The Author of Confusion

Hello Roslyn

Thanks for the feedback

I agree with you about the media, they have their own agenda in every subject and we tend to get molded the way they want us.

It doesn't surprise me that those involved in the "hard sciences" (physics, biology, astronomy) have more faith than those involved in pseudo-sciences such as psychology and philosophy. When someone intimately examines God's magnificent creation, whether on a microscopic or universal level, they cannot help but be overawed by it's perfection and design.

I read most of your book. I like it, a condensed journey through the bible in bite-size pieces, very easy to follow. I think it will help people to familiarise themselves with Gods word.

I don't agree with everything you write in it but, I am very glad you use God's personal name, not many people do these days, sadly. Did you know that you have a fraction symbol scattered throughout the pages of your book? I think it must be a broken key or something (or is it intentional?).

Keep up the good work.

Regards

Steve

.

Yes, i also believe the press and culture and publications are also responsible for ideas presented in s are ongoing and ever changing with new observations and facts collected. Theory is ever changing in light of the rest. Your arguments are good and to point out but I don't really think it is science itself is the causes the falling away from Scripture. My husband an avid reader in fact found an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education years ago that had information about faith and profession, findings from a study found that the hard sciences had more believers of Christ than the profession of psychology. I am not sure any present day studies have been done to confirm this finding but I do know that more and more studies are becoming harder and harder to perform because this data is not being collected or becoming illegal to collect. Even along with data to support such findings or to allow such studies. You are making some good points here. Your arguments are laid out in a comprehensive way. I will give your work high stars and hope for you the best on getting your work published.
Roslyn
"I Am" Through the Ages, for your seeking heart
Scribe-Lings, for your child like heart

Yes, i also believe the press and culture and publications are also responsible for ideas presented in science even more than the scientific community does all on it's own. The scientist know their work and findings are ongoing and ever changing with new observations and facts collected. Theory is ever changing in light of the rest. Your arguments are good and to point out but I don't really think it is science itself is the causes the falling away from Scripture. My husband an avid reader in fact found an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education years ago that had information about faith and profession, findings from a study found that the hard sciences had more believers of Christ than the profession of psychology. I am not sure any present day studies have been done to confirm this finding but I do know that more and more studies are becoming harder and harder to perform because this data is not being collected or becoming illegal to collect. Even along with data to support such findings or to allow such studies. You are making some good points here. Your arguments are laid out in a comprehensive way. I will give your work high stars and hope for you the best on getting your work published.
Roslyn
"I Am" Through the Ages, for your seeking heart
Scribe-Lings, for your child like heart

Hello Michael

Thank you for the positive feedback and the advice. I appreciate what you are saying about reviewing others work and editing but, unfortunately, my circumstances don't permit me to spend much time and energy on "Autonomy." But I will try, starting with your book. Did you know that you spelled the word "greatest" wrong in your introduction?

I am very surprised that you believe what you do about the trinity. I haven't met many people who questioned the doctrine and I have met many who ferociously (often in a very unChristian manner!) defend it. It is a pleasure to make your acquaintance. I would be very interested in hearing your opinion on the other chapters of my book, if you have the time to read them. I will give you some feedback on your book as soon as I get some time.

All the best.

Steve

Hi Steve't
I like your introduction. We must stand on what the Bible actually states, not man's imterpretation of it that completely contradicts what is plainly written.
I have read your chapter on the Trniity. Whereas myself I can accept a 'Trinity' if you like, I know it could not be an equal Trinity for the Father is greater than the Son(John14:28) and the Father is the one true God(John17:3)
There is nowhere written in the Bible that Christ is the one true God, or that eternal life hinges on such a belief, it is a man made demand that became official 300 years after Christ died on the cross.
I admire you sticking with scripture on this rather than being persuaded by man. For this reason alone,I am happy to give your book a spin on my bookshelf. I will try and read more of your writing as time allows

BTW
I was pleased to read your understanding of John 10:30 by quoting John17:21&22, I myself have often quoted the latter to others to explain the former. It is an encouragement to me that I am not alone such thinking.
God Bless

Hi Steve
I like your introduction. We must stand on what the Bible actually states, not man's imterpretation of it that completely contradicts what is plainly written.
I have read your chapter on the Trniity. Whereas myself I can accept a 'Trinity' if you like, I know it could not be an equal Trinity for the Father is greater than the Son(John14:28) and the Father is the one true God(John17:3)
There is nowhere written in the Bible that Christ is the one true God, or that eternal life hinges on such a belief, it is a man made demand that became official 300 years after Christ died on the cross.
I admire you sticking with scripture on this rather than being persuaded by man. For this reason alone,I am happy to give your book a spin on my bookshelf. I will try and read more of your writing as time allows

BTW
I was pleased to read your understanding of John 10:30 by quoting John17:21&22, I myself have often quoted the latter to others to explain the former. It is an encouragement to me that I am not alone with such thinking.
God Bless

Hello J

Thank you for your positive comments and for backing my book. Yes, I am glad to bring attention to god's word, even if it is because of contoversy. I appreciate your support.

I was intrigued by the subject of your own book and I intend to read at least some of it (when I get a breather!) . I have sometimes asked myself if my attitude towards the Bible might be different if I were a woman. But, like you, I have taken the time and effort to try to understand God's thinking about His female creation. I have found that, far from demeaning women or relegating their importance to him, God values and cherishes women as much as he does men. We all have our place and part to play in God's divine plan and I have always found that life runs more smoothly when we co-operate with His will instead of resisting it.

I will let you have my thoughts on your book when I have read some.

Regarding your comments about me including references, I'm not sure what you mean. I always refer to the scriptures to back up everything I say.

I wish you peace.

Steve

i understand your message in this book. and people need to do their homework. this requires a Bible and some references, and then they can draw their own conclusions. either they will agree with you or have reason to disagree. but to get believers to think is necessary, and i think you have done that. i must say that if you don't have a list of references, you should, even if there are not many. this will add credibility to your work, which you must have due its topic....
j
what every woman should know

i understand your message in this book. and people need to do their homework. this requires a Bible and some references, and then they can draw their own conclusions. either they will agree with you or have reason to disagree. but to get believers to think is necessary, and i think you have done that. i must say that if you don't have a list of references, you should, even if there are not many. this will add credibility to your work, which you must have due its topic....
j
what every woman should know

Hello David

Thank you for your positive comments. I am definately with you in the defence of God's word. I know that we may not agree on all of the Bible's teachings but, it is good to be able to discuss the Bible with you.

I wish you well.

Snufkin

Your book is a bold attempt to address a vast and compelling issue in the professing Church. You evidently have a zeal for the Bible and your effort is indeed. The Bible, as you noted, is increasingly being pushed to the back burner and it is my hope that your work would contribute to awakening Christians to the critical place of the divine Word and its indispensability to faith and practice. The imperative of a work like yours is heightened by the fact that there also seems to be a calculated attempt to completely discredit the Word and rid it of its authority. The consequences of the success of such in any quarter can only be imagined. Thanks for this offering. Grace be with you always.

Your book is a bold attempt to address a vast and compelling issue in the professing Church. You evidently have a zeal for the Bible and your effort is indeed. The Bible, as you noted, is increasingly being pushed to the back burner and it is my hope that your work would contribute to awakening Christians to the critical place of the divine Word and its indispensability to faith and practice. The imperative of a work like yours is heightened by the fact that there also seems to be a calculated attempt to completely discredit the Word and rid it of its authority. The consequences of the success of such in any quarter can only be imagined. Thanks for this offering. Grace be with you always.

Thank you for the feedback, I appreciate it.

I should start out by acknowledging that I am not a qualified scientist and by pointing out that my book is not aimed at the scientifically informed community but, rather at those of a religious background whose faith in God and the Bible are being eroded by an unscrupulous elite in the world of science who are dressing up philosophical statements as scientific facts.

You mention a lack of references yet, I have cited all my sources. The two quotes you referred to are from two highly respected publications in the world of science and medicine. I chose these quotes because even the most highly critical scientists who promote evolutionary biology would have to respect them. The quote from the journal “Nature” is from 1997. I am not sure of the exact date but you could probably check with their own records. I am not sure of the date of the the quote from the “American Medical Association.” It was pre-1980 because the publication I saw the quote in was printed in 1980 and the publishers use recent quotes in their publications.

I agree with you about some of my ambiguous statements. I will change the wording regarding global warming. You were right in assuming that I was referring to the e-mail scandal. I think that that unfortunate disclosure was seized upon to discredit the whole idea of climate change. But I personally accept climate change as a reality and an injustice perpetrated through human greed and ignorance. The point I was making is that many scientists who are in the pockets of large commercial corporations have been challenging the validity of data about global warming. This has caused much confusion and mistrust among the general public.

On Schreodinger's cat, I did perhaps oversimplify the subject and I do not pretend to fully comprehend the author's ideas but, it's admirers and supporters have gone to the opposite extreme and have attached too much significance to it. It may well be provocative and stimulating, and it may lead to future scientific breakthroughs but, it remains philosophy, not actual science, and I believe that this difference needs to be highlighted to the public.

Regarding your comment about my work being “views easily read on blogs all over the web,” I am a little disappointed that you think so. Although the opening chapters deal with science and reason, the main theme of my book is the confusion, misinterpretation and erosion of faith in God and the Bible. The facts I bring to light are rejected rigorously by mainstream religions and I have actually found myself the object of verbal abuse because of the things I write. Perhaps you need to read more of the book to get the full flavour and see the controversy. One example of an unpoular and inconvenient truth is Jesus' position on war. Christinaity does not allow for it's disciples to support the conflicts of their nations. In fact, genuine Christianity demands absention from all poliitcal involvement in the world, this is the teaching of Christ.

Why should someone choose to read my book over those others? Because my book contains the facts, the truth according to the Bible itself. My own experience and grounding is of little consequence other than to say that I was once a pawn of evolution and I am now a firm believer in a creator and that the Bible is His inspired word. This transformation is not due to emotion or a religious vision but, to an examination of the fundamental realities in the natural world, the laws of physics, and the internal evidence of the Bible itself. I have read and studied the Bible several times, over 15 years. But the Bible itself does not require man's educational accolades to understand it or relate it to others. The Bible says “our being adequately qualified issues from God” (2 Corinthians 3.4).

I have no desire to “grab people's attention” or to “find a market.” I imitate Jesus and “bare witness to the truth,” wherever it may lead me, and at whatever cost.

I do hope you continue to read my book and that you enjoy it. Feel free to comment further.

I wish you well.

Steve

Hi there,

I just took a look at your book. I have read four chapters in, so this may not be a fully representative critique, but I wanted to give you some pointers.

The first thing that hit me was a lack of references. I know you don't want this work to read like an academic treatise but when I read your remark about 80% of scientists believing in a designed universe by a higher power, I wanted to follow that up, as in an unrelated thread on another site, someone referenced a much lower number of about 35% believing this. Different surveys no doubt, but it really should be verifiable.

Your writing style is easy going, but a few times you seemed to gloss over details. For instance you said "issues such as global warming ... have left a bitter taste". I was unsure what you mean here. You seem to assume that your readers will agree about something scientists have done in the global warming issue that would cause a bitter taste. If you are referring to the East Angliang climate email scandal, you should really describe the whole thing. Personally I think right wing politics have caused just as much of a bitter taste w.r.t global warming - so take care that you do not make your book assume that it will only be read by climate change sceptics. If that is the case I think its appeal will be very limited indeed.

On Schreodinger's cat - well done for spelling his name with an umlaut! But again the details are way to sketchy. You do not seem to have understood the nature of the thought experiemnt (which was, after all, a critique of quantum theory!) The point is that one could not know the status of the cat without observing it - directly or indirectly.

No one actually believes the cat exists in both states of living and dead until observed, of course. But the experiment was a critique of the quantum theory that suggested particles only flipped into one state or another when observed (and there is some very interesting science as to why that should be).

So at this point, my views were a little "yes but"... I am sure that you speak a great deal of truth in what you write, but I think the problem for your book is this: you are expressing views easily read on blogs all over the web. Why should someone choose to read your book over those? What is your own experience and grounding? What do you offer to this debate that is new and novel?

I think you need something that grab's people's attention and makes them want to read your work, or else it could be a finished book struggling to find a market.

All the best with your writing.

Hello Dianna

Thank you for your positive comments, I appreciate it.

I'm surprised you think that my thoughts are "mainstream." In my experience most Christians I have met believe that the holy spirit is God in a trinity. They also support the wars of their nations.

I am intrigued as to what your own beliefs are. Can you let me know please?

I wish you well.

Steve

Steven,

I just read your chapters - What is the holy spirt and what is a Christian. I found both of them full of truth although you seem to come at things through the back door. The way both chapters begin, I got the feeling that you were going to say something very controversial, but then as you talk through your Biblical findings, I see that your beliefs are on the spectrum of a main-stream Christianity. It is very evident that you are a deep-thinker and have touched on a variety of questions that the seeker of Christ should be asking. Highly starred.
Dianna Lanser
Nothing But The Blood

Steven,

I just read your chapters - What is the holy spirt and what is a Christian. I found both of them full of truth although you seem to come at things through the back door. The way both chapters begin, I got the feeling that you were going to say something very controversial, but then as you talk through your Biblical findings, I see that your beliefs are on the spectrum of a main-stream Christianity. It is very evident that you are a deep-thinker and have touched on a variety of questions that the seeker of Christ should be asking. Highly starred.
Dianna Lanser
Nothing But The Blood

this is an interesting book and a must read....
l must back...
read SEASONS...

I am sorry if I offended you Junetee.

I did not say "all" the church teachings and I did not mean "all" churches. If someone made such a claim against my religion, I would be interested to hear why they said such things.

My accusations against the general standard of Christendom are already well documented in the realms of historical and Biblical scholars. More importantly, I do provide the required evidence thorughout the book, from the Bible itself. Jesus and His Apostles warned that there would be changes to the truth in our day and that there would be many "false teachers." in the world. If you had read further in my book, you would have seen the evidence. At the end of the day, these accusations are not from me but from Jesus Himself. Every claim I make I back up with scripture.

The Bible says that we should "keep testing every inspired expression to see if it originates with God." Not enough people compare what their churches teach with what the Bible says.

If you do not want to read anymore of my book, I respect your decision but I wish you would because my book actually defends pure Christianity against the subversive teachings of men.

As I said, it is not my intention to offend but, neither will I withold the truth. Jesus was outspoken where necessary and I try to immitate Him.

I wish you well.

Steve

I have just begun to read your book.
I got as far as 'Today the so called representatives etc'.
I'd like to say I do not agree that the doctrines of the church are almost unrecognisable from the simple but profound teachings found in the Holy Bible.. You don't actually say which church or which doctrines or teachings. And what proof do you base this on.
And what evidence do you have to lay such claim that many of the teachings have more in common with politics and finance than with the Bible?
Facts and evidence are important if you are going to state claims like these. A lot of people will be offended by what you have said. I'm sorry but didn't read any further because to me, a study of religion or the bible must have some references,,facts and evidence where necessary.
Junetee(Four Corners)
Junetee (Four Corners)

I have just begun to read your book.
I got as far as 'Today the so called representatives etc'.
I'd like to say I do not agree that the doctrines of the church are almost unrecognisable from the simple but profound teachings found in the Holy Bible.. You don't actually say which church or which doctrines or teachings. And what proof do you base this on.
And what evidence do you have to lay such claim that many of the teachings have more in common with politics and finance than with the Bible?
Facts and evidence are important if you are going to state claims like these. A lot of people will be offended by what you have said. I'm sorry but didn't read any further because to me, a study of religion or the bible must have some references,,facts and evidence where necessary.
Junetee(Four Corners)
Junetee (Four Corners)