>> ^quantumushroom:

Remove God---fictional or not---from the equation and you make the State a god by proxy, an evil god that kills whomever opposes it.
China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Soviet Union. Case dismissed.


This is how it's been my friend.

Don't bother mentioning those cases in history where Emperors/Kings were godheads by divine right and worshiped as the human embodiments of God on Earth, because that would like, totally undermine your argument and stuff.

"Remove Zeus---fictional or not---from the equation and you make the State a god by proxy, an evil god that kills whomever opposes it." - Quantomos Mushromolis, 400 BC

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Good reading Enoch - I may not agree with a good portion of what you are writing about- but I think I can see where you're coming from.

I do believe that all life is connected in that we share a common experience of being alive. Beyond that I'm less than certain. I have qualms about the notion of a "spirit". It's a nebulous concept that leads to terms like "energy transfer", "harmonics" and just about anything else found in a Deepak Chopra book.

Being alive is enough for me - I don't feel the need for divinity in my life- and I hope someday the rest of the human race feels the same. >> ^enoch:

ok..
i'll chime in.
this is usually a discussion i save for something more..i dont know..in the same room type of deal.
and try to avoid internet discussions (context gets lost and the discussion has..by design..a polemic frame to it).
as some of you know i am a minister yet a can assume (with mild amusement i must add) that my comments and some of my posts may have you wondering..minister of what exactly?
well..dont get yer panties in a bunch,i am not going to do any preaching here.
all i am going to do is point out something that i find most atheists struggle with.
spirit,divinity,soul,chai,doktow,connection to the godhead..
whatever you wish to use as an adjective to define your own divinity.
what has EVERY religion,all 4500 on the planet,have in common?
that we have a soul,a spirit,a direct link to the cosmic consciousness.
argue all day on doctrine and dogma,translation but that remains the constant.
atheists do not believe in the spirit.that is their choice and they may change their mind or they may never change it.
now..
if one is an atheist they rely on science and not religious doctrine to make choices,decisions and judgements.
not a bad way to be,science has given us much.
but dag pointed out the fundamental breakdown between an atheist and someone who is aware of their true self..or spirit if you like.
he does not understand how such advanced civilizations would even bother with a race so obviously low on the civilization scale.
to study us..sure..but WHY else?
and there my friends is the disconnect.
the WHY.
the atheist..by his own belief system is literally pure ego.now i do not mean that in a derogatory way,just pointing out a fact.the ego is mind..a creation of not who we actually ARE but who we THINK we are.
so you can still be a kick ass person and still be pure ego.takes discipline though and an agile mind but it has and can be done.
the person who has become aware of their true selves ignores the ego and listens to their true self.
i am not saying one is greater or better than the other just pointing out the differences and their basic mechanics.
so..establishing the inherent differences let me explain my point.
dag does not understand because to him..we would be only a mild curiosity,but to the spiritually aware person we realize that all life is connected..especially sentient life and we are sentient but not all of us are awake.
it is this connection that all life recognizes on one level or another...even atheists.
i am no greater nor more important than a blade of grass.to you this may seem silly and even dimwitted but i assure you it is not that way and it is the more freeing than you can imagine.
no fear..no hate..no shame nor guilt.
how is that possible?
because i am aware of who i truly am and who you are and i make my choices accordingly.
so if we look at these "aliens" as not simply studying as us ants but rather as seeing us as little brothers and sisters struggling to take our first steps.then maybe we can take it a step further and look into the construct of time...lay it out like a canvas and ask..why the fuck are we even here?
are we ants to be studied?a populace to be controlled so we can buy more useless crap? on a never -ending treadmill of debt,fear and uncertainty?
or maybe the universe is far more wonderous and un-imaginable than we can even attempt to comprehend today?
maybe the universe is not so big after all?we just dont know it yet...but we will.
and im betting science will tell us how it works too!
now i dont know if aliens are here to help us walk.i dont know if they have been studying us for future food harvesting.i dont even know if they exist.
but there is a lot of information...and more and more people coming forward to tell their stories.
so a sit and watch with fascination and wonder and ask..is what they are saying true?
i dont know.i have not seen an alien nor have i been abducted but i HAVE seen some of the most extrordinary events that defy all description and laws of nature.
so just because i have not seen nor touched it i cant rule out somebody elses experience and so i sit,like dag and others,skeptical.
but i also wont rule anything out because "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."WS
but if you add the spirit element and that we are all connected.
each and every lifeform in the universe is connected.
aliens coming to help us in our next stage of evolution may not make more sense but it sure does feel/seem/sound better.
reality is the illusion gentlemen.
it is thought and consciousness that is real.

ok..
i'll chime in.
this is usually a discussion i save for something more..i dont know..in the same room type of deal.
and try to avoid internet discussions (context gets lost and the discussion has..by design..a polemic frame to it).
as some of you know i am a minister yet a can assume (with mild amusement i must add) that my comments and some of my posts may have you wondering..minister of what exactly?
well..dont get yer panties in a bunch,i am not going to do any preaching here.
all i am going to do is point out something that i find most atheists struggle with.
spirit,divinity,soul,chai,doktow,connection to the godhead..
whatever you wish to use as an adjective to define your own divinity.
what has EVERY religion,all 4500 on the planet,have in common?
that we have a soul,a spirit,a direct link to the cosmic consciousness.
argue all day on doctrine and dogma,translation but that remains the constant.
atheists do not believe in the spirit.that is their choice and they may change their mind or they may never change it.
now..
if one is an atheist they rely on science and not religious doctrine to make choices,decisions and judgements.
not a bad way to be,science has given us much.
but dag pointed out the fundamental breakdown between an atheist and someone who is aware of their true self..or spirit if you like.
he does not understand how such advanced civilizations would even bother with a race so obviously low on the civilization scale.
to study us..sure..but WHY else?
and there my friends is the disconnect.
the WHY.
the atheist..by his own belief system is literally pure ego.now i do not mean that in a derogatory way,just pointing out a fact.the ego is mind..a creation of not who we actually ARE but who we THINK we are.
so you can still be a kick ass person and still be pure ego.takes discipline though and an agile mind but it has and can be done.
the person who has become aware of their true selves ignores the ego and listens to their true self.
i am not saying one is greater or better than the other just pointing out the differences and their basic mechanics.
so..establishing the inherent differences let me explain my point.
dag does not understand because to him..we would be only a mild curiosity,but to the spiritually aware person we realize that all life is connected..especially sentient life and we are sentient but not all of us are awake.
it is this connection that all life recognizes on one level or another...even atheists.
i am no greater nor more important than a blade of grass.to you this may seem silly and even dimwitted but i assure you it is not that way and it is the more freeing than you can imagine.
no fear..no hate..no shame nor guilt.
how is that possible?
because i am aware of who i truly am and who you are and i make my choices accordingly.
so if we look at these "aliens" as not simply studying as us ants but rather as seeing us as little brothers and sisters struggling to take our first steps.then maybe we can take it a step further and look into the construct of time...lay it out like a canvas and ask..why the fuck are we even here?
are we ants to be studied?a populace to be controlled so we can buy more useless crap? on a never -ending treadmill of debt,fear and uncertainty?
or maybe the universe is far more wonderous and un-imaginable than we can even attempt to comprehend today?
maybe the universe is not so big after all?we just dont know it yet...but we will.
and im betting science will tell us how it works too!

now i dont know if aliens are here to help us walk.i dont know if they have been studying us for future food harvesting.i dont even know if they exist.
but there is a lot of information...and more and more people coming forward to tell their stories.
so a sit and watch with fascination and wonder and ask..is what they are saying true?
i dont know.i have not seen an alien nor have i been abducted but i HAVE seen some of the most extrordinary events that defy all description and laws of nature.
so just because i have not seen nor touched it i cant rule out somebody elses experience and so i sit,like dag and others,skeptical.
but i also wont rule anything out because "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."WS

but if you add the spirit element and that we are all connected.
each and every lifeform in the universe is connected.
aliens coming to help us in our next stage of evolution may not make more sense but it sure does feel/seem/sound better.
reality is the illusion gentlemen.
it is thought and consciousness that is real.

To: eric3579 and all those who are like-minded!

You will see Kent Hovind on the Day you stand before your Creator and Intelligent Designer of all things. Kent Hovind will be sitting in Judgment of you, with the Lord Jesus Christ. You will quiver, wail, and your knees shake and buckle causing you to fall on your face as a dead man, pleading for mercy, but it will be too late!........unless...........you heed this Prophets warning and Repent of your sins and believe in the Lord of Lords, Jesus the Christ.

Did you know the Bible speaks of you Ignoramuses?

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
1Co 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
1Co 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
1Co 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
1Co 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
1Co 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
1Co 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1Co 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
1Co 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
1Co 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
1Co 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

You've been warned!

Oppression and resistance, governance and disobedience, can be visualised as one single system and process. This appears to me to be throughout all of nature and physics. As above, so below, all the way down to the very last fundamental godhead of every single thing we measure and experience.

When you think about the question with this in mind, you start to see both government and resistance to government being equally as important to the whole system. This is how the whole thing moves forward.

Every now and again it shifts, reverses poles.

So my response to the extremely thought-provoking question in this clip, would seem to be this...

There never *can* be any artificially created constraint or set of limits as to how far resistance to government will go. It will go as far as it needs to and no farther, in order to remiss a growing influence from its opposite. The primary driving influence is *always* the greater good of the whole.

I strongly feel that Terence McKenna shared this view.

We merely identify with and relate to the territorial ownership procured by the protagonist in dealing with his newly-found conquest. In other words: Yeah, that's what I'd love to do to her, and this guy is the embodiment of my desires. He is the Godhead by which I measure myself, and his conquest is that which I would also love to tap.

But in all seriousness, it really is akin to a woman saying, "Look at her handbag! It's so great! I want one just like it!" Jealousy mixed with hopeful anticipation of someday being in that person's situation.

I can't believe I'm trying to scientifically justify watching some random guy cum on some random woman.

>> ^Octopussy:
>> ^thinker247:
You know how dogs piss on a tree to mark their territory...
>> "


But, that is exactly my point: what's the use of all that territorial marking if the male audience is not put off or maybe even aroused by another guy's marking?

Alright, I can roll with this. Just to let you know, I’m not going to go to any internet sources to argue against points you make here. This is all out of my own little brain, so I apologize if it is vague...or whatever.

First of all, Qruel, you describe the differences between the CJCLDS and “biblical Christianity”. Would you mind telling me what biblical Christianity is? As far as I can tell, interpretations of the Bible among Christians are hugely varied. Not only that, but there are several versions of the Bible that are vastly contradictory to one another. Some denominations have gone so far as to simplify the Bible into more understandable language. I haven’t seen any big objections to that sort of thing going on. You asked, “How would you feel if one day someone all of a sudden added religious books onto biblical scripture that changed much of the philosophy of the Christian faith and even went as far as to say that the bible has been corrupted and that the new books were now the "true" word of god.” I ask you how you would feel if God felt that it was time to give us additional scripture. What if at this time He chose to give us scripture that is more applicable to our day, more concise, more clear, more easy to understand? Anyone who has ever read the Bible on their own knows that it can be hard to understand and that it often seems to contradict itself. What if He restored prophets to the Earth? What if modern revelation exists just as it did long ago? Nobody “changed” anything here, Qruel. The Bible HAS been corrupted. It’s made obvious simply by the fact that there are different versions! Why is it so ridiculous to suppose that there is no one translation of the Bible that is entirely accurate? It’s been a long time since it was written. By stating that we believe the Bible as far as it is translated correctly, we are not disqualifying the Bible! We love and use the Bible every day! I spent two years of my life studying it in high school, and a semester in college. I study it every week in church. I read it before bed. We read and believe in the King James Version. We just don’t want to state that we believe false translations of the Bible. What the heck is so offensive about that?

“It should be noted that the LDS Church frequently uses terminology similar to that of biblical Christianity in communicating its doctrines, but often with drastically different meanings or connotations. This tends to obscure the fundamental differences in doctrine to the casual observer.”

Yes, we interpret the Bible very differently from most people. Catholics interpret the Bible very differently from most people. Baptists interpret the Bible very differently from most people. Presbyterians interpret the Bible very differently from most people.

As I’ve stated before, there are many interpretations of the Bible. I love how Christians all of a sudden lump themselves together when they talk about how LDS doctrine “drastically differs” from mainstream Christianity. Since when did all those Christians agree with each other? What is mainstream Christianity? What does it believe? Sure, you can make some generalizations, but even the nature of the Trinity is disputed among Christians. The Book of Mormon does not contradict the Bible as we interpret it. The Bible doesn’t contradict Christian doctrine as they interpret it. Big whoop-di-doo. Now all of a sudden our interpretation is bogus just because it isn’t popular. Alrighty, then.

“This teaching is generally not publically promoted in modern times, nevertheless, the internal teachings state that the other denominations are "abominations" to God, and that the LDS Church is the only true church that bears the "restored" gospel of Jesus Christ.”

This is a blatant attempt to make it seem like we’re ashamed of the belief that we are the only true church. I certainly am not afraid of that principle. I’m proud of it. Any church that doesn’t believe it is the only true church is full of it. Logically, rationally, there cannot be more than one truth about any one thing. There cannot be three distinct AND true ways to interpret the nature of God. It’s ridiculous. Any church that claims to preach truth and only truth must logically claim that it is the ONLY truth. We may not blab about it all the time because we don’t want to offend people. Any member of the church who seeks to apologize for this doctrine is missing the point. The opposite of truth is lies. Lies are an abomination. I’m sorry if calling other churches an abomination to God hurts people's feelings.

“The LDS Church teaches that all humans existed prior to life on earth as the "spirit children" of the Heavenly Father (and his wife/wives) in heaven, and that our earthly birth came about when our spirit willingly chose to inhabit a physical body on earth.”

This is just a difference in interpretation of the doctrine that we are all children of God. We take it more literally. This doctrine can be backed up by the Bible. I don’t think any more needs to be said on the topic.

“LDS theology states that God (or more commonly referred to as "Heavenly Father") is an exalted and glorified man, that he has a physical (albeit immortal) body. It is also taught that qualifying Mormons can also become gods, just like the Heavenly Father, in the next life, and produce spirit offspring (presumably to populate another earth.). The doctrine of the Trinity as accepted by Biblical Christianity is rejected by LDS theology. The LDS Church teaches that both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are "spirit children" of God, and that Jesus is unique in that he is also the fleshly son of God (conceived by a physical union of the Heavenly Father and Mary). It is also taught that Lucifer, or Satan, is also one of the Heavenly Father's spirit-children, making him a "spirit brother" Jesus.”

The phrasing of the sentence, “It is also taught that qualifying Mormons can also become gods, just like the Heavenly Father…” is confusing. We believe that everyone can become gods. We also believe that baptism is a necessary ordinance in order to become a god. We believe that only through the power of God, the priesthood, can people be baptized. We also believe that the priesthood must be given by someone who has it. Before Joseph Smith restored the church, the priesthood did not exist on the Earth because it had been lost and so we believe that no one but the members of our church hold the true priesthood and the authority to baptize. So, yes, you have to become a member of our church in order to receive the ordinance of baptism in this life. But if you die without ever becoming Mormon, all is not lost. You’ve still got time.

Remind me to talk about eternal progression into gods and the separate nature of the Godhead at another time. I don’t have the energy right now and it’s going to take a lot of explanation.

“The LDS Church accepts the Book of Mormon as their primary scripture and the inspired Word of God, supplemented by the Doctrine & Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. The Bible is accepted as the Word of God only insofar as it has been translated correctly. However, the qualifier attached to the Bible substantiates a belief that the Bible has been significantly corrupted over the centuries, and is therefore not entirely reliable as the Word of God.”

“Primary scripture”? I’ve never heard that before. Can any Mormons around here tell me if they agree that the Book of Mormon is our primary scripture? I already addressed the issue of the translation of the Bible. I would like to restate that if you came to our church and saw the way that we treat the Bible you would see that we do not disqualify the Bible but that we occasionally refer to a Joseph Smith translation which usually differs only slightly, but may differ quite a bit in some cases. But, honestly, it isn’t as if we took all of the scriptures about one topic and changed them to fit into our doctrine.

“Generally speaking, prophecy is seen as progressive and changeable. New revelations are not uncommon throughout their history, and critics will point out that many of these revelations tend to be revelations of convenience in order to accommodate a particular circumstance or situation. A case in point is the revelation that allowing of African-Americans to enter the priesthood (which had been prohibited until the 1970s). Other prophecies, such as Joseph Smith's claims about what will be found on the moon, have remained (and are likely to remain) unfulfilled.”

This is where I’ll leave it for now. I’ll come back to the rest of this stuff later if a have time or the inclination. But, first, I have to break my rule and use an internet source to address the issue of moon-men. I love that little drive-by jab at Joseph Smith. I had never heard of that before so I did a search and I’m just going to post the first two relevant things I found on the topic.

“The idea that Joseph taught the moon is inhabited comes from the writing of Oliver B. Huntington in 1881 (his journal) and in 1892 (the Young Woman's Journal). Huntington claimed that Joseph Smith's father had given him a patriarchal blessing in 1837 which promised that he would preach the gospel to the moon inhabitants.
Close examination reveals that Huntington was only ten years old when he was given this blessing and that his recollections were made over fifty years later. Also, it turns out that the blessing was given by his own father, not Joseph Smith's father.
According to a copy of the blessing in the Church archives (Blessing Book, vol.9, pp.294-95), it was only one of many given the same day at the same meeting, and none were recorded in detail at the time. Orson Pratt took sketchy notes as the blessings were given, then filled in details later by consulting those who were there. An examination of the blessing shows that the recorded blessing was much more vague than Huntington remembered.
It also appears that Huntington may have picked up on a rumor that Joseph Smith had given a description of the inhabitants of the moon. This description, which Huntington recorded in his journal, is the original source of the anti-Mormon claim that Joseph described the moon inhabitants. Because his journal is also cited in a Young Woman's publication of the Church, it supposedly gives more credibility to the critics. The statement, which appeared in a two-page article by Oliver B. Huntington entitled "The Inhabitants of the Moon" in the Young Woman's Journal, is as follows:
As far back as 1837, I know that he [Joseph SmithJ said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and that they lived to a greater age than we do. That they live generally to near the age of a 1,000 years.
He described the men as averaging nearly six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style (Young Woman's Journal, Vol.3, p.263).
From what is quoted here, the most we can conclude is that 0. B. Huntington was familiar with rumors of statements that were attributed to Joseph Smith. However, there is nothing in the writings of Joseph Smith or those who recorded his words prior to his death that even hints of any these views about inhabitants on the moon. This earliest recollection was recorded in 1881, 37 years after the prophet's death.
Even if it turned out that the prophet held these views, nowhere does scripture suggest that a prophet is not allowed to speculate about things that haven't been revealed. Many people during the Nineteenth Century, both the learned and not-so-learned, were speculating on this subject. Joseph Smith's personal opinions and what he taught as revealed doctrine, however, are two entirely different things. The idea that he taught it as a revealed doctrine is based upon Oliver B. Huntington's fifty-year-old, correct or incorrect memory of his blessing, and a rumor that was current in 1881.”

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/moon.htm

President Henry B. Eyring said,
“Now what about the Prophet Joseph Smith? I don't know whether he said men live on the moon or not. But whether he did or not troubles me not in the least. A prophet is wonderful because he sometimes speaks for the Lord. This occurs on certain occasions when the Lord wills it. On other occasions, he speaks for himself, and one of the wonderful doctrines of this Church is that we don't believe in the infallibility of any mortal. If in his speculations the Prophet thought there were people on the moon, this has no effect on my belief that on other occasions, when the Lord willed it, he spoke the ideas that the Lord inspired him to say. It is for these moments of penetrating insight that I honor and follow him.”

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/moonmen.htm

I guess this is some kind of pet argument against the validity of the prophet Joseph. The website Qruel copied from is so obviously propaganda meant to hurt the CJCLDS it makes me laugh. Silliness, silliness. I think that little side note that they throw in about the moon is pretty underhanded. They probably don’t expect anybody to actually look into it. This is pretty characteristic of these websites and the people who so devoutly believe them.

I lied again. One last thing. By arguing these points, I'm attempting to show that Mormons are not Christians as Christians define themselves today. To me, Christians today represent a skewed form of Christianity. This is my personal opinion, by the way. I want to be called Christian because I am Christian. Maybe the rest of them aren't.

I am not sure what this video hoped to prove. It is easy to find intelligent people on both sides of the debate. However, I would submit, that the following list of THEISTS is far more impressive than the people mentioned in this video.

• Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497.

• Sir Fancis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion….

• Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born!

• Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.

• Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy.

• Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. He was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."

• Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...

• Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature.

• Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism

• William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions.

• Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"

• Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."