LAWS OF SCIENCE AS OPPOSED TO LAWS OF GOD AS

                          LAWS OF SCIENCE AS OPPOSED TO LAWS OF GOD AS

                                                ENUMERATED IN SCRIPTURE

Deists like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Thomas Paine and many of the founding fathers were so wise because the only truth that they accepted was God's Natural Law which cannot be interpreted or contradicted by anyone. They roundly refused to accept the authority of institutional religion and refused to accept the scriptures of those religions as “The Word of God”. In fact Thomas Paine went out of his way to debunk both the Old and New Testaments in his famous work, “The Age of Reason”.

What are some natural laws?

Due to the gravitational pull of the earth, we have The Law of Gravity and gravity cannot be contradicted. Objects will always fall DOWN or toward the earth. They will never fall UP. They may be projected up, as in the case of a missile, but then that's not their natural state, they are being projected upward by an outside source like a rocket engine.

The law of conservation of mass implies that mass cannot be created or destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space and changed into different types of particles; and that for any chemical process in a closed system, the mass of the reactants must equal the mass of the products.

Likewise, The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy may neither be created nor destroyed. Therefore the sum of all the energies in the system is a constant.

No matter how many experiments have been conducted, you will never find a contradiction of these laws. This is why they have become known as LAWS of science rather than just theories.

Books are written by men, translated into different languages by men and interpreted by men who usually do not know the author or his original intent. And if a book is written in an ancient language no longer in use, the translation is going to be all the more difficult.

If I wrote you a letter saying: "What a ball I had last night..." How will people 1000 years from now interpret that? Will they think that I threw a dance or will they think that I purchased a ball? Or will they think that I had a good time? If I wrote to you that I am "so drained by being in the presence of psychic vampires", how will that be interpreted 1000 years from now? Will they think that I believed in vampires and spent time with them? Will they think that all psychics are vampires or will they think that I am actually being drained of blood by vampires? Or will they think WHAT I MEANT, that some people drain me mentally and physically and that in 2011 they are commonly termed as "psychic vampires?"

You see, in order to give an accurate translation, the translators would have to know expressions and slang and dialects from 2011; otherwise they will come to wrong conclusions. And just look at how much the English language has changed in a mere 40 years? Now you tell me how translators in 1611 who translated the King James Bible could possibly have known slang and dialects from 500 BC? How accurate do you think their translations could possibly be?

Not only that, but the translators had AN AGENDA, just like the Roman Catholic Church had an agenda when they created their version, the Douay Rheims Version, to translate passages in such a way as to promote and support the King and the Church of England. Likewise, so did the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church when in the 4th century, they chose which books would be included in the Bible and which would not. The Catholic Church and Constantine only chose books that supported THEIR AGENDA and THEIR SUPREMACY. So how much trust can you put into a book of uncertain origins and which has been translated over and over during the last 2500 years?

You see talking heads on TV all the time trying to interpret what Shakespeare said or what Dante said or what Walt Whitman said. How can they possibly know, not having ever met or spoken with the author? It's all just conjecture and BS. And since God doesn't seem to speak to us directly, even if He WAS responsible for some of the scriptures, how could we ever hope to know what He really meant? Perhaps the scribes just added a little here and deleted a little there to suit their own purposes.

And how much trust can you put in a book of which there are no original copies in existence? We have the Sumerian cuneiform tablets enumerating their religious beliefs going back 5 to 6,000 years and we have the "pyramid texts" inscribed on the inner walls of pyramids and tombs going back some 4000 years, yet we have no copies of either the Ten Commandments nor of the Pentateuch (The Five Books of Moses) any older than from 500 BC. So which came first; the chicken or the egg? Is the Old Testament an original work inspired and written by God or merely a compilation of previously existing myths, stories and religious texts stolen from older religions and presented as new revellation direct from God?

Histories are usually written by the WINNER, not the loser, so they will always have a slant to them and never be objectively honest or true. Histories of the Civil War are markedly different depending on whether the historian was from the North of from the South. They may agree on incontrovertible facts which cannot be denied, like the fact that the South lost, but they will vary widely as to the causes of the war and justifications for the war.

Likewise, "Holy Books" written by the practitioners of one religion will most always contradict and disparage "Holy Books" written by a competitive religion. So who are we to believe? How can we possibly tell which "Holy Book" is "THE Holy Book" and especially when even people who claim the SAME "Holy Book" can't even agree on what IT says? There is no way that I know of in deciding which Holy Book is the real one. All you can do is choose the one you like best, but that won't make it true or the correct choice.

I think that most people simply choose what they were raised with because we don't want to offend our parents and grandparents, and we think that they knew best; but other than that, we really have no scientific or solid basis for making that choice. Just like people who say: "I'm a Republican because every member of my family has always been a Republican." But then in talking with them you may find that they believe in entitlements and socialism and big government, yet they claim to be Republicans, which shows that they don't even know what Republicans believe because if they did, they wouldn't be espousing the beliefs of Democrats, and yet they claim to be Republicans.

Very few people will investigate a new concept or a new religion without dragging their old beliefs into it. They won't give the new concept a chance because they are continually saying: "Well, I don't know if I can accept this, because this contradicts Jeremiah 6:12 or Micah 3:5 or whatever. Well, that's like saying: "I can't use a touch-tone phone because it doesn't have a dial and if it doesn't have a dial it can't be a real phone."

We will never learn anything new if we don't keep an open mind. A great sage once said: " You can't add anything to a glass that's already full." And this is very true. We need to empty our minds before trying to understand new concepts.