Bringing science and religion together around a common understanding of the origin of life.

I will confess to not being able to read the Bible in the original languages it which it was written.

Now you are talking nonsense by injecting irrelevant mathematical terms into the conversation.

You also seem to like to pontificate on ambiguous points of definition that have no great significance. This one goes into the ignostic waste basket.

Besides philosophical compatibility, the evidence for Israelite religion coming from Mesopotamian Moon worship is that the founder came from the two cities that were the centers of Moon worship and his cohort had names from that subculture. What is your evidence against?

You seem to like non sequiturs.

I am going to call @posthuman here, as he may be able to address some of your (OP's) concerns

Larens, this is a Christian site.

We are not interested in chatting about your theories.

The other Christian sites that you have been aren't interested in your theories.

Neither are the officials at Berkeley college interested in chatting about your theories.

I have become embroiled in a struggle with promoters of anti-religious scientism after presenting a theory that life on Earth started on a minor early solar system body I call Ushas. The fundamental idea is that life started with the convergence of a unique, or nearly-unique, set of circumstances in the early solar system. The most improbable event was that a nearby gamma ray burst was aimed directly at the solar system. This generated the highly active molecules necessary for life. There are billions of research dollars at stake because my theory undermines NASA's current dogma of spontaneous generation of life on wet planets, e.g., the Earth and icy moons with internal oceans. People from Blue Marble Earth, which promotes the current dogma, are making it clear they are intolerant of opposition. I have been saying that my goal is to bring science and religion together around a common understanding of the origin of life, so I am here to open a dialogue with evangelical Christians to balance the science discussions I have been engaged in. My anti-religious opposition apparently thinks that if they can maintain a schism between science and religion they can achieve total victory.

My religious practice is with the Berkeley Unitarian Universalist Fellowship. UUs have a Christian background but are not Christians because they are non-creedal I am the active scientist in the group and have been studying the mathematical basis of reality informally at UC-Berkeley. The coronavirus shutdown of campus has cut me off from the academic databases and face-to-face contacts there so I have switched to online outreach. My philosophy goes well beyond the typical reductionism to physics. I see that there is a natural trinity of physical reality, information, and consciousness that underlies the Christian trinity.

Physical reality contains a form of "maya" (commonly translated as "illusion") in which chemistry is in the foreground and the geometrical structure of matter is in the background. This is necessary to explain why complex cells evolved before simple ones. Information reality was well understood by Plato, but he wrote in a cryptic style to hide his more radical ideas from his opponents, who had executed his teacher Socrates. Because I have a knowledge of modern mathematical science, I could easily decrypt the riddle of "Plato's Number", though no correct solution has been published in thousands of years. I strongly break from contemporary scientific tradition by being a Biblical scholar. I see that Abrahamic religion describes its replacement by a new social order in our times. The "new heaven and new Earth" in Revelation 21: 1 refers to a new cosmology, which is what I have been studying. "No sea" translates as "no impassible cosmic sea", i.e., space exploration has become possible.

At the moment my research is on connecting science, law, and social action. Mathematical description of reality is emotionally dead for most people. We are being subjected to a crisis giving rise to fear on many fronts, e.g., disease, economic collapse, and social strife. In the U.S. the Magna Carta is no longer taken as the first organic law, so something needs to replace it. The divergence in ideas at the time of the writing of the Constitution was too great, so constitutional law also needs to be radically reformed. I see that World War II has become the new Runnymede and that FDR's Four Freedoms speech in January 1941 has become the new legal starting point. Since then the four freedoms of expression, of worship, from want, and from fear have been written into international law. Freedom from fear is the most basic because it is gained through knowledge, which is supported by the other three freedoms. Freedom from fear has also been put on our agenda right now, so our priority needs to be on the social action necessary to bring it about.

Well, the proponents of anti-religious scientism that I mentioned in the first paragraph of my OP are quite strong, aren't they? Do you wish to be an ally of theirs in keeping science and religion separate by censoring scientific truth?

How do you feel about the fact that they are out to crush Christianity?

I leave all that to Christian scientists. They will defend the faith. Your help is not required. Besides you are not a scientist. You have no credentials. Blab blab blab nonsense is about all you do.

The persons who are able to understand your nonsense, you have insulted them, and you don't want to chat with them. So where does that leave you?

Why are you concerned for Christianity? Christianity has been in existence long before your theories. And it will continue after it. Christianity does not need your help.

No one who is committed to being a troll, rather than serious inquiry, is able to understand serious science. Their ignorance then just reinforces their commitment to being a troll. Leaving them leaves me talking to other people more open to science.

I have become embroiled in a struggle with promoters of anti-religious scientism after presenting a theory that life on Earth started on a minor early solar system body I call Ushas. The fundamental idea is that life started with the convergence of a unique, or nearly-unique, set of circumstances in the early solar system.

I have become embroiled in a struggle with promoters of anti-religious scientism after presenting a theory that life on Earth started on a minor early solar system body I call Ushas. The fundamental idea is that life started with the convergence of a unique, or nearly-unique, set of circumstances in the early solar system. The most improbable event was that a nearby gamma ray burst was aimed directly at the solar system. This generated the highly active molecules necessary for life. There are billions of research dollars at stake because my theory undermines NASA's current dogma of spontaneous generation of life on wet planets, e.g., the Earth and icy moons with internal oceans. People from Blue Marble Earth, which promotes the current dogma, are making it clear they are intolerant of opposition. I have been saying that my goal is to bring science and religion together around a common understanding of the origin of life, so I am here to open a dialogue with evangelical Christians to balance the science discussions I have been engaged in. My anti-religious opposition apparently thinks that if they can maintain a schism between science and religion they can achieve total victory.

My religious practice is with the Berkeley Unitarian Universalist Fellowship. UUs have a Christian background but are not Christians because they are non-creedal I am the active scientist in the group and have been studying the mathematical basis of reality informally at UC-Berkeley. The coronavirus shutdown of campus has cut me off from the academic databases and face-to-face contacts there so I have switched to online outreach. My philosophy goes well beyond the typical reductionism to physics. I see that there is a natural trinity of physical reality, information, and consciousness that underlies the Christian trinity.

Physical reality contains a form of "maya" (commonly translated as "illusion") in which chemistry is in the foreground and the geometrical structure of matter is in the background. This is necessary to explain why complex cells evolved before simple ones. Information reality was well understood by Plato, but he wrote in a cryptic style to hide his more radical ideas from his opponents, who had executed his teacher Socrates. Because I have a knowledge of modern mathematical science, I could easily decrypt the riddle of "Plato's Number", though no correct solution has been published in thousands of years. I strongly break from contemporary scientific tradition by being a Biblical scholar. I see that Abrahamic religion describes its replacement by a new social order in our times. The "new heaven and new Earth" in Revelation 21: 1 refers to a new cosmology, which is what I have been studying. "No sea" translates as "no impassible cosmic sea", i.e., space exploration has become possible.

At the moment my research is on connecting science, law, and social action. Mathematical description of reality is emotionally dead for most people. We are being subjected to a crisis giving rise to fear on many fronts, e.g., disease, economic collapse, and social strife. In the U.S. the Magna Carta is no longer taken as the first organic law, so something needs to replace it. The divergence in ideas at the time of the writing of the Constitution was too great, so constitutional law also needs to be radically reformed. I see that World War II has become the new Runnymede and that FDR's Four Freedoms speech in January 1941 has become the new legal starting point. Since then the four freedoms of expression, of worship, from want, and from fear have been written into international law. Freedom from fear is the most basic because it is gained through knowledge, which is supported by the other three freedoms. Freedom from fear has also been put on our agenda right now, so our priority needs to be on the social action necessary to bring it about.

And this supports Christian views on creation how...???

because he is just wasting my time with straw man and other fallacious arguments. *

There has been more than one Christian view on creation. The Roman Catholic Church has had a dual view on the nature of the universe. There is both a non-geocentric and a geocentric view. The non-geocentric view has evolved into Big Bang cosmology with a distinct starting point. The geocentric view does not have a conventional interpretation of time. Its description is still evolving. My research reconciles these different views.

There has been more than one Christian view on creation. The Roman Catholic Church has had a dual view on the nature of the universe. There is both a non-geocentric and a geocentric view. The non-geocentric view has evolved into Big Bang cosmology with a distinct starting point. The geocentric view does not have a conventional interpretation of time. Its description is still evolving. My research reconciles these different views.

the ubiquity of law in the universe is direct evidence of monotheism, not a reality for which monotheism is a substitutionary analogy.