I don't understand what you want people to do when you say "construct using measurements". Whatever interest your description of 'the New Jerusalem' in Revelations has probably lies more in its arcane symbolism than in anything mathematical or scientific.
All right Yazata, I was a bit scatter gun, but you're right, I find it frustrating that when I click the 'New Posts' button most days eight of the ten newest topics are about Jesus, and for me, more tiresome still about how he cannot possibly have been what they say he was. All right already! Notice I am not saying if I believe in Jesus or not; it's not important to my opinion here. What I am asking is why are so many purported scientific types who have taken the trouble to join a science forum so unhealthily intrigued, so obsessed with religious questions? If they find the religion question so fascinating I think they ought to join a Christian forum and start a polite debate with people who care about such things. Such posters need to mosey down to their village pastor and have a good, long heart-to-heart. I think buried deep in their atheistic bravado is a need to believe, and hey! that's their own private affair. Why stink up our science forum with their inner spiritual struggles? This forum should be about math, physics, biology, astronomy, history even, but why the top-heavy New Posts of theistic concern? Also, maybe you missed my addressing exchemist above: I know he's a good bloke, and I almost always agree with what he says. I just saw an opportunity when he said to stand the phrase on its head and say how it often seems the opposite way round to me because of the obsession with God on this supposedly scientific forum. That's why I compared the obsessed with medieval monks- obviously they were very interested in Godly matters, and obvious (to me at least) the were mortal men, well educated, intelligent and literate men (the only such in their day and for centuries) so naturally they would have had their doubts about the whole God existence thing, and naturally, as you also point out, they were interested in scientific questions although there was as yet no such thing as the scientific method back then. All I want then is to see less religious debate and more out and out science in these threads. @Atheists: no one cares what you think about God, Jesus and religion! Join a Christian forum! You're boring me!
Well I'll happily drink to your last sentiment, Landau. And I do agree it is remarkable how many non-science threads are created on this forum. But actually it seems to me the posters who want to talk about religion tend to be a different group from those that inhabit the hard science sections. I feel as if I am one of a smallish band of "crossover" types, that do a bit of both. In my case it is because I dislike the naive idea, which seems to have gained traction in the so-called "culture wars" , that science and religion are intrinsically antagonistic. I think that is a shallow view, but the key to avoiding a clash between the two is - in my opinion - by NOT allowing either one to interfere in the mandate of the other. (reading this, I sound like Gould, I suppose. But I do think he had a good point.)
You probably should just go to the general 'forums' page and look to see if there's any new posts on the subjects that you like to discuss. I'm not a 'scientific type' and don't pretend to be. When it comes to physics and math, my formal exposure stopped at the introductory physics and calculus sequences 40 years ago. I rarely even click on the science fora here, since what in the hell am I supposed to say about Hermitians or Higgs bosons? (I do retain some layman's interest in the biological science though.) I guess that I'm "unhealthy" and "obsessed". My academic background ended up being in philosophy and religion and in the humanities more broadly, particularly the history of ideas. I'm quite interested in the relationship, both philosophical and historical, between science and religion. Why did I start posting here? Because the board had some interesting discussions of these subjects going at the time. I'm not a Christian. I think that you care. You're obviously passionate about this. And you're telling me to get off the board. Look, if you don't want to see religion discussed, don't read the two religion fora or the philosophy forum. That will eliminate 90% of your discomfort right there. (I don't personally like the left-political ranting that infests this board, so I typically avoid the 'politics' and 'ethics' fora. That keeps me happier.) I'll finish with two concluding remarks. First, there are those who argue that religion can be studied scientifically. I'm not convinced of that (depends on how we define 'science' I guess), but there's no doubt that it's possible to address religion in a scholarly manner. And second, it wasn't the horrible atheists that started this thread and originally plopped it down in the mathematics forum.
26910/829.44-1/2 ~ (55/36)32. Where the shape of the New Jerusalem "coming down out of heaven from God" is a perfect cube (Revelation 21:16: "The plan of the city is perfectly square, its length and its breadth equal. He measured the city with his rod and it was twelve thousand furlongs, equal in length and in breadth, and equal in height"), 1000 the dimensionless H20-resolution of the gravitational constant (Theorem for a Flat Universe: The ρcrit = 3H02/8πG Building Block 1000), V/BSA = 829441/4 the resistance ratio of the absolute dead center cube, and NJCf-d the face diagonal of the New Jerusalem cube (Revelation 21:16),
