By the way -- if you claim to be a Christian...

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The father of science, Isaac Newton, studied the bible for his insights

These are the first words I've seen in several pages of this thread that weren't theology. This is history, and it's incorrect. Newton may have studied his Bible, but his insights in Principia and elsewhere didn't come from his Bible. Everything Newton wrote that has enduring value could have been written by any equally gifted atheist who never saw a Bible.

Were you aware that Newton's mathematics predicted that the larger planets like Jupiter and Saturn should have thrown smaller planets like Earth and Mars into the sun or out of the solar system, and so proposed that from time to time, God stepped in to keep the planets in the solar system with a little nudge? That's when he took off his science hat and became a theologian. A century later. LaPlace supplied the missing mathematics and demonstrated that Newton was incorrect. That's where Newton's contribution to celestial mechanics ended - exactly when he DID use one of his biblical "insights" and began to invoke magical thinking.

Also, Galileo is the one traditionally called the father of science.

 

[Regiomontanus]

These are the first words I've seen in several pages of this thread that weren't theology. This is history, and it's incorrect. Newton may have studied his Bible, but his insights in Principia and elsewhere didn't come from his Bible. Everything Newton wrote that has enduring value could have been written by any equally gifted atheist who never saw a Bible.

Were you aware that Newton's mathematics predicted that the larger planets like Jupiter and Saturn should have thrown smaller planets like Earth and Mars into the sun or out of the solar system, and so proposed that from time to time, God stepped in to keep the planets in the solar system with a little nudge? That's when he took off his science hat and became a theologian. A century later. LaPlace supplied the missing mathematics and demonstrated that Newton was incorrect. That's where Newton's contribution to celestial mechanics ended - exactly when he DID use one of his biblical "insights" and began to invoke magical thinking.

Also, Galileo is the one traditionally called the father of science.

Factoid: Newton was vehemently anti-Trinitarian.

 

[Balthazzar]

These are the first words I've seen in several pages of this thread that weren't theology. This is history, and it's incorrect. Newton may have studied his Bible, but his insights in Principia and elsewhere didn't come from his Bible. Everything Newton wrote that has enduring value could have been written by any equally gifted atheist who never saw a Bible.

Were you aware that Newton's mathematics predicted that the larger planets like Jupiter and Saturn should have thrown smaller planets like Earth and Mars into the sun or out of the solar system, and so proposed that from time to time, God stepped in to keep the planets in the solar system with a little nudge? That's when he took off his science hat and became a theologian. A century later. LaPlace supplied the missing mathematics and demonstrated that Newton was incorrect. That's where Newton's contribution to celestial mechanics ended - exactly when he DID use one of his biblical "insights" and began to invoke magical thinking.

Also, Galileo is the one traditionally called the father of science.

As new truths are presented and accepted old paradigms shift to the new. None of this equates to magical thinking, but it may require a broader more human approach to how we view the universe and our place in it. The pendulum effect in play as time marches us onward.

 

[Kathryn]

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, borne of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into Hell, and rose again on the third day. He ascended into Heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting. Amen.

 

[Sargonski]

If Satan does not represent deception, lies, untruths, and misguidance, then what exactly? These are adversarial things that mislead us, they steal, kill, and destroy what right and true and good to understand.

That is a good question/observation .. in fact is a great question .. which -- as like most Great questions - does not have an easy or readily available answer. Perhaps one needs to re-evaluate Good vs Evil -- The ancients looked at things as Order vs Chaos - this Motif is present in all creation myths - including Genesis - The separation of the Salt water from the Fresh Water - the Land from the Sea

Are you sure the force causing you to do bad things is External vs Internal - maybe it is the Devil inside that made you do it and not some external boogie-man. Not that the Boogie man is not real -- evil external forces exist -- but one must be aware of this distinction in such a conversation.

"Like Us" We are Told - "Created in Our Image" - "Let US Create Man" -- Perhaps all the Gods have a little of the Devil inside them .. just like US .. a premise/hypothesis that is in evidence in everything around us that we see .. starting with the very premise of our existence .. We were created in such as way .. that in order to survive we need to kill life.

Why did the creator do that - if in him there was not a little of the Devil inside --- Just like US.

But--- of the external forces - who is the "Bad Guy" in the Story. In the story of Job we hae many Gods "Sons of God" visiting the Supreme one. Among these Gods is is one who's Job Title it is to test the souls of those on earth. So adversarial in some cases but in others a blockage at the fork in the road -- blocking progress - Ha Satan is the one who shows up and blocks the Path of Balaam -- the famous talking Donkey scene .. The Devil in this case is not Evil . just redirecting the main character down a different path -- giving information which causes a change in path.

In Job we could say that Ha Satan does some nasty things -- kills Jobs family, servants and so on --showing off Godly powers raining fire down from the sky ..... BUT --- and its a big BUT --- Satan is doing these things at the behest of and under the oversight of The Supreme One ..

The Supreme one "El Oliun" / "El Shaddai" - is having a party up in heaven .. "and everyone is there" (full marks if you recognize the lyrics from the Talking Heads song "Heaven") .. a divine party like the one in Deut 32:43 - (edited out of anyting newer than the Masoretic Text (700-1000AD - so need a version from the LXX or QDeut4 -- Septuiaging and Qumran Text .. both dating in the BC .. lucky for I have LXX translation handy.

"O heavens, rejoice with Him
Bow to Him
all sons of the divine
O nations, rejoice with His people
and let all angels of the divine strengthen themselves in Him.
For He’ll avenge the blood of His sons,
be vengeful, and wreak vengeance and recompense justice on his foes
And the Lord will Cleanse His people’s land"

A modern bible reads --
Rejoice, you nations, with his people,[e][f]
for he will avenge the blood of his servants;
he will take vengeance on his enemies
and make atonement for his land and people

So all the divinities removed in the modern version .. hidden from view.. but fortunately they are still retained in the Party happening in heaven in Job.. EL Shaddai notices one of his Son's at the party .. the God charged with testing of souls .. and says

HEY Son -- what have you been up to ?
Son : not much Dad just wandering over the earth doing my duty
Father: Have you seen my servent Job .. how much he adores me .. and does what is right

The Son now chides his Father .. suggesting .. perhaps you don't know Job as well as you think - after all .. you have given him everything.

Then Son throws down a challenge to his Father ... Take everything you have given him away and he will curse you to your face.
The Father ... wanting to prove to his son "Father knows Best" .. takes up the challenge .. telling his Son to do the dirty work of - Taking Everything away from Job - but put constraints on Ha Satan saying do what you like so long as you don't kill him.

So in this case === what ever you wish to view was Evil -- is coming from the Devil in the Father as much as in the Son -- I am not sure I view Gambling by the Gods necessarily Evil .. kind of like humans betting on a horse race .. are those humans responsible for the abuse of the horse ? .. maybe .. in a way .. indirectly but.. is this kind of Evil that we are talking about .. and what ever that is .. in this case the Father is just as guilty as the Son.

Contrast to other God's in the story .. I put forth a much better candidate than poor Satan .. who is just doing his Job after all .. given him by the Supreme God .. who we shall now call EL - (Enlil, Ellil) are other names this God Goes by .. El is the Father of Satan .. and has 70 sons .. who vie for the title of Chief God on Earth. Lord YHWH is another Son of God "Psalm 82 - (New English Translation) -Deut 32:8-(LXX)

We also have another God .. who's name is Jealousy. This God is quite the nasty character .. an irrational Flip Floping xenophobic Genocidal maniac with the most petty and nasty of human characteristics .. who one day .. is saying "Kill everyone -- Children, babies, fetuses .. because of the Sin of the Father" .. then the next day is saying Children are not to be killed for the sin of the Father - Each punished according to his own Sin.

Freaken loopy I know .. how is one supposed to put oneself right with this God .. with that kind of contradictory commands ? .. Do we sacrifice the first born Child on the Holy Alter of Fire to cleanse away the Sin of the Father .... or do we let the poor child live .. and punish those that have actually done the evil rather than the innocent child who has had no part in the Evil .

Seems a no brainer - Hence the Rule of Law princple "One person not to be punished for the actions of another" .. Goes at least as far back as Hammurabi's Law Code .. which came down from Heaven .. from another Son of God named Marduk .. a very important Rival to Lord YHWH in the story.

Now comes the time for you to answer your own question - What is the biggest Evil in the Story ? Hint "Jealousy"
That is the Nasty God in the Story .. "The Devil" if you wish to give a Title .. that is your external actor that is a representation of the biggest Evil in the story .. sure .. perhaps poor Satanyah is not viewed necessarily as a Good Girl .. although she did go rather easy on the testing of Jesus .. nowhere near that hardship poor Job underwent.

Jealousy is both the exteremely nasty external source of the most Evil in the story -- but do we not all have a bit of the Jealousy Devil inside ? and while this is a terrible emotion in many ways .. what fun would life be without a little competition ?

Ha Satan --- Boo .. but not nearly as big a Boogieman as the God named Jealous.

Who is the Good Guy in the story .. this should be easy .. Jesus .. who say "Let he without sin cast first Stone" -- .. Obviously the God Jealousy is not the "Our Father" that Jesus is referring to "Hallowed be thy name" -- that Hallowed name is not Jealousy..

Like Ha Satan .. Jesus is not all candy and flowers .. and like his Mentor .. is himself a Tester of Souls --- the difference being that Satan is Chief God of the Earth .. tests human's while on Earth. Jesus does the testing after one dies .. to see if one gets into heaven.... warning the flock

Matt 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Which begs the question .. Who exactly is "The Father" .. what is the Hallowed name that we are supposed to know .. directed towards ? It is not Ha Satan .. not Jealousy ... What are the other options -- and what did the ancients think .. the people living in Canaan in Abe's time ~1800 BC .. or when David takes Jerusalem ~1000 BC ? or at the beginning of the Second Temple period ~ 500 BC. Who is the Supreme one El-Oliun ? the God of Abraham .. what is this God's name ..God of Abraham and Melchi-Zedek ..Canaanite Priest King of Jerusalem - City of Peace.

 

[Balthazzar]

That is a good question/observation .. in fact is a great question .. which -- as like most Great questions - does not have an easy or readily available answer. Perhaps one needs to re-evaluate Good vs Evil -- The ancients looked at things as Order vs Chaos - this Motif is present in all creation myths - including Genesis - The separation of the Salt water from the Fresh Water - the Land from the Sea

Are you sure the force causing you to do bad things is External vs Internal - maybe it is the Devil inside that made you do it and not some external boogie-man. Not that the Boogie man is not real -- evil external forces exist -- but one must be aware of this distinction in such a conversation.

"Like Us" We are Told - "Created in Our Image" - "Let US Create Man" -- Perhaps all the Gods have a little of the Devil inside them .. just like US .. a premise/hypothesis that is in evidence in everything around us that we see .. starting with the very premise of our existence .. We were created in such as way .. that in order to survive we need to kill life.

Why did the creator do that - if in him there was not a little of the Devil inside --- Just like US.

But--- of the external forces - who is the "Bad Guy" in the Story. In the story of Job we hae many Gods "Sons of God" visiting the Supreme one. Among these Gods is is one who's Job Title it is to test the souls of those on earth. So adversarial in some cases but in others a blockage at the fork in the road -- blocking progress - Ha Satan is the one who shows up and blocks the Path of Balaam -- the famous talking Donkey scene .. The Devil in this case is not Evil . just redirecting the main character down a different path -- giving information which causes a change in path.

In Job we could say that Ha Satan does some nasty things -- kills Jobs family, servants and so on --showing off Godly powers raining fire down from the sky ..... BUT --- and its a big BUT --- Satan is doing these things at the behest of and under the oversight of The Supreme One ..

The Supreme one "El Oliun" / "El Shaddai" - is having a party up in heaven .. "and everyone is there" (full marks if you recognize the lyrics from the Talking Heads song "Heaven") .. a divine party like the one in Deut 32:43 - (edited out of anyting newer than the Masoretic Text (700-1000AD - so need a version from the LXX or QDeut4 -- Septuiaging and Qumran Text .. both dating in the BC .. lucky for I have LXX translation handy.

"O heavens, rejoice with Him
Bow to Him
all sons of the divine
O nations, rejoice with His people
and let all angels of the divine strengthen themselves in Him.
For He’ll avenge the blood of His sons,
be vengeful, and wreak vengeance and recompense justice on his foes
And the Lord will Cleanse His people’s land"

A modern bible reads --
Rejoice, you nations, with his people,[e][f]
for he will avenge the blood of his servants;
he will take vengeance on his enemies
and make atonement for his land and people

So all the divinities removed in the modern version .. hidden from view.. but fortunately they are still retained in the Party happening in heaven in Job.. EL Shaddai notices one of his Son's at the party .. the God charged with testing of souls .. and says

HEY Son -- what have you been up to ?
Son : not much Dad just wandering over the earth doing my duty
Father: Have you seen my servent Job .. how much he adores me .. and does what is right

The Son now chides his Father .. suggesting .. perhaps you don't know Job as well as you think - after all .. you have given him everything.

Then Son throws down a challenge to his Father ... Take everything you have given him away and he will curse you to your face.
The Father ... wanting to prove to his son "Father knows Best" .. takes up the challenge .. telling his Son to do the dirty work of - Taking Everything away from Job - but put constraints on Ha Satan saying do what you like so long as you don't kill him.

So in this case === what ever you wish to view was Evil -- is coming from the Devil in the Father as much as in the Son -- I am not sure I view Gambling by the Gods necessarily Evil .. kind of like humans betting on a horse race .. are those humans responsible for the abuse of the horse ? .. maybe .. in a way .. indirectly but.. is this kind of Evil that we are talking about .. and what ever that is .. in this case the Father is just as guilty as the Son.

Contrast to other God's in the story .. I put forth a much better candidate than poor Satan .. who is just doing his Job after all .. given him by the Supreme God .. who we shall now call EL - (Enlil, Ellil) are other names this God Goes by .. El is the Father of Satan .. and has 70 sons .. who vie for the title of Chief God on Earth. Lord YHWH is another Son of God "Psalm 82 - (New English Translation) -Deut 32:8-(LXX)

We also have another God .. who's name is Jealousy. This God is quite the nasty character .. an irrational Flip Floping xenophobic Genocidal maniac with the most petty and nasty of human characteristics .. who one day .. is saying "Kill everyone -- Children, babies, fetuses .. because of the Sin of the Father" .. then the next day is saying Children are not to be killed for the sin of the Father - Each punished according to his own Sin.

Freaken loopy I know .. how is one supposed to put oneself right with this God .. with that kind of contradictory commands ? .. Do we sacrifice the first born Child on the Holy Alter of Fire to cleanse away the Sin of the Father .... or do we let the poor child live .. and punish those that have actually done the evil rather than the innocent child who has had no part in the Evil .

Seems a no brainer - Hence the Rule of Law princple "One person not to be punished for the actions of another" .. Goes at least as far back as Hammurabi's Law Code .. which came down from Heaven .. from another Son of God named Marduk .. a very important Rival to Lord YHWH in the story.

Now comes the time for you to answer your own question - What is the biggest Evil in the Story ? Hint "Jealousy"
That is the Nasty God in the Story .. "The Devil" if you wish to give a Title .. that is your external actor that is a representation of the biggest Evil in the story .. sure .. perhaps poor Satanyah is not viewed necessarily as a Good Girl .. although she did go rather easy on the testing of Jesus .. nowhere near that hardship poor Job underwent.

Jealousy is both the exteremely nasty external source of the most Evil in the story -- but do we not all have a bit of the Jealousy Devil inside ? and while this is a terrible emotion in many ways .. what fun would life be without a little competition ?

Ha Satan --- Boo .. but not nearly as big a Boogieman as the God named Jealous.

Who is the Good Guy in the story .. this should be easy .. Jesus .. who say "Let he without sin cast first Stone" -- .. Obviously the God Jealousy is not the "Our Father" that Jesus is referring to "Hallowed be thy name" -- that Hallowed name is not Jealousy..

Like Ha Satan .. Jesus is not all candy and flowers .. and like his Mentor .. is himself a Tester of Souls --- the difference being that Satan is Chief God of the Earth .. tests human's while on Earth. Jesus does the testing after one dies .. to see if one gets into heaven.... warning the flock

Matt 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Which begs the question .. Who exactly is "The Father" .. what is the Hallowed name that we are supposed to know .. directed towards ? It is not Ha Satan .. not Jealousy ... What are the other options -- and what did the ancients think .. the people living in Canaan in Abe's time ~1800 BC .. or when David takes Jerusalem ~1000 BC ? or at the beginning of the Second Temple period ~ 500 BC. Who is the Supreme one El-Oliun ? the God of Abraham .. what is this God's name ..God of Abraham and Melchi-Zedek ..Canaanite Priest King of Jerusalem - City of Peace.

You posted quite a long read, but I read it and have a couple questions and comments. You're suggesting jealousy to be the bad one, the most sinister and disruptive, correct? This would of course, negate the agreement as played in job and responsibility of the parties involved. Job lost everything, his family no longer, according to your understanding, living or able to remain a part of his life. To me, this is brutal, even more brutal than a jealous spirit. This one involves real loss and real heartache and real disaster orchestrated by "God" and "Satan". So, the story represents two sides. One side has faith enough in Job to allow this disaster to befall him. The other insists that he will fail him. Who's the bad guy? I told you so,s are not very appealing and although Satan deemed the enemy in this one by many, I may need to disagree based on the loss itself and the warning. Honor ... What was Job honoring exactly and why the need to prove this to Satan? Likewise, why the dig at God by Satan to compel him to allow it to play out? Maybe both were being both good and evil towards Job, and this thought isn't unwarranted per Isaiah 45. I suppose choices, ability, heart, and faith are always in play...for everyone. That may be the point.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

As new truths are presented and accepted old paradigms shift to the new. None of this equates to magical thinking

The new paradigm post-LaPlace contained no god to keep the solar system stable. Newton's did. Naturalism replaced supernaturalism. I consider the latter belief in magic, which includes belief in answered prayers and belief in miracles whether they be virgin births, resurrections, creationism, as well as the hand of God acting on the planets.

You might find this interesting (source):

The Perimeter of Ignorance ​

A boundary where scientists face a choice: invoke a deity or continue the quest for knowledge​

by Neil deGrasse Tyson From Natural History magazine, November 2005​

________________________________________________________​

Writing in centuries past, many scientists felt compelled to wax poetic about cosmic mysteries and God's handiwork. Perhaps one should not be surprised at this: most scientists back then, as well as many scientists today, identify themselves as spiritually devout.​

​

But a careful reading of older texts, particularly those concerned with the universe itself, shows that the authors invoke divinity only when they reach the boundaries of their understanding. They appeal to a higher power only when staring into the ocean of their own ignorance. They call on God only from the lonely and precarious edge of incomprehension. Where they feel certain about their explanations, however, God gets hardly a mention.​

​

Let's start at the top. Isaac Newton was one of the greatest intellects the world has ever seen. His laws of motion and his universal law of gravitation, conceived in the mid-seventeenth century, account for cosmic phenomena that had eluded philosophers for millennia. Through those laws, one could understand the gravitational attraction of bodies in a system, and thus come to understand orbits.​

​

Newton's law of gravity enables you to calculate the force of attraction between any two objects. If you introduce a third object, then each one attracts the other two, and the orbits they trace become much harder to compute. Add another object, and another, and another, and soon you have the planets in our solar system. Earth and the Sun pull on each other, but Jupiter also pulls on Earth, Saturn pulls on Earth, Mars pulls on Earth, Jupiter pulls on Saturn, Saturn pulls on Mars, and on and on.​

​

Newton feared that all this pulling would render the orbits in the solar system unstable. His equations indicated that the planets should long ago have either fallen into the Sun or flown the coop—leaving the Sun, in either case, devoid of planets. Yet the solar system, as well as the larger cosmos, appeared to be the very model of order and durability. So Newton, in his greatest work, the Principia, concludes that God must occasionally step in and make things right:​

​

"The six primary Planets are revolv'd about the Sun, in circles concentric with the Sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. . . . But it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions. . . . This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."​

​

A century later, the French astronomer and mathematician Pierre-Simon de Laplace confronted Newton's dilemma of unstable orbits head-on. Rather than view the mysterious stability of the solar system as the unknowable work of God, Laplace declared it a scientific challenge. In his multipart masterpiece, Mecanique Celeste, the first volume of which appeared in 1798, Laplace demonstrates that the solar system is stable over periods of time longer than Newton could predict.​

​

To do so, Laplace pioneered a new kind of mathematics called perturbation theory, which enabled him to examine the cumulative effects of many small forces. According to an oft-repeated but probably embellished account, when Laplace gave a copy of Mecanique Celeste to his physics-literate friend Napoleon Bonaparte, Napoleon asked him what role God played in the construction and regulation of the heavens. "Sire," Laplace replied, "I have no need of that hypothesis."​

This is a typical transformation of a hypothesis from a supernaturalistic one to a naturalistic one, the kind that as they accumulate lead to the idea of a god of the gaps. Whenever gods are removed from a model and replaced with a naturalistic explanation, we can say that supernaturalism (magic) has been replaced by naturalism.

Perhaps you object to the word magic. Magic tricks are illusions that look like magic but have naturalistic explanations. If they didn't, they wouldn't be tricks or illusions. They'd be actual magic.

 

[Balthazzar]

The new paradigm post-LaPlace contained no god to keep the solar system stable. Newton's did. Naturalism replaced supernaturalism. I consider the latter belief in magic, which includes belief in answered prayers and belief in miracles whether they be virgin births, resurrections, creationism, as well as the hand of God acting on the planets.

You might find this interesting (source):

The Perimeter of Ignorance ​

A boundary where scientists face a choice: invoke a deity or continue the quest for knowledge​

by Neil deGrasse Tyson From Natural History magazine, November 2005​

________________________________________________________​

Writing in centuries past, many scientists felt compelled to wax poetic about cosmic mysteries and God's handiwork. Perhaps one should not be surprised at this: most scientists back then, as well as many scientists today, identify themselves as spiritually devout.​

​

But a careful reading of older texts, particularly those concerned with the universe itself, shows that the authors invoke divinity only when they reach the boundaries of their understanding. They appeal to a higher power only when staring into the ocean of their own ignorance. They call on God only from the lonely and precarious edge of incomprehension. Where they feel certain about their explanations, however, God gets hardly a mention.​

​

Let's start at the top. Isaac Newton was one of the greatest intellects the world has ever seen. His laws of motion and his universal law of gravitation, conceived in the mid-seventeenth century, account for cosmic phenomena that had eluded philosophers for millennia. Through those laws, one could understand the gravitational attraction of bodies in a system, and thus come to understand orbits.​

​

Newton's law of gravity enables you to calculate the force of attraction between any two objects. If you introduce a third object, then each one attracts the other two, and the orbits they trace become much harder to compute. Add another object, and another, and another, and soon you have the planets in our solar system. Earth and the Sun pull on each other, but Jupiter also pulls on Earth, Saturn pulls on Earth, Mars pulls on Earth, Jupiter pulls on Saturn, Saturn pulls on Mars, and on and on.​

​

Newton feared that all this pulling would render the orbits in the solar system unstable. His equations indicated that the planets should long ago have either fallen into the Sun or flown the coop—leaving the Sun, in either case, devoid of planets. Yet the solar system, as well as the larger cosmos, appeared to be the very model of order and durability. So Newton, in his greatest work, the Principia, concludes that God must occasionally step in and make things right:​

​

"The six primary Planets are revolv'd about the Sun, in circles concentric with the Sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. . . . But it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions. . . . This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."​

​

A century later, the French astronomer and mathematician Pierre-Simon de Laplace confronted Newton's dilemma of unstable orbits head-on. Rather than view the mysterious stability of the solar system as the unknowable work of God, Laplace declared it a scientific challenge. In his multipart masterpiece, Mecanique Celeste, the first volume of which appeared in 1798, Laplace demonstrates that the solar system is stable over periods of time longer than Newton could predict.​

​

To do so, Laplace pioneered a new kind of mathematics called perturbation theory, which enabled him to examine the cumulative effects of many small forces. According to an oft-repeated but probably embellished account, when Laplace gave a copy of Mecanique Celeste to his physics-literate friend Napoleon Bonaparte, Napoleon asked him what role God played in the construction and regulation of the heavens. "Sire," Laplace replied, "I have no need of that hypothesis."​

This is a typical transformation of a hypothesis from a supernaturalistic one to a naturalistic one, the kind that as they accumulate lead to the idea of a god of the gaps. Whenever gods are removed from a model and replaced with a naturalistic explanation, we can say that supernaturalism (magic) has been replaced by naturalism.

Perhaps you object to the word magic. Magic tricks are illusions that look like magic but have naturalistic explanations. If they didn't, they wouldn't be tricks or illusions. They'd be actual magic.

Deity definition may be required. I understand God concepts leave some types in unbelief, but as a grain of sand in our universe, it's difficult to not acknowledge god's, deities, or extra-terrestrial, celestial type of interventions every now and then. It would seem Newton considered the possible.

 

[Sargonski]

You posted quite a long read, but I read it and have a couple questions and comments. You're suggesting jealousy to be the bad one, the most sinister and disruptive, correct? This would of course, negate the agreement as played in job and responsibility of the parties involved. Job lost everything, his family no longer, according to your understanding, living or able to remain a part of his life. To me, this is brutal, even more brutal than a jealous spirit. This one involves real loss and real heartache and real disaster orchestrated by "God" and "Satan". So, the story represents two sides. One side has faith enough in Job to allow this disaster to befall him. The other insists that he will fail him. Who's the bad guy? I told you so,s are not very appealing and although Satan deemed the enemy in this one by many, I may need to disagree based on the loss itself and the warning. Honor ... What was Job honoring exactly and why the need to prove this to Satan? Likewise, why the dig at God by Satan to compel him to allow it to play out? Maybe both were being both good and evil towards Job, and this thought isn't unwarranted per Isaiah 45. I suppose choices, ability, heart, and faith are always in play...for everyone. That may be the point.

Sorry for the long read .. but is a really complex subject that most take for granted and have a false perspective .. false meaning something other than what is presented.

"Jealousy" - It is not me suggesting Jealousy to be the bad one.. This is what the Bible states .. right from the 10 commands of the Jealous God barking out .. "have no other Gods before me" --- Why ? What is the reason for this God whose name is Jealousy gives ??

"Because I am a Jealous God" -- That is the Reason for this and so much else .. If a few are found in a town worshiping other Gods -- Kill the entire town .. Women Children, babies, fetuses .. slaughter everything .. even animals" .. and this is an Israelite Town .. not someone you are at war with. Why ? s what is the reason "Because I am a Jealous God"

Do you understand the importance of the Name of a God to Abe, Moses, Canaanites .. Phonecians, Greeks, Babylonians, Assyrians and last but not least .. the Israelites ?? Both Moses and Jacob demand to know the name of the God they are confronted with .. and yes this in part about the belief at the time that if one knew the name of the God one had some power.. but what it is more about .. is the fact that everyone at the time believes in the existence of many many Gods .. and how do you know which one to call out to for help . or to pray to to make something happen .. or to sacrifice your first born to .. if you do not know that God's name ? Jerusalem was an important Temple of YHWH .. as the Place where Gods name Resides .. where that God lives essentially.. .. Thus when the Moabite God Chemosh defeated YHWH -- YHWH survived to fight another day .. the place where his name resided was not destroyed .. When Lord-Marduk destroyed the Temple of YHWH at Jerusalem .. YHWH was blotted out .. destroyed.

So in Exodus ... When God is personally dictating the terms of the Covenant with his People Israel ..

Exodus 34: 11 “Obey[w] what I am commanding you this day. I am going to drive out[x] before you the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite. 12 Be careful not to make[y] a covenant with the inhabitants of the land where you are going, lest it become a snare[z] among you. 13 Rather you must destroy their altars, smash their images, and cut down their Asherah poles.[aa] 14 For you must not worship[ab] any other god,[ac] for the Lord, whose name[ad] is Jealous, is a jealous God."

So the name that God uses to Seal his Covenant with his people .. is Jealous .. that is the name of this God .. who also happens to be a Jealous God. ... but also happens to be the sarcastic flip flopping trickster God known to some as YHWH. .. which we will leave at that .. not try to dig into the dualism going on in this story other than a quick snippet from wiki .. showing I am not the first to notice ..

Some Gnostic Christians (such as Marcionites) considered the Hebrew God of the Old Testament as the evil, false god and creator of the material universe, and the Unknown God of the Gospel, the father of Jesus Christ and creator of the spiritual world, as the true, good God.[38][35] In the Archontic, Sethian, and Ophite systems, Yaldabaoth (Yahweh) is regarded as the malevolent Demiurge and false god of the Old Testament who generated the material universe and keeps the souls trapped in physical bodies, imprisoned in the world full of pain and suffering that he created.[2][3][4]

However, not all Gnostic movements regarded the creator of the material universe as inherently evil or malevolent.[39][40] For instance, Valentinians believed that the Demiurge is merely an ignorant and incompetent creator, trying to fashion the world as well as he can, but lacking the proper power to maintain its goodness

"Unknown God of the Gospel, the father of Jesus" --- says the citation, but I claim we do know the identity and name of this God ..

 

[Balthazzar]

Sorry for the long read .. but is a really complex subject that most take for granted and have a false perspective .. false meaning something other than what is presented.

"Jealousy" - It is not me suggesting Jealousy to be the bad one.. This is what the Bible states .. right from the 10 commands of the Jealous God barking out .. "have no other Gods before me" --- Why ? What is the reason for this God whose name is Jealousy gives ??

"Because I am a Jealous God" -- That is the Reason for this and so much else .. If a few are found in a town worshiping other Gods -- Kill the entire town .. Women Children, babies, fetuses .. slaughter everything .. even animals" .. and this is an Israelite Town .. not someone you are at war with. Why ? s what is the reason "Because I am a Jealous God"

Do you understand the importance of the Name of a God to Abe, Moses, Canaanites .. Phonecians, Greeks, Babylonians, Assyrians and last but not least .. the Israelites ?? Both Moses and Jacob demand to know the name of the God they are confronted with .. and yes this in part about the belief at the time that if one knew the name of the God one had some power.. but what it is more about .. is the fact that everyone at the time believes in the existence of many many Gods .. and how do you know which one to call out to for help . or to pray to to make something happen .. or to sacrifice your first born to .. if you do not know that God's name ? Jerusalem was an important Temple of YHWH .. as the Place where Gods name Resides .. where that God lives essentially.. .. Thus when the Moabite God Chemosh defeated YHWH -- YHWH survived to fight another day .. the place where his name resided was not destroyed .. When Lord-Marduk destroyed the Temple of YHWH at Jerusalem .. YHWH was blotted out .. destroyed.

So in Exodus ... When God is personally dictating the terms of the Covenant with his People Israel ..

Exodus 34: 11 “Obey[w] what I am commanding you this day. I am going to drive out[x] before you the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite. 12 Be careful not to make[y] a covenant with the inhabitants of the land where you are going, lest it become a snare[z] among you. 13 Rather you must destroy their altars, smash their images, and cut down their Asherah poles.[aa] 14 For you must not worship[ab] any other god,[ac] for the Lord, whose name[ad] is Jealous, is a jealous God."

So the name that God uses to Seal his Covenant with his people .. is Jealous .. that is the name of this God .. who also happens to be a Jealous God. ... but also happens to be the sarcastic flip flopping trickster God known to some as YHWH. .. which we will leave at that .. not try to dig into the dualism going on in this story other than a quick snippet from wiki .. showing I am not the first to notice ..



"Unknown God of the Gospel, the father of Jesus" --- says the citation, but I claim we do know the identity and name of this God ..

I'm recognizing some gnostic influence in your presentation, namely that the OT God of the bible is a false type god as opposed to being what many acknowledge him to be, leaving that position to Jesus. I'm looking at it two fold and one, which sums up life fairly well in experience, so while I acknowledge Jesus as a son or the son, I also acknowledge the dual aspects of life being one. Truth matters, and some things are difficult to discard as being factual. There are aspects of life I don't like, which help lead me towards things I do like. If not for the negatives, there very likely wouldn't be much progress or growth or even a reason to increase in understanding. The balancing act between the light and dark and an opportunity to find a way to improve our situations. Anyway, jealousy is part of life and although it can be disruptive, it doesn't mean its an inherently bad quality. What's worse than jealousy? Understanding a truth and rejecting its validity as something useful and beneficial.

 

[2ndpillar]

These are the first words I've seen in several pages of this thread that weren't theology. This is history, and it's incorrect. Newton may have studied his Bible, but his insights in Principia and elsewhere didn't come from his Bible. Everything Newton wrote that has enduring value could have been written by any equally gifted atheist who never saw a Bible.

Were you aware that Newton's mathematics predicted that the larger planets like Jupiter and Saturn should have thrown smaller planets like Earth and Mars into the sun or out of the solar system, and so proposed that from time to time, God stepped in to keep the planets in the solar system with a little nudge? That's when he took off his science hat and became a theologian. A century later. LaPlace supplied the missing mathematics and demonstrated that Newton was incorrect. That's where Newton's contribution to celestial mechanics ended - exactly when he DID use one of his biblical "insights" and began to invoke magical thinking.

Also, Galileo is the one traditionally called the father of science.

Well, no atheist came up with the Principia Mathematica. As for the most Nobel prizes for science, that would go the Jews. Jewish Nobel laureates number at least 11,250 per cent above average. Whereas with regards to the science of sex transition, and gender studies, I think you will mostly find Progressive atheistic Marxist. As to who is considered the father of science, that is up for debate as to who was the foremost father of modern science, but he wasn't an atheist. Isaac Newton: The Father of Modern Science - Interesting Engineering
As for Galileo, while he bumped heads with the church, in his youth, the priesthood was on his list of professions to be considered. Newton compared science with the truths of the bible. Bible study led Newton to scientific discoveries - Nature

 

[2ndpillar]

Having room to grow on is different than lies, deception, and willful misguidance. We need the room and would be better off with accuracy of understanding, which objectivity helps establish. Subjectivity is an individual thing and varies between people, so the balance is there and personalized, catered to each of us uniquely. Objectivity is more bedrock than not and helps guide us all. Our subjective experiences cater to our personal needs.

The crutch of Satan's cohorts is that they are objective. Objective to what standard, from what premise? They create their own subjective standards to work from. There is only one true standard, and that would be the Law held in the ark of the covenant. Every other standard is subjective in its creation.

 

[Balthazzar]

The crutch of Satan's cohorts is that they are objective. Objective to what standard, from what premise? They create their own subjective standards to work from. There is only one true standard, and that would be the Law held in the ark of the covenant. Every other standard is subjective in its creation.

I'll need to give this one more thought. The ark of the covenant would be more on par, given its content, to rules or instructions for raising children. I'm thinking Moses' basket and reed on to the commandments carved in stone, to Noah's ark and repopulating the earth, etc. after being required to avoid a flood and being displaced. The ark of the covenant contains what? A staff, a cup, and a few instructions. The reed may have been Moses' comfort in the basket like the staff he carried in the wilderness. The instructions adequate for raising a child and the cup a vessel to place elements for hydration in. The only one true standard to work from is flawed when parental guidance and concern is missing for the child required to honor them. That's when subjective and objective truth's are acknowledged together as better guides than 10 instructions given to a few particulars for the following.

 

[Balthazzar]

Objective to what standard, from what premise?

I just caught this and wanted to reply directly in reference to. To object a standard or a proposition or premise is different than objectivity.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Deity definition may be required. I understand God concepts leave some types in unbelief, but as a grain of sand in our universe, it's difficult to not acknowledge god's, deities, or extra-terrestrial, celestial type of interventions every now and then. It would seem Newton considered the possible.

Well, no atheist came up with the Principia Mathematica. As for the most Nobel prizes for science, that would go the Jews. Jewish Nobel laureates number at least 11,250 per cent above average. Whereas with regards to the science of sex transition, and gender studies, I think you will mostly find Progressive atheistic Marxist. As to who is considered the father of science, that is up for debate as to who was the foremost father of modern science, but he wasn't an atheist. Isaac Newton: The Father of Modern Science - Interesting Engineering
As for Galileo, while he bumped heads with the church, in his youth, the priesthood was on his list of professions to be considered. Newton compared science with the truths of the bible. Bible study led Newton to scientific discoveries - Nature

My comments would be the same to both of you:

[1] OK, but apart from the comment on who is known as the father of science, I don't know why you wanted to tell me any of that or what it has to do with my post and

[2] Did you want to address what it said by either agreeing or saying what error you found and why you consider it an error?

My main point was that nothing Newton wrote that has had a lasting impact came from scripture or faith or that couldn't have been written if he were an atheist, and that when he did insert his religious beliefs into his work, he was corrected by a subsequent mathematician, Laplace, who also didn't rely on scripture. Is anything written there incorrect in the opinions of either of you, and if so, which part and what makes it incorrect to you.

I think what I wrote is accurate. The thing about correct ideas is that they can't be successfully refuted. They can be ignored, or as is the case here they can be answered with ideas that don't address them, but they cannot be shown to be incorrect, which I believe is the case here.

Incidentally, Newton's work was entitled, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica and is frequently referred to as just Principia. It was a treatise on celestial mechanics (physics). A different book written centuries later called just Principia Mathematica was written by an atheist (Bertrand Russell) and someone who called himself an agnostic (Alfred North Whitehead) and was about pure reason (logic and mathematics).

Anyway, please continue with your theological disputes. I just wanted to correct the statements about Newton. He's a very interesting case study because he lived on the cusp of modernity and had one foot in medieval superstition and one is mathematics and physics. He also did and wrote about alchemy, the faith-based precursor to chemistry, even as he was in the process of converting astrology to astronomy. And not surprisingly, his alchemy is ignored today.

 

[Balthazzar]

My comments would be the same to both of you:

[1] OK, but apart from the comment on who is known as the father of science, I don't know why you wanted to tell me any of that or what it has to do with my post and

[2] Did you want to address what it said by either agreeing or saying what error you found and why you consider it an error?

My main point was that nothing Newton wrote that has had a lasting impact came from scripture or faith or that couldn't have been written if he were an atheist, and that when he did insert his religious beliefs into his work, he was corrected by a subsequent mathematician, Laplace, who also didn't rely on scripture. Is anything written there incorrect in the opinions of either of you, and if so, which part and what makes it incorrect to you.

I think what I wrote is accurate. The thing about correct ideas is that they can't be successfully refuted. They can be ignored, or as is the case here they can be answered with ideas that don't address them, but they cannot be shown to be incorrect, which I believe is the case here.

Incidentally, Newton's work was entitled, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica and is frequently referred to as just Principia. It was a treatise on celestial mechanics (physics). A different book written centuries later called just Principia Mathematica was written by an atheist (Bertrand Russell) and someone who called himself an agnostic (Alfred North Whitehead) and was about pure reason (logic and mathematics).

Anyway, please continue with your theological disputes. I just wanted to correct the statements about Newton. He's a very interesting case study because he lived on the cusp of modernity and had one foot in medieval superstition and one is mathematics and physics. He also did and wrote about alchemy, the faith-based precursor to chemistry, even as he was in the process of converting astrology to astronomy. And not surprisingly, his alchemy is ignored today.

Newton seems to be an intriguing personality. I honestly agree with his openness to the unknown. It's evident he was likewise open to the objective world of physics. Alchemy, transformation of elements and/or ethers into something more desirable isn't anything to ridicule, but many throw it the realms of superstition and on par with delusional, supernatural wishful thinking. I will disagree with the latter and acknowledge the former as a chemist's reality and I will assume in the quantum arena, alchemy is likewise something to be better understood. Definition of terms always seem to get in the way of adequate understanding. Most would likely equate alchemy to a charlatans attempt to turn base metals into gold. Instead of acknowledging mental, spiritual and emotional transformational breakthroughs as the intent. I can't refute anything you stated. I like Newton and agree with his open-minded view of the possible as opposed to just accepting that which is objectively verifiable as the only options to consider.

 

[2ndpillar]

My comments would be the same to both of you:

[1] OK, but apart from the comment on who is known as the father of science, I don't know why you wanted to tell me any of that or what it has to do with my post and

[2] Did you want to address what it said by either agreeing or saying what error you found and why you consider it an error?

My main point was that nothing Newton wrote that has had a lasting impact came from scripture or faith or that couldn't have been written if he were an atheist, and that when he did insert his religious beliefs into his work, he was corrected by a subsequent mathematician, Laplace, who also didn't rely on scripture. Is anything written there incorrect in the opinions of either of you, and if so, which part and what makes it incorrect to you.

I think what I wrote is accurate. The thing about correct ideas is that they can't be successfully refuted. They can be ignored, or as is the case here they can be answered with ideas that don't address them, but they cannot be shown to be incorrect, which I believe is the case here.

Incidentally, Newton's work was entitled, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica and is frequently referred to as just Principia. It was a treatise on celestial mechanics (physics). A different book written centuries later called just Principia Mathematica was written by an atheist (Bertrand Russell) and someone who called himself an agnostic (Alfred North Whitehead) and was about pure reason (logic and mathematics).

Anyway, please continue with your theological disputes. I just wanted to correct the statements about Newton. He's a very interesting case study because he lived on the cusp of modernity and had one foot in medieval superstition and one is mathematics and physics. He also did and wrote about alchemy, the faith-based precursor to chemistry, even as he was in the process of converting astrology to astronomy. And not surprisingly, his alchemy is ignored today.

Newton's research into changing base metals into gold, via the Philosophers’ Stone, led to other discoveries, and was an entryway to modern chemistry. According to "discover magazine", Newton claimed to have found the blueprint to the Philosopher stone. My guess is that he did, and it is found in the Bible, and is with respect to organizing the structure of nature. The organizing structure of nature can also be found in the works of Leonardo DaVinci. DaVinci was known for hiding truths by way of his works, in order to escape the wrath of the church. Galileo was not as wise and was punished for his brashness. Galileo was lucky to escape from being burned on a cross, but nonetheless suffered severely, and the by way of the Inquisition he suffered, and it broke him. But fear not, the Pope recently sent out an apology for the wrong they did Galileo and Joan of Arc, who did get burned on a cross. I expect the present pope is on his last legs, and I really don't expect another pope. Newton proposed that the millennium will start around the year 2030 with respect to his study of the bible. That may be so, but the "great tribulation" starts earlier, so don't get comfortable.

For centuries some of the world’s greatest geniuses struggled in secret to turn base metals into gold. In a sense they succeeded: In their restless quest, they unlocked some of nature’s greatest secrets. Isaac Newton, World's Most Famous Alchemist​

 

[2ndpillar]

I'll need to give this one more thought. The ark of the covenant would be more on par, given its content, to rules or instructions for raising children. I'm thinking Moses' basket and reed on to the commandments carved in stone, to Noah's ark and repopulating the earth, etc. after being required to avoid a flood and being displaced. The ark of the covenant contains what? A staff, a cup, and a few instructions. The reed may have been Moses' comfort in the basket like the staff he carried in the wilderness. The instructions adequate for raising a child and the cup a vessel to place elements for hydration in. The only one true standard to work from is flawed when parental guidance and concern is missing for the child required to honor them. That's when subjective and objective truth's are acknowledged together as better guides than 10 instructions given to a few particulars for the following.

Children in general are born children of God, and are one with God, because their hearts are not hardened. It is the hardening of their hearts by the hands of lawless, hypocritical parents which in time, hardens the hearts of children, and turns them into their lawless hypocrite parents. It is the parents who are not to murder their neighbors, or covet their goods or their wives, or steal or lie. Very few children murder their neighbors, or even have the ability to do so. Very few want to commit adultery or even have the ability to do so. The children only have to "honor they father and mother".

 

[Balthazzar]

Children in general are born children of God, and are one with God, because their hearts are not hardened. It is the hardening of their hearts by the hands of lawless, hypocritical parents which in time, hardens the hearts of children, and turns them into their lawless hypocrite parents. It is the parents who are not to murder their neighbors, or covet their goods or their wives, or steal or lie. Very few children murder their neighbors, or even have the ability to do so. Very few want to commit adultery or even have the ability to do so. The children only have to "honor they father and mother".

Pops says he's sending his boy to live with a group of misandrous woman who cling to misandry as if it were their religion, umm ... to be his mother due to him having difficulty being a good enough father to him. He's too poor and uneducated to offer him much of anything of quality. The ladies are eager to meet the boy, knowing he'll be a man one day. AND they're RICH he says. I suppose the boy is looking forward to it. The prospect of living with wealthy woman appeals to him so he's definitely honoring his father for making this decision for him. He knows he needs to honor mom too, but she's gone so he's ok with the move ... for the moment.

Haha ha hahaha haaaa

 

[Balthazzar]

Children in general are born children of God, and are one with God, because their hearts are not hardened. It is the hardening of their hearts by the hands of lawless, hypocritical parents which in time, hardens the hearts of children, and turns them into their lawless hypocrite parents. It is the parents who are not to murder their neighbors, or covet their goods or their wives, or steal or lie. Very few children murder their neighbors, or even have the ability to do so. Very few want to commit adultery or even have the ability to do so. The children only have to "honor they father and mother".

I'm a little taken back by your display of discontent. Curiosity may or may not get the best of me one day, but I'm curious ... I'm thinking you're being a little melodramatic with your points. "Hardened Hearts and Hypocrisy" - The triple H of the non-wrestling world arena. DegenerationX exemplified in a triple h play of words. I'm not trying to take you too serious.

Hardening of hearts, hypocritical and lawless parents - murderous, covetous, adulterous objects to be honored by decree of God.

Geez!