Reply to Mike Stahl
James Redford
I'm unaware of any publicly-available evidence that Prof. Frank J.
Tipler is a Catholic. I've heard this repeated by some people, of
which apparently originated with Martin Gardner ("The Strange Case of
Frank Jennings Tipler", Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 32.2, March/April
2008), who gives no indication that this statement of his is anything
more than his own supposition. Tipler was raised a Southern Baptist,
and then became an atheist at the age of 16 years.
Prof. Tipler's book The Physics of Christianity is an argument for the
truth of Jesus Christ being the Savior of the world and the Second
Person of the Trinity. So it's an error for you to say that Tipler
hasn't publicly accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, as his
book The Physics of Christianity is an argument for precisely that.
Moreover, merely because someone publicly proclaims Jesus Christ as
their Lord and Savior isn't by itself worth very much. After all, look
at how many politicians publicly claim to be Christians when they
obviously hold Christianity in contempt, such as the Bush patriarchs,
who are members of the dark occult organizations of Skull & Bones at
Yale; and the Bohemian Club, attending the macabre occult ceremonies
at Bohemian Grove in Monte Rio, California. As Jesus said, "For the
sons of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the sons
of light" (Luke 16:8). Rather, Jesus said that a person should be
judged by the fruits which they bear (Matthew 7:15-23).
The many worlds of the multiverse, which are an inherent consequence
of quantum mechanics, do not contradict the Bible. The King James
Version Bible, which you apparently endorse, states that "God, who at
sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers
by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,
whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the
worlds; .." (Hebrews 1:1,2), and "Through faith we understand that the
worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen
were not made of things which do appear" (Hebrews 11:3). Notice the
plural word "worlds". The word that the King James Version translates
as "worlds" is the plural Greek word "aeons", which is usually
translated as ages but can also be translated as worlds.
In Genesis, the King James Version goes on to state, "Thus the heavens
and the earth were finished, and all the host of them" (Genesis 2:1),
and "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when
they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the
heavens ..." (Genesis 2:4). Notice the plural word "heavens". The New
King James Version and the English Standard Version translate the
passages in Genesis 1 as "heavens", plural.
To maintain that the multiverse doesn't exist, besides violating
quantum mechanics, is also imposing a limit on God's creative
abilities. But this is a logical contradiction, because if God's
creative abilities were finite instead of infinite, then it would not
be God, Who is the only infinite being.
Pastor Stahl, you state, "Additionally, if everything that can happen
happens, who or what needs to be God?" As Prof. Tipler points out in
his book The Physics of Christianity, existence cannot exist without
God, i.e., the Uncaused First Cause and the Uncaused Final Cause,
i.e., the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. Nor does
everything happen in the multiverse: only those things which are
consistent with the laws of physics.
As Prof. Tipler points out, Jesus Christ's miracles of Feeding the
Multitude can also be explained by baryogenic materialization using
electroweak quantum tunneling controlled via the Principle of Least
Action by the physical requirement of the existence of the Omega Point
(i.e., the physicists' technical term for God the Father). It's
incorrect to state that Tipler rejects these two miracles. Rather, he
offered an explanation for those two miracles which you happen to
disagree with. I think that the aforesaid baryogenic materialization
process is the most likely explanation.
On this same matter, you go on to say, "Well, he [Tipler] might as
well just be calling Jesus a liar! Either a person believes the ENTIRE
Bible--from Genesis to Revelation, or they don't believe ANY of it!
And in the case of the latter, if they want to pick and choose what
parts to believe and what parts not to believe (as the majority of the
religious denominations do), then they are NOT Christians--PERIOD!!
The entire Bible is the Word of God!!" Again, Tipler isn't calling
Jesus a liar because Jesus didn't state what the physical mechanism is
that He used to perform the two miracles of Feeding the Multitude; and
Tipler additionally points out that these two miracles can also be
explained by the above-mentioned baryogenesis mechanism.
Regarding believing in the entire Bible, there has never existed a
person who believes in the entire Bible. The reason for this is
because this task isn't logically possible, as--particularly the Old
Testament (Tanakh)--contains a number of contradictions (the few
contradictions found in the New Testament are presicely the kind one
would expect from authentic history).
The pagan religion of the Hebrews evolved in time to the monotheism of
what we now regard as modern Judaism, though the Torah reflects the
strong polytheism of its roots: the plural "elohim", the gods, became
in time God. Yet our modern translations still preserve the
polytheistic roots of Judiasm: "created in *our* image", etc. In the
Hebrew, the first creation account of Genesis 1-2:3 is purely
polytheistic throughout. It's only in translation where this is
obscured.
Indeed, some forms of human sacrifice for purely religious purposes
were retained within Pentateuch Judaism, i.e., Judaic human-sacrifice
rituals can actually be found in the Torah and early Nevi'im books,
supposedly sanctified by God (viz., Judges 11:29-40; Leviticus
27:28,29; Exodus 13:1,2; 13:11-16; 22:29,30). But then, the actual
prophets (principally from Isaiah on) and Yeshua Ha'Mashiach spoke out
against much of the supposed Law of Moses, and a number of them were
murdered by the Israeli priestcraft for doing so. (For examples of
this rejection just regarding the Torah laws on animal sacrifice, see
Psalms 40:6-8; Isaiah 1:11-14; Jeremiah 7:21,22; 8:8; Hosea 6:6; Amos
5:21,22; Hebrews 10:4-7.)
The above matters bring up another issue. The teachings of Yeshua
Ha'Mashiach's ministry itself necessitates the involvement of a
superintelligence, since it is so spectacularly advanced beyond that
age, and indeed this age: as mankind to this date is of a barbaric and
primitive nature, and still a long way (morally speaking) from
catching up with Christ.
The passages that you quote regarding the "Word" (John 17:17; Hebrews
4:12), are in the orginal Greek "Logos", which is a word that doesn't
refer to the Scriptures. Rather, God *is* the Logos itself (John
1:1-5). The word "Logos" means reason; logic; computation; i.e., the
usage of *words*. In other words, the Logos is thought; cogitation;
ratiocination; cerebration--but more than just the process of logic,
it is also the rules-set itself, i.e., it is logic itself. That is,
God is logic itself. Indeed, the most direct translation
etymologically of the Greek word "logos" into English is "logic".
Yeshua Ha'Mashiach said that there are only two requirements for a
person to receive eternal life (Luke 10:25-28). But these two
requirements actually logically reduce to only one requirement: to
love your neighbor as yourself. As Jesus said anything that we do to
any of the least of His brethren we do to Him (Matthew 25:31-46). So
if we truly love each other then we automatically love God as well.
One might point out the Mark of the Beast (Revelation 13:16-18;
14:9-11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4) as being an example of a possible
exception to Jesus's statement in Luke 10:25-28, as Revelation states
that all who accept the Mark of the Beast shall not receive eternal
life. But in addition to being required for buying and selling in the
future cashless society, the Mark of the Beast will also be a loyalty
test by the worldwide governmental Beast system, and the masses who go
along with the Beast system will also be used against those who refuse
(such as acting as informants, etc.), which is a definite violation of
the Golden Rule which Christ commanded as the supreme law (Matthew
7:12; Luke 6:31; see also Matthew 19:19; 22:36-40; Mark 12:28-34; Luke
10:25-28; and see John 15:12,17; 13:15,34,35; 1 John 3:11,12,23;
4:11,20,21).
Interestingly, the U.S. Department of Defense stated in its
million-dollar report Air Force 2025 (August 1996), Vol. 3, Ch. 2:
"Information Operations: A New War-Fighting Capability", p. 36, that
it wants the entire civilian populace implanted with what it terms
"brain chips" by the year 2025 in order to track and trace everyone's
activities.
So one decidedly ought to avoid adding commands and doctrines of men
as if adherence to them is required by God in order to receive eternal
life. Indeed, they can only interfere with the goal of obtaining
eternal life by getting people to worry about things that don't
matter, and indeed by causing people to violate God's true law. Jesus
Christ is quite clear in Luke 10:25-28 as to what all is required in
order to receive eternal life.
By the way, Pastor Stahl, you have the same last name as the blogger
you mentioned above who posts under the name Copernicus, as another
name he's known by is Philip A. Stahl.
----------------------------------------
James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science
Research Network (SSRN), revised and expanded edition, October 17,
2009 (originally published December 19, 2001)
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761 ,
http://theophysics.chimehost.net/anarchist-jesus.pdf ,
http://theophysics.ifastnet.com/anarchist-jesus.html
Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (a website with information
on Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory and the quantum gravity
Theory of Everything [TOE]) http://theophysics.chimehost.net ,
http://theophysics.host56.com
James Redford
It's not true that anyone can make the Bible say what they want it to
say. The original manuscripts don't vary that much, and in toto what
differences they do contain don't change any doctrinal matters. For
example, Jesus Christ is quite clear in Luke 10:25-28 as to what all
is required in order to receive eternal life; and Christ unambiguously
commanded the Golden Rule as the supreme law (Matthew 7:12; Luke 6:31;
see also Matthew 19:19; 22:36-40; Mark 12:28-34; Luke 10:25-28; and
see John 15:12,17; 13:15,34,35; 1 John 3:11,12,23; 4:11,20,21). As
well, I showed you where the King James Version Bible, which you
apparently endorse, implies that the multiverse exists (at least when
using your exact exegetical methodology on this subject).
Nor does the fact that God has been proven to exist according to the
known laws of physics leave no room for faith. Recall that Jesus
Christ in part defined Himself as the truth (John 14:6). Hence, truth,
particularly scientific truth, confirms the existence of God and Jesus
Christ as the Second Person of the Trinity.
Faith in the Christian sense is trust in the truth (i.e.,
equivalently, trust in Jesus Christ), even when things seem hopeless.
It does not mean a lack of rationality in coming to belief in Jesus
Christ. Indeed, Paul appealed to reason when he wrote in Romans
1:19,20 that an understanding of the natural world leads to knowledge
of God:
""
because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has
shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible
attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without
excuse, ...
""
After all, some form of reason must be used in order for a person to
convert in belief from one religion to another; or from any belief to
another belief, for that matter. It can either be veridical reason, or
false reason--but some process of reasoning must be involved.
Having faith in God is having trust in the truth, since the Godhead in
all its fullness is the highest obtainment of truth: said state is the
perfection of all knowledge.
Continuing on, I am again unaware of any publicly-available evidence
that Prof. Frank J. Tipler is a Catholic. I was already aware of that
article by Robert Baker ("Nutty Professors, or Some Addled
Academics?", Skeptical Briefs, Vol. 4.4, December 1994). Yet Baker is
incorrect in his assertion. At that time Tipler was still an atheist.
Perhaps this is where Martin Gardner got the idea that Tipler is a
Catholic.
In closing, I, too, will continue to pray for your salvation, as well
as all nonbelievers.