proponents of this philosophy, God does not interfere with humans. (back) 2 The biblical text does not expressly say that this was the goal of the builders of the tower. Perhaps the desire was to rise to the level of God, in order to challenge him. (back) 3 Pharaoh did not question the existence of Jehovah. There is also a good chance that he knew his name as well as his actions. Indeed, the time of the Flood was not so remote and it would be surprising that at a distance of a few hundred years men had forgotten what was at the origin of the disaster that has left his mark on people's mind at the point that we find traces in the legends of most civilisations. Of course, he intended to demonstrate, as Nimrod and the builders of the tower did, that he had no intention of being accountable to the ruler of the universe. (back) 4https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatise_of_the_Three_Impostors (back) 5 It would be interesting to count the baptismal candidates at a Jehovah's Witnesses convention and to make the proportion of people arriving from the preaching activity (usually the oldest) in relation to the young children of Witnesses. (back) 6 It is a fact that in the capitalist states, many ardent defenders of communism come from communist families. (back) 7w60 6/1 p. 324; w93 12/15 p. 16-17 (back) 8 Allan Sandage, astronomer having determined the first reasonably accurate values for the Hubble constant and the age of the universe, said: The world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. (back) 9 Alongside several other theories that generally receive little favorable echo, such as a universe of grapes (the bootstrap put forward by Edgard Gunzig), in which ours is only one of the grains having the ability to give birth to other universes by means of white holes, or the rebirth of an ancient universe that would retract to form a black hole that, after reaching the critical mass, eventually explode. Note also the theory of the "primordial instanton of size zero" of Igor and Grichka Bogdanoff as well as the scenario of the "pre-Big Bang" developed by the Italian physicists Gasperini and Veneziano. (back) 10 The Apostle Paul tells us that faith is "the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen". (Hebrew 11:1) It is not about being gullible, but about trusting in someone who has proven himself worthy. The Greek word "pistis" referred to a guarantee that was given. So, if we are told that it is faith that makes us believe in God, then we can take this as an argument for his existence, since our conviction comes from the guarantee that he has given us. (back) 11 In 1996, John Paul II asserted that evolution is more than just a hypothesis. For Benedict XVI, the world comes from an evolutionary process, while being derived from God. As for Pope Francis, he said that evolution is not contradictory to the notion of creation. (back) 12 In August 2003 a living coelacanth was found off the Comoros. It has been portrayed by some newspapers as the missing link between fish and man. This statement is still subject to debate. The following question arises: why have some evolved and other not? If it were beneficial to get out of the water and let the paws grow, why are there still today coelacanths that have remained in the "primitive" state, seventy million years later? (back) 13 Paraphrase of the remarks of Pierre Paul Grassé, former president of the French Academy of Sciences. (back) 14 According to some researchers Toumaï is actually a female. (back) 15 For the chronicle, the laughing chicken, Ayam Ketawa in Malay, is a breed of chicken native to the Sidenreng Rappang area in South Sulawesi, Indonesia. (back) 16 In this article the term creationist applies to anyone who believes in the creation of the universe by a God, whatever the school of thought. (back) 17 Paradoxically, the agnostic Jean Rostand, while affirming that one can only believe in the evolution, said that this is a fairy tale for adults. (back) 18 See note 11 above concerning papal declarations. (back) Link to article: baruq.uk/let_us_examine_our_beliefs_the_existence_of_god.html
  3. Does the bible provide an outdated worldview or rather an proper explanation about the construction of the world? THE BIBLE IS NOT A SCIENCE TEXTBOOK, YET IT CONTAINS STATEMENTS THAT WERE WAY AHEAD OF THEIR TIME. CONSIDER A FEW EXAMPLES. https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-no1-2018-jan-feb/is-the-bible-outdated/ - originally posted by the owner of this club. Moved here under topics to help him out.
  4. World-Famous Scientist: God Created the Universe ! ‘The final resolution could be, that God is a mathematician.Â’ ( GOD is much more than that !) Michio Kaku has made a name for himself as a world-leading theoretical physicist unafraid to speak his mind. Kaku, the Henry Semat Chair and Professorship in theoretical physics at the City College of New York, has published more than 70 articles in physics journals on topics such as supersymmetry, superstring theory, supergravity, and hadronic physics. His latest claim is likely to make waves in the world of science. “I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence,” Kaku said, as quoted by the Geophilosophical Association of Anthropological and Cultural Studies. “To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.” In a 2013 video produced by Big Think, Kaku described God as "cosmic music." (Big Think, a media site launched in 2007, has been described as YouTube for ideas. But itÂ’s actually more like TED.) You can watch the video and see for yourself why Kaku believes science points to an intelligent creator who formed the universe. (IÂ’m certainly not going to try to explain it.) KakuÂ’s conclusion is pretty clear. “The final solution resolution could be that God is a mathematician,” says Kaku. “The mind of God, we believe, is cosmic music. The music of strings resonating through 11-dimensional hyperspace.” Michio Kaku says, that God could be a mathematician: "The mind of God we believe is cosmic music, the music of strings resonating through 11 dimensional hyperspace. That is the mind of God." Transcript-- Some people ask the question "Of what good is math?" What is the relationship between math and physics? Well, sometimes math leads. Sometimes physics leads. Sometimes they come together because, of course, there's a use for the mathematics. For example, in the 1600s Isaac Newton asked a simple question: if an apple falls then does the moon also fall? That is perhaps one of the greatest questions ever asked by a member of Homo sapiens since the six million years since we parted ways with the apes. If an apple falls, does the moon also fall? Isaac Newton said yes, the moon falls because of the Inverse Square Law. So does an apple. He had a unified theory of the heavens, but he didn't have the mathematics to solve the falling moon problem. So what did he do? He invented calculus. So calculus is a direct consequence of solving the falling moon problem. In fact, when you learn calculus for the first time, what is the first thing you do? The first thing you do with calculus is you calculate the motion of falling bodies, which is exactly how Newton calculated the falling moon, which opened up celestial mechanics. So here is a situation where math and physics were almost conjoined like Siamese twins, born together for a very practical question, how do you calculate the motion of celestial bodies? Then here comes Einstein asking a different question and that is, what is the nature and origin of gravity? Einstein said that gravity is nothing but the byproduct of curved space. So why am I sitting in this chair? A normal person would say I'm sitting in this chair because gravity pulls me to the ground, but Einstein said no, no, no, there is no such thing as gravitational pull; the earth has curved the space over my head and around my body, so space is pushing me into my chair. So to summarize Einstein's theory, gravity does not pull; space pushes. But, you see, the pushing of the fabric of space and time requires differential calculus. That is the language of curved surfaces, differential calculus, which you learn in fourth year calculus. So again, here is a situation where math and physics were very closely combined, but this time math came first. The theory of curved surfaces came first. Einstein took that theory of curved surfaces and then imported it into physics. Now we have string theory. It turns out that 100 years ago math and physics parted ways. In fact, when Einstein proposed special relativity in 1905, that was also around the time of the birth of topology, the topology of hyper-dimensional objects, spheres in 10, 11, 12, 26, whatever dimension you want, so physics and mathematics parted ways. Math went into hyperspace and mathematicians said to themselves, aha, finally we have found an area of mathematics that has no physical application whatsoever. Mathematicians pride themselves on being useless. They love being useless. It's a badge of courage being useless, and they said the most useless thing of all is a theory of differential topology and higher dimensions. Well, physics plotted along for many decades. We worked out atomic bombs. We worked out stars. We worked out laser beams, but recently we discovered string theory, and string theory exists in 10 and 11 dimensional hyperspace. Not only that, but these dimensions are super. They're super symmetric. A new kind of numbers that mathematicians never talked about evolved within string theory. That's how we call it "super string theory." Well, the mathematicians were floored. They were shocked because all of a sudden out of physics came new mathematics, super numbers, super topology, super differential geometry. All of a sudden we had super symmetric theories coming out of physics that then revolutionized mathematics, and so the goal of physics we believe is to find an equation perhaps no more than one inch long which will allow us to unify all the forces of nature and allow us to read the mind of God. And what is the key to that one inch equation? Super symmetry, a symmetry that comes out of physics, not mathematics, and has shocked the world of mathematics. But you see, all this is pure mathematics and so the final resolution could be that God is a mathematician. And when you read the mind of God, we actually have a candidate for the mind of God. The mind of God we believe is cosmic music, the music of strings resonating through 11 dimensional hyperspace. That is the mind of God. Directed / Produced by Jonathan Fowler & Elizabeth Rodd. -- Â

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Perhaps it can be as you said. And perhaps this can be true with many other similar "stories".   What I see as important in this "story", is fine moral message and inspirational, motivating injection that in this materialistic and superficial everyday life offers a spiritual upgrade.... said with different order of words. 
    • Some do. Like the Rainbow Mountains, and some of the Caucasus (Svaneti) look more like rocky Alps. I'd love to see those mountains, and I planned to visit Georgia within two or three years if possible. I've never been to Georgia, the closest so far has been to northern Turkey (Ankara, Zonguldak, Samsun). If Jehovah did not intervene, and nature was left to itself, moving the tectonic plates would have caused thousands of violent aftershocks and tsunamis for quite some time after the floodwaters settled. Even on water, during the Flood, the Ark would have to be given divine protection. Settling on a high mountain might protect from tsunamis but not the quakes. I'd like to look up some info on these. Where should I start?
    • The story has also been told that it was a "black boy" who offered him the newspaper for free: https://mylife-chapter.blogspot.com/2017/08/who-is-richer-than-bill-gates.html When my wife was a school principal, teachers were always putting up posters about, for example, the "Ten Things Bill Gates Says about School" or "What Bill Gates Said Were the Most Important Things in Life" etc. He may have told a story like this, but usually people create such stories so that their own moral lesson comes across with more authority.  
    • RECHERCHONS DES PERLES SPIRITUELLES - SEMAINE DU 9 Décembre 2019 - Révélation 10-12.docx RECHERCHONS DES PERLES SPIRITUELLES - SEMAINE DU 9 Décembre 2019 - Révélation 10-12.pdf Recherchons des perles spirituelles (8 min) : Révélation 10-12 Révélation 10:9, 10 : En quel sens le message donné à Jean était-il à la fois « amer » et « doux » ? (it-2 821 § 1). « Je suis donc allé vers l’ange et lui ai demandé de me donner le petit rouleau. Il m’a dit : « Prends-le et mange-le. Il sera amer pour ton estomac, mais dans ta bouche il sera doux comme du miel. » 10 J’ai pris le petit rouleau de la main de l’ange et je l’ai mangé. Dans ma bouche, il a été doux comme du miel, mais une fois avalé il est devenu amer pour mon estomac. » Emploi symbolique. Le mot “ rouleau ” est employé plusieurs fois dans un sens symbolique dans la Bible. Ézéchiel et Zacharie virent chacun un rouleau écrit des deux côtés. Puisque d’habitude on se servait d’un seul côté d’un rouleau, le fait que les deux côtés soient utilisés est peut-être l’indice du poids, de l’étendue et de la gravité des jugements consignés dans ces rouleaux (Éz 2:9–3:3 ; Zach 5:1-4). Dans la vision de la Révélation, celui qui était sur le trône tenait dans sa main droite un rouleau portant sept sceaux qui empêchaient de voir ce qui était écrit, jusqu’à ce que l’Agneau de Dieu les ouvre. Plus tard dans la vision, Jean lui-même se vit présenter un rouleau qu’il reçut l’ordre de manger. Son goût parut doux à Jean, mais il rendit son ventre amer. Le rouleau étant ouvert et non scellé, il s’agissait de quelque chose qui devait être compris. Il parut “ doux ” à Jean de recevoir le message contenu dans ce rouleau, mais il s’y trouvait selon toute apparence des choses amères à prophétiser, ce qu’il reçut l’ordre de faire. Ézéchiel vécut à peu près la même chose avec le rouleau qui lui fut présenté et dans lequel se trouvaient “ des chants funèbres, des gémissements et des lamentations ”. Éz 2:10. - it-2 821 § 1 Il lui est doux de se nourrir de ce rouleau, parce que celui-ci vient de Dieu. Mais il lui semble amer de le digérer, car ce rouleau annonce des choses désagréables pour les humains rebelles. A notre époque, les membres de la grande foule proclament  avec zèle la bonne nouvelle en utilisant des paroles douces et accompagnées de charme pour parler des dispositions merveilleuses prises par Jéhovah en faveur des chrétiens comparables à des brebis. Mais pour les humains qui s’y opposent, il s’agit d’une mauvaise nouvelle. Pour quelle raison ? Elle signifie que le système dans lequel ils se confient, et qui leur procure même peut-être une satisfaction éphémère, doit disparaître. Pour eux, la bonne nouvelle signifie donc la mort – re p158 Révélation 12:1-5 : Comment ces versets se sont-ils réalisés ? (it-1 673 § 4-6). «  Puis un grand signe est apparu dans le ciel : Une femme était revêtue du soleil, et la lune était sous ses pieds, et elle avait sur la tête une couronne de 12 étoiles.  Elle était enceinte, et elle criait dans les douleurs et les tourments de l’accouchement.  Un autre signe est apparu dans le ciel. Regardez ! Un grand dragon couleur de feu, avec sept têtes et dix cornes, et un diadème sur chaque tête ; 4 et sa queue traîne le tiers des étoiles du ciel, et il les a jetées sur la terre. Et le dragon se tenait devant la femme qui était sur le point d’accoucher, prêt à dévorer son enfant lorsqu’elle accoucherait.  Et elle a donné naissance à un garçon, oui à un fils, qui va mener toutes les nations avec un bâton de fer. Et son enfant a vite été emporté vers Dieu et vers son trône. » Dans la vision rapportée dans la Révélation, l’apôtre Jean vit une femme céleste qui criait “ dans les douleurs et les tourments de l’accouchement ”. L’enfant qui naquit était ‘ un fils, un mâle, qui ferait paître toutes les nations avec un bâton de fer ’. Malgré les efforts du dragon pour le dévorer, “ son enfant a été emporté vers Dieu et vers son trône ”. (Ré 12:1, 2, 4-6.) Le fait que ce fils serait emporté par Dieu montrerait qu’Il le reconnaîtrait comme le sien, de même que la coutume voulait jadis qu’on présente un nouveau-né à son père pour que celui-ci le reconnaisse . Il s’ensuit que la “ femme ” en question est la “ femme ” de Dieu, la “ Jérusalem d’en haut ”, la “ mère ” du Christ et de ses frères spirituels. — Ga 4:26 ; Hé 2:11, 12, 17. La “ femme ” céleste de Dieu serait évidemment parfaite, et la naissance n’occasionnerait pas de douleur réelle. Par conséquent, les douleurs indiqueraient symboliquement que la “ femme ” sentirait venir la naissance ; elle l’attendrait pour très bientôt. — Ré 12:2. Qui serait ce “ fils, un mâle ” ? Il devait “ faire paître toutes les nations avec un bâton de fer ”. C’est là ce qu’annonçait Psaume 2:6-9 à propos du Roi messianique de Dieu. Mais Jean contempla cette vision longtemps après la naissance du Christ sur la terre, sa mort et sa résurrection. Il s’avérerait donc que cette vision se rapporte à la naissance du Royaume messianique confié par Dieu à son Fils Jésus Christ qui, après avoir été relevé d’entre les morts, “ s’est assis à la droite de Dieu, attendant désormais jusqu’à ce que ses ennemis soient placés comme un escabeau pour ses pieds ”. Ré 12:10. - it-1 673 § 4-6 La Révélation, livre fortement symbolique, dépeint le Diable sous les traits d’un “ grand dragon couleur de feu ”. (Révélation 12:3.) Pourquoi ? Non pas parce qu’il a littéralement un corps hideux, effrayant. En fait nous ne savons pas quel genre de corps possèdent les créatures spirituelles, mais sous ce rapport Satan ne diffère probablement pas des autres, et “ un grand dragon couleur de feu ” est une image appropriée de l’état d’esprit vorace, effroyable, puissant et destructeur de Satan. - TG2001  1/9 p6 Pour la première fois Jean voit une femme dans le ciel. Il ne s’agit évidemment pas d’une femme réelle. Cette femme est plutôt un signe, ou un symbole. Que symbolise-t-elle ? La femme que Jean voit ici est mariée, et elle est sur le point d’accoucher. Qui est son mari ? Eh bien, la suite du récit nous apprend que son enfant est “ emporté vers Dieu et vers son trône ”. (Révélation 12:5.) Jéhovah revendique ainsi la paternité de cet enfant. Par conséquent, la femme que Jean voit doit être la femme symbolique de Jéhovah. L’apôtre Paul apporte un dernier élément d’information quand il dit : “ La Jérusalem d’en haut est libre, et elle est notre mère. ” (Galates 4:26). La “ femme ” vue par Jean est donc “ la Jérusalem d’en haut ”. Mais qu’est-ce exactement que la Jérusalem d’en haut ? Puisque Paul dit qu’elle est “ d’en haut ” et que Jean la voit dans le ciel, il est clair qu’elle n’est pas une ville terrestre ; elle n’est pas non plus à confondre avec la “ Nouvelle Jérusalem ”, car cette organisation-là est l’épouse de Christ et non la femme de Jéhovah. Notez que la femme en question porte une couronne de douze étoiles. Le chiffre douze se rapporte à ce qui est complet dans le domaine de l’organisation. Par conséquent, ces 12 étoiles semblent indiquer que cette femme est une organisation dans le ciel, de même que la Jérusalem antique en était une sur la terre. La Jérusalem d’en haut est l’organisation universelle de Jéhovah, composée de créatures spirituelles, qui, telle une femme, le sert et met au monde des enfants. Jean voit cette femme revêtue du soleil avec la lune sous ses pieds. Si nous ajoutons à cette description la couronne d’étoiles, elle est totalement enveloppée de lumières célestes. La faveur divine l’éclaire jour et nuit. Quel symbole approprié de l’organisation céleste de Jéhovah qui est resplendissante ! Cette femme est également enceinte et dans les douleurs de l’accouchement. Ses cris, implorant l’aide divine, indiquent que son heure est venue d’accoucher. Dans la Bible, les douleurs de l’accouchement symbolisent souvent le dur travail qu’il faut accomplir pour arriver à un résultat important. L’organisation céleste de Jéhovah a sans doute éprouvé ces douleurs de l’accouchement alors qu’elle se préparait à cette naissance historique. C’est “ un fils, un mâle ”. Pourquoi Jean utilise-t-il ces deux termes ? Pour souligner que l’enfant a les aptitudes et les compétences requises pour dominer les nations avec la puissance qui convient. Ces termes soulignent aussi combien cette naissance est un événement mémorable et joyeux. Elle joue un rôle capital pour ce qui est de mener à son terme le saint secret de Dieu. En effet, cet enfant mâle ne va-t-il pas “ faire paître toutes les nations avec un bâton de fer ” ? La naissance vue par Jean a un rapport étroit avec Jésus Christ. Non, pas avec sa mise au monde par une vierge avant le Ier siècle de notre ère, ni avec le moment où il a été relevé pour la vie spirituelle en l’an 33 de notre ère. Et il n’est pas davantage question de transmigration. Jean parle plutôt de la naissance du Royaume de Dieu en 1914 comme d’une réalité, Jésus — dans les cieux depuis près de vingt siècles maintenant — ayant alors été intronisé comme Roi. Jamais Jéhovah ne permettrait à Satan de dévorer Sa femme ou Son fils nouveau-né ! À sa naissance, l’enfant mâle est “ emporté vers Dieu et vers son trône ”. Il est ainsi placé entièrement sous la protection de Jéhovah, qui va prendre le plus grand soin de ce Royaume nouveau-né, l’instrument par lequel il sanctifiera son saint nom. Dans le même temps, la femme s’enfuit dans un lieu que Dieu lui a préparé dans le désert. Suivront de plus amples explications à ce sujet. Pour ce qui est de Satan, tous les éléments sont maintenant réunis pour que se produise un événement capital qui l’empêchera à jamais de menacer le Royaume dans les cieux. – re p178   Qu’est-ce que la lecture biblique de cette semaine t’a appris sur Jéhovah ? Jéhovah confie une autre mission à Jean. Après que les sept tonnerres ont retenti, l’ange vigoureux prend de nouveau la parole : “ Et l’ange que j’ai vu se tenant debout sur la mer et sur la terre a levé sa main droite vers le ciel, et par Celui qui vit à tout jamais, qui a créé le ciel et les choses qui s’y trouvent, et la terre et les choses qui s’y trouvent, et la mer et les choses qui s’y trouvent, il a juré : ‘ Il n’y aura plus de délai. ’ ” (Révélation 10:5, 6). Par qui l’ange vigoureux jure-t-il ? Jésus glorifié jure, non pas par lui-même, mais par la plus haute Autorité qui soit : Jéhovah, le Créateur immortel des cieux et de la terre (Isaïe 45:12, 18). Par ce serment, l’ange donne à Jean l’assurance que Dieu n’accordera plus de délai. Comme le mot “ délai ” traduit ici le grec khronos, qui signifie littéralement “ temps ”, certains pensent que cette déclaration de l’ange doit être rendue comme suit : “ Il n’y aura plus de temps ”, comme si le temps tel que nous le connaissons devait disparaître. Cependant, dans ce verset, le mot khronos est utilisé sans l’article défini. Il ne désigne donc pas le temps en général, mais plutôt “ un temps ” ou “ une période de temps ”. En d’autres termes, Jéhovah n’accordera plus une période de temps (ou un délai) supplémentaire. Un verbe grec dérivé du terme khronos apparaît également en Hébreux 10:37 où Paul, citant Habaqouq 2:3, 4, écrit que “ celui qui vient [...] ne tardera pas ”. – re chap24 p157 §10,11 Jéhovah Dieu vit depuis des temps indéfinis et pour des temps indéfinis, à tout jamais Rév. 10 :6. Il est le Roi d’éternité, incorruptible, invisible, le seul vrai Dieu. Il n’existait pas de dieu avant lui et il est aussi sans fin dans les temps à venir. – it-1 p637 Jéhovah règne. Par le moyen de son Royaume messianique il exerce sa souveraineté sur l’humanité, de merveilleuse façon. C’est ce que confirme la vision suivante de Jean : “ Et le temple-sanctuaire de Dieu qui est dans le ciel a été ouvert, et on a vu l’arche de son alliance dans son temple-sanctuaire. Et il y a eu des éclairs, et des voix, et des tonnerres, et un tremblement de terre, et une grande grêle. ” (Révélation 11:19). C’est ici la seule mention de l’arche de l’alliance de Dieu dans la Révélation. L’Arche avait été le symbole visible de la présence de Jéhovah au sein d’Israël, son peuple. Dans le tabernacle, et plus tard dans le temple construit par Salomon, l’Arche était dans le Très-Saint. Quelque 2 600 ans plus tard, l’arche apparaît une fois encore. Mais dans la vision de Jean, cette arche ne se trouve pas dans un temple terrestre. Elle est dans le sanctuaire céleste de Dieu. À nouveau Jéhovah domine par l’entremise d’un roi de la lignée royale de David. Mais cette fois, le Roi, Christ Jésus, est intronisé dans la Jérusalem céleste, la position élevée et avantageuse d’où il exécute les jugements de Jéhovah – re p175 §12 Le saint nom de Dieu a été attaqué, sali par le mensonge et la calomnie. En Éden, Satan a diffamé Jéhovah, le faisant passer pour un Souverain injuste. Le chef du monde impie a veillé depuis à ce que les mensonges sur Dieu se multiplient  - Révélation 12:9. Les religions ont dépeint un Dieu despotique, distant, cruel, un Dieu qui, affirment-elles, soutient leurs guerres sanguinaires. Quant aux prodigieux actes de création, on les met souvent désormais sur le compte du hasard et de l’évolution. Indéniablement calomnié, le nom de Dieu a besoin d’être sanctifié, de se voir restituer sa gloire légitime. Il nous tarde que Jéhovah sanctifie son nom et justifie sa souveraineté, et nous sommes heureux de collaborer de près ou de loin à ce grand dessein. – cl chap3 §13 Chacun de nous doit prouver sa fidélité à Jéhovah. Rappelons-nous que Satan a mis en doute l’intégrité et la fidélité de tous les serviteurs de Jéhovah. Il a prétendu que nous ne lui resterions pas fidèles dans les épreuves (Job 1:9-11 ; 2:4 ; Rév. 12:10). Si Jéhovah nous protégeait d’épreuves qu’il estimerait trop difficiles pour nous, cela ne donnerait-il pas du poids à l’accusation de Satan selon laquelle nous servons Dieu par intérêt ? – TG2017/2 p30 Notre amour pour Jéhovah nous a poussés à nous vouer à lui et à nous faire baptiser. Nous désirons du fond du cœur lui rester fidèles. Toutefois, notre ennemi Satan le Diable est déterminé à briser notre intégrité (Rév. 12:17). Or nous avons pris la décision de servir Jéhovah et d’observer ses commandements. Alors, qu’il serait triste de revenir sur notre vœu ! Ce changement d’avis pourrait nous coûter la vie. – TG2014  15/12 Quelles autres perles spirituelles as-tu découvertes dans la lecture biblique de cette semaine ? Satan et les démons utilisent aussi la fausse religion et le système commercial pour égarer « la terre habitée tout entière » (Rév. 12:9). Au moyen de la fausse religion, Satan répand des mensonges sur Jéhovah. Il essaie même de faire disparaître le nom de Dieu. À cause de cela, des personnes sincères qui pensent adorer Dieu adorent en fait des démons. Pour répandre des mensonges, Satan se sert aussi du système commercial. Par exemple, il fait croire aux gens que le meilleur moyen d’être heureux est de posséder beaucoup d’argent et de biens matériels. Ceux qui croient ce mensonge passent leur vie à servir « la Richesse » plutôt que Dieu (Mat. 6:24). Même si au départ ils aiment Dieu, leur amour pour les choses matérielles finit par devenir le plus fort – TG2018/5 §7 La Bible appelle Satan “ l’accusateur de nos frères, qui les accuse jour et nuit devant notre Dieu ”. (Révélation 12:10.) Ces frères accusés faussement sont les chrétiens oints qui vivent sur la terre durant les derniers jours. Nous devons être particulièrement prudents quand nous entendons des choses sur les Témoins de Jéhovah. C’est pourquoi Jésus nous a avertis que des opposants diraient « toutes sortes de mensonges malveillants » contre nous (Mat. 5:11). Si nous gardons à l’esprit cet avertissement, nous ne serons pas surpris d’entendre des choses choquantes sur les Témoins. – TG2018/8 §6 La Parole de Dieu déclare au sujet des frères oints du Christ : “ Ils l’ont vaincu [Satan] à cause [...] de la parole de leur témoignage. ” (Révélation 12:11). Il y a par conséquent une relation directe entre le fait de vaincre Satan — l’auteur du mal — et la prédication du message du Royaume. Rien d’étonnant donc que Satan lutte avec acharnement contre le reste oint et la “ grande foule ” en leur suscitant de l’opposition ! — Révélation 12:17 L’opposition peut revêtir la forme d’attaques verbales ou de menaces de violence physique. Mais elle peut prendre d’autres formes, plus subtiles encore. Quoi qu’il en soit, le but de Satan est toujours le même : arrêter l’œuvre de prédication. Toutefois, il échouera lamentablement. Les serviteurs de Dieu d’aujourd’hui sont déterminés à “ continuer à vaincre le mal par le bien ”. Ils le feront en poursuivant la proclamation de la bonne nouvelle jusqu’à ce que Jéhovah déclare l’œuvre achevée  -TG2007/7 p31 Plus la fin de ce monde mauvais approche, plus Satan est en colère parce qu’il ne lui reste que très peu de temps pour agir. (Révélation 12:12) À l’approche d’Amarguédon, il tente de nous affaiblir spirituellement par toutes sortes d’épreuves et de pressions. À cela s’ajoutent les tensions du quotidien Attendons-nous à ce que Satan intensifie ses attaques à mesure que la fin de ce monde approche Les gens qui sont influencés par le Diable deviendront certainement de plus en plus malhonnêtes. Et ils essaieront surtout de tromper les adorateurs de Jéhovah. Il arrive que des articles de journaux, des émissions de télévision ou des sites Internet parlent des Témoins de Jéhovah et de leurs croyances. Parfois ils ne disent qu’une partie de ce qui est vrai. Parfois aussi ils mentent. Certaines personnes sont choquées ou se fâchent parce qu’elles croient ces mensonges et ne vérifient pas les faits. Heureusement, nous pouvons nous défendre contre les mensonges du Diable. – TG2013  15/12 §2,3 Les attaques intenses. L’apôtre Jean a déclaré : “ Le monde entier se trouve au pouvoir du méchant. ” (1 Jean 5:19). Ces paroles comportent un avertissement pour tous les vrais chrétiens. Puisque Satan a déjà dévoré dans son entier le monde des humains éloignés de Dieu, il peut à présent concentrer, et même intensifier, ses attaques sur ceux qui ont réussi à lui échapper jusqu’à maintenant : les serviteurs de Jéhovah (Révélation 12:12, 17). Satan éprouve une grande colère parce qu’il sait qu’il ne pourra plus agir bien longtemps. C’est pourquoi il accentue ses pressions. Aujourd’hui, nous subissons sa rage destructrice, dans un ultime déchaînement de sauvagerie. De ce fait, il nous faut plus que jamais “ discerner les temps afin de connaître ce que nous devons faire ”. – lv chap16 §7
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.