If people think that as science helped the Socio-economical Development of the Planet Earth, for being the ‛daughter’ of Roma (<Lat. scientia, “knowledge, science”, from the latin verb scire, “to know”), therefore belongs to pagans, hence does this biblical questioning of Proverbs 30:3-4 about the science of the Holy One or of the holy ones or of the holy things? “I have neither learned wisdom, nor have I knowledge of the Holy One” [NIV]. Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and the name of his son? Tell me if you know!” Could Cadoshology (<hebr. (kādôsh) קָדוֹשׁ, “holy”, and from gr. λογία (logia), “science”) not be this very science of the Holy One announced in the Old Testament (<hebr. (bedahath kedshîm) קְדשׁיִם וְדַעַת, “science of the Holy One or of the holy ones or of the holy things”; and from lat. sanctum scientiam, “science of the Holy One”, [Vulgata]; from gr. γνω̃̃σιν ‛αγίων (g-nôsin haguiôn), “knowledge or science of the Holy One”, [Septuaginta], etc.) ? Etc.
Peccatology and Cadoshology, general theories of the Sin and the Holiness, proceed through a Systemic Approach, that is to say, give a new universalizable definition of the Sin & Holiness making use of the Infinite Sets Theory. The Set and sub-sets are determined and defined in advance in the meanwhile some elements are still neither known nor named. The day when their manifestations are visible or when they’re detected not by visibility of manifestation, but rather by principle of existence, they will see that they’re already typed (typology) from categories that are the sub-sets which guiding principles are already pre-established. The Great Set itself, the Sin for example is known and defined in advance; one of its sub-sets, Plummediatoduumnicity for example, one of the guiding principles of the Sin too is equally done in advance; but only an element of the Great Set is ill-known or unknown, a sin or few sin(s) for example.
Besides, they’ll be called atypical only if they exist nowhere under none of any sub-set, that is to say, nowhere under no pre-established guiding principles. It is at that moment that science creates, possibly, a new category of the object in question to type (typology) them.
Catholics themselves who have only one head (the Pope) upon Earth have sub-groups within (the Franciscans, Jesuits, Lazarists, Dominicans, etc.) all the more reason Protestants and Evangelical ones who no more have only one, wouldn’t they be secondarily more diversified in the shadow than their primarily external or visible diversity? Consequently, both of the primary and secondary diversity of nature that is the distinctive quality of the Protestants and Evangelical ones will have as logical outcome, diversity of approaches as far as the fundamental issue of Holiness and Sin is concerned. Each of us has tendency to be holy or even to understand the Sin in his own way, so narrow-minded it may be.
At the stage we reach, let’s walk together, says the Bible; and even this other well-known passage: “(…) until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the son of God (…)”, Ep. 4:13.
The bet of unity of the faith can be won only re-considering this notion of Holiness and Sin in question in a new approach said Systemic Approach.
In fact, the Systemic Approach that re-defines Holiness and/or Sin while replacing them in a new context of complex system as a science called the Systemics, complex systems technique, will have advantage over the Evangelical Churches’ plurally and past diversified approaches. To do it so, the notion of system itself needs to be clarified before.
The system (<gr. συστημα (sustêma), “assembly, collection of objects”, from συν (sun), “with, together”, and from στέμμα, (stemma), “crown, garland, wreath”) is literally talking, the assembly or the gathering of both many crowns or wreathes singly made up of circle of leaves and giving finally rise to a more complex whole, full of branches and leaves.
Scientifically, a system is a set possessing a structure forming an organic whole (organic, in the framework of the organization of a set).
The system of laws of Holiness and Sin that the General Theory of Holiness (Cadoshology) and Sin (Peccatology) is an arborescent (<Lat. arborescentis, “that the shape reminds people of the one of a tree”, from arbor,“tree”, from the latin verb arborescere, “to become a tree”, inchoative of arbustare, “planting of tree”) system because the object mentioned in this biblical verse related to knowledge of Good and Evil is quite the tree: ”(…) but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, (…)”, Gen. 2:17
The knowledge of Good and Evil is cadoshological and peccatological arborescence, a multi-complex system of laws established by the founding-father of postmodern Cadosho-Peccatology, instrument of solid gathering to better coordinate generally the whole body of Christ, and to better control [master] particularly the object-Sin, that the Bible talks about in these terms: “From him [Christ] the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work“, Ep. 4:16; and, “(…) sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it.”, Gen. 4:7b.
He who talks of building a scientific theory talks of finding fix guiding principles and unchangeable laws (automatic repetition). Thus your servant has found new means or new tools to help you master as easier as possible the most dangerous or serious entity that got Lucifer, in front of whom you tremble, fall down. The Sin is more dangerous than Satan, the Prince of demons, you fear.
This article does not say that new creatural laws of Holiness or new human dogmas of Holiness have been erected to go and impose them upon God’s images you are.
It says that the first meaning of law related to an imperative rule prior to the facts that it rules, expressing an ideal, a norm, an ethics is quite the Law of the laws: the Bible;
and that the second meaning of law related to a general formula, a posteriori established, by the study of the facts that it is the law, I mean, a formula stating a correlation of physical phenomena and/or spiritual cryptonomena and verified [testified] by experiment, is in its turn, that is called scientific laws (sciences, biblical or not like Cadoshology, Peccatology, et al).
The major advantage of these last-mentioned laws is within their connection to applications and previsions (retrodiction, diction and prediction) that they are able to bring as innovative contributions to the Work of God that most of the body of Christ did formerly with archaic tools before this postmodern period.
I must agree with the writer of this article. If science can help in people to know seriousness of sin I am all for it. We spend on or fund so many other scientific projects that people deem necessary. But I believe that “sin” is a very real entity which causes people to not be able to live the abundant life here on earth. But it can cause them to miss out on eternal life which can only begotten through living a life of holiness through Jesus Christ.
If science helps promote salvation then there should be contributions to fund it.