More on the Debates Between an Inactive God and an Active God

Today, the difference between an inactive God and an active God is still unclear because the fields of science and theology were not distinguished by our  colleges and universities. Science and theology became even more confusing after colleges and universities advertised their nonsectarian positions.

Some years ago, I discussed the word 'nonsectarian' with the President of John Hopkins University (JHU).  I told him that colleges and universities can study theology without violating the nonsectarian promise.  I said that 'theory' and 'practice' are two unique concepts that are separated in every field of thought. So, I said that colleges and universities can develop theories about an inactive God and an active God without stepping on the feet of any religion.  He agreed. 

However, scientists and theologians are not coming together in colleges and universities. Instead, some scientists reject God without any scientific proof that God does not exist.  And most theologians at colleges and universities are serving specific religions without studying the progress of those scientists, like me, who do believe in God. For instance, I have proven scientifically that the inactive God is false and that the active God is true.

Theologians will make scientific errors if science and theology are not unified.  I already found a major error of  Professor Bart D. Ehrman of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.  This error is found in his work on the life of Judas Iscariot.  In Ch. Sixteen  The Gospel of Judas, of  Herbert Krosney's book (click),  Ehrman says,

Jesus is an eternal figure; he is part of the higher God, he is greater than and separate from man, he is eternal.

My theory of God says that God in One and has no parts.  Ehrman's error supports the inactive God of Judaism and Christianity and thus rejects my theory of an active God and the Oneness of God.