Posted on 08/17/2011 6:57:10 AM PDT by Todd Kinsey
For the better part of a century, socialists (Democrats) have been using science as a weapon to destroy the very fabric of American society. Today they propagate the global warming myth, forty years ago they were sounding the global cooling alarm, and they’ve used junk science to teach evolution in our nation’s schools.
To the socialist it is somehow easier to believe that aliens put us here or that we emerged from some primordial sludge than it is to believe in God. Socialist leadership, under the guise of “organizing”, use the environment, gay rights, immigration, or any number of causes as a form of religion to keep their unwitting masses in line. Their absence of God, and therefore morality, leaves these desperate souls longing to believe in something. How else can you explain a human being that is willing to risk their life to save a tree or a whale, yet they have no qualms about aborting a baby or assisted suicide?
(Excerpt) Read more at toddkinsey.com ...
You can "testify to" whatever assertion you like, LeGrande. You can "testify" that the moon is made of green cheese for all I care.
What is "ludicrous" is to debate with a fool — especially the fool who very likely has zero experience of pink leprechauns, and yet nevertheless "tesifies" that God is one.
In short, not only do you have zero "evidence" for (or knowledge of) the existence of pink leprechauns, but you insist nonetheless on identifying the pink leprechaun with God.
Since you presumably know nothing of pink leprechauns (or of God for that matter), on what basis do you assert this connection?
Answer: Only to insult me, and to disparage God.... Your idea of "debate" seems to be modeled along the lines of a food fight, or combat by spitball....
Why should I take your "testimony" seriously when it has no basis? What planet do you live on anyway?
Seems to me if you want to play "'word games," perhaps it would be best for you to stick with Scrabble.
Do you still have that Calvinosuarus model on YOUR desk?
Don’t waste your time.
It takes up valuable space.
I’m in Gettysburg (for now) they lost some trees are here.
Just came back from Hershey, where they, too, lost some trees.
Everything else is fine: power stayed on during the rain and wind.
Other folks deny being idiots; but until EVIDENCE is forthcoming, one can make up their own minds...
I just LOVE it when the waves collapse!
Surf is COOL!
'specially the blue-green colored stuff in Cancun!
For those who are old enough, the manager of the NY Yankees in the late forties and through the fifties and most of the sixties was a man named Casey Stengel. During interviews his conversation was so convoluted and confusing it earned the nickname of Stengelese. I think LG may be Casey reincarnated.
It's good to hear you're okay, Elsie!
We lost power — for a whole minute; then it came back on. But there are areas in my town that lost power where it has not yet been restored. The Town says it's unsure when those folks will have their power restored, but our local power company is working on it....
It looks like Massachusetts got lucky, compared to such places as New Jersey and Vermont.
I'm lifting prayers for the people affected by Irene, particularly in those two states.
It just occurred to me that your tag line is a great description of faith. Faith is the ability to see the unseen and believe the unprovable although the dictionary describes it more as fidelity.
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." — Hebrews 11:1, KJVThe Latin word fides carries two intimately related meanings: faith and trust.
Dear MNR, what dictionary did you consult, that defines faith as "fidelity?" Notice how faith so defined logically refers to the state of the believer; in what he believes is left completely out of the picture. Presumably, it could be anything — though historically, traditionally, the universal belief of mankind has been in God (or gods, allowing for more primitive experiences of the Divine).
And thus the other cognate meaning of fides, "trust," can never come into the picture.
Here it seems the full meaning of fides has been flattened down — "reduced" — to the "horizonal" extension only. The "vertical" extension — the line of meaning — has been utterly expunged.
If this is so, then I don't like your dictionary very much. :^) Try the On-line Oxford English Dictionary.... It gives etymologies, or the histories of words. It lets you see exactly what the history-killing left progressives who want to rule us would like us to forget....
The idea of horizontal/vertical extension was brought to my attention by Matchett-PI. He sourced to Gagdad Bob, pseudonym of Dr. Robert Godwin, an American philosopher, clinical psychologist and former atheist. I so admire his work!
The horizonal/vertical so strongly brings to mind T.S. Eliot's verse, that
Man stands at the intersection of time and timelessness...."Time" here stands for the horizontal extension of man; "timelessness," the vertical.
My tagline is from another great English poet, William Blake, which, to me, further validate's Gagdad Bob's point: What we see "with" the eye plays out on the horizontal; to see "through" the eye, the vertical is necessary.
Fact lies along the horizontal; but meaning can only be found along the vertical....
One final thought. We've been all over "final cause" on this thread. Robert Rosen was my main cite (after Aristotle himself). He pointed out that the four Aristotelian causal categories were not all unfolding in the same timeframe. That is, there is a "temporal anomaly" between the first three causes — the formal, the material, and the efficient — and the final cause.
I think the horizontal/vertical "model" applies very well here: The first three causes unfold horizontally (and irreversibly) in time. But the final cause is not to be found on that line. It can only be understood in terms of "vertical extension" relative to the horizontal one.
Or so it appears to me FWIW
Thank you ever so much, dear Mind-numbed Robot, for your excellent essay/post!
And thank you, dear Matchett-PI, for introducing me to Gagdad Bob, and for pinging me to his extraordinary essays!
Faith | Define Faith at Dictionary.com dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith - Cached What is the definition of faith? ...
Dictionary.com Ads faith [feyth] Show IPA
noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
However, look at the number 1. definition which is the preferred definition.
Faith - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith - Cached
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions. 2. a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in ...
We just arrived int Plymouth, Mass a couple of hours ago.
Just north of Providence RI was a spot of about 2-3 miles that had no power yet.
Strnage with all the lights out at night!
You wrote: “...What we see “with” the eye plays out on the horizontal; to see “through” the eye, the vertical is necessary. ...The first three causes unfold horizontally (and irreversibly) in time. But the final cause is not to be found on that line. It can only be understood in terms of “vertical extension” relative to the horizontal one. ...”
Along those lines, here’s a paper (and a book) you and some others might find interesting:
George Murphy holds a PhD in physics from Johns Hopkins and an MDiv from Wartburg Seminary, making him one of a rather small group of people with advanced degrees in both science and theology.
George Murphy:
“God is the First Cause who cooperates with 2d causes, & that the latter is what science studies. I would emphasize that 2d causes are real causes so that, inter alia, humans are real agents.
The traditional view of providence is that God preserves creatures, cooperates with them in their actions, and governs creation toward God’s desired ends. If we think of creatures as having static natures then we’ll picture providence as God keeping those natures in existence & then concurring in their motions. The similarity of this view with the Newtonian picture that I sketched earlier is significant, though it’s originally Aristotelian. But things in the world aren’t inert. They are “composed” of the same interactions that are involved in their motions. It seems to me then that we ought to understand God’s cooperation with creatures as fundamental, and to say that God preserves creatures precisely by cooperating with them.
I discussed divine action in greater detail in Chapter 6 of The Cosmos in the Light of the Cross. http://www.amazon.com/Cosmos-Light-Cross-George-Murphy/dp/1563384175
.... and to a lesser extent in this paper: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF3-01Murphy.html
Excerpt:
[snip]
In any case, we are faced with a paradoxical idea of “mediated creatio ex nihilo” in which God brings into being the instruments with which God will bring things into being.24
It is worth noting that this paradox is by no means a modern one. The ancient rabbinic tractate Pirke Aboth includes in a list of things created on the eve of the first Sabbath, “The tongs made with tongs.”25
More is involved here than a logical puzzle. Even in the origination of the universe, God acts through instruments that are simultaneously masks of God. God is willing to be emptied of the credit for creation, so that the Creator is indeed the one “placed crosswise in the universe.”
Given that physical reality, which does obey the types of laws we have found, does exist, it may be possible to explain the origin even of matter and space-time itself in terms of an adequate quantum theory of gravitation and matter.
Similar things can be said about the origin of living things. It is true that we do not yet have an adequate theory of chemical evolution, of the emergence of the first living systems from nonliving chemicals. But there is no theological rationale for the idea often expressed to the effect that life must have been brought into being by God’s direct and unmediated action. In fact, the first Genesis account of creation points in just the opposite direction, for there plants and animals come into being when God commands the elements of the world, the earth and the waters, to bring them forth (Gen. 1:11-12, 20-21, 24-25). The statement of Ephrem of Edessa on the creation of plants expresses this understanding of the mediated creation of living things held by a number of the church fathers. He said:
Thus, through light and water the earth brought forth everything. While God is able to bring forth everything from the earth without these things, it was his will to show that there was nothing created on earth that was not created for the purpose of mankind or for his service.26
Though it would exceed the scope of the present paper, the question of miracles needs to be part of any thorough discussion of divine action which takes the Bible seriously.27
Yet the Bible gives us no reason to think that the origin of life must be understood as a miracle that cannot be explained in terms of natural processes.
[snip] click here to read the whole paper : http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF3-01Murphy.html
Roughly 2-3 years a Christian at that point, the answer to the first question came pretty quickly, "Yes, He would create with an appearance of age." I can only say that the notion of soil passed before my eyes, and it seemed to me that soil is the result of a long process, but it is also necessary for plants to grow.
To the second question, "Was He trying to stump us?" I replied, "No." I had no insight at the time, I just didn't think God's intent was to fool everyone.
Since then, I've come to believe that God does sometimes set up conditions that permit foolish people to fool themselves (see the story of Micaiah and Ahab), but I would still say, "No." I've viewed it more like my setting up a sealed terrarium with the proper balance of plants and animals to establish a self-sustaining system.
Am I to question God on how He established the earth? (God to Job: who are you to question me on the foundation of the earth?)
Creating tools to enable tools to enable life.
The appearance of age.
God created Adam as a MAN and Eve as a WOMAN.
That implies full grown, fully functioning, with the appearance of age.
It wasn’t for the purposes of deception, as the God haters would like to imply, but practical functionality.
Science would date man as being say, 30 years old (for the sake of argument) on the day he was created as a full grown man.
The believer would say that man was one day old.
The *scientist* would mock the believer for being so stupid as to believe that instead of what the evidence presented, the appearance of age.
Who would be right?
Nothing is unreasonable or impossible except a literal interpretation of Genesis...
Thus, through light and water the earth brought forth everything. While God is able to bring forth everything from the earth without these things, it was his will to show that there was nothing created on earth that was not created for the purpose of mankind or for his service.26
An excellent example of how the Marxists, through environmentalism, try to drive a wedge between man and God. Their premise is that man is here to serve Gaia, Mother Earth, rather than the other way around. They think the entire universe would be better off without man. What better way to eliminate God? Of course, as with all things liberal, they intend to exempt themselves from that extinction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.