Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
And as it is.
It's not all that hard to do the meth work to underestand the relatiosip between time and space as depicted by Newton (and others ) and developed by Einstein. (Whose birthday was 3/14)
And it's good to do the work so as not to be swept away by people throwing around words like "Dimension" in impressive but vague ways.
PLEASE think about what it means to say "Time is a measure of existence" in comparison with my child's garden of Aristotle above. I think the concept of time is meaningless unless there is some change going on. And I mean "meaningless". If you do a thought experiment of a time without stuff changing, and look at words like "Before", "after", and "during", and ask yourself, "WHAT?": "Before what, After what, During what?" what do the words mean without something that was once like THIS and now is like THAT?
If you want to say, "Well, they must mean SOMETHING," hold your own feet to the fire.
It's not a useless exercise, I think.
What I call "pothead metaphysics" (revealing maybe a little more about my past than I'd care to) gets all excited about notions of time and dimension and Rod Serling and such. But a little cold hard thought goes a long way to take away the "Gee whiz!" and to clarify one's thinking.
It's been more than 25 years, But I think Max Born's "Einstein's Theory of Relativity" is as good a place to start as any. The first chapters are easily understood, believe me, or I wouldn't have understood them.
“And the celestial spheres were therefore by “necessity” deemed perfect spheres and any deviations were “illusions” created by the Evil One in order to “deceive” us into believing the science.”
I believe they were alleged to be made of crystal too!
Kol: None whatsoever.
Why, because it may offend the sensibilities of some reilgious hierarchy? Allowing those in obvious error to determine what you can and cannot do makes no sense. South America is a perfect example with the ridiculous levels "Marian Veneration" has risen to. It is a Christian's duty to preach The Gospel.
When exactly did "the Church" make a dogmatic declaration of what the canon of Scripture was?
The Muratonian Fragment from 170 AD does not include the Shepherd of Hermes or the Epistle of Barnabas as Scripture, but does indicate they are worthy of being read.
“When exactly did “the Church” make a dogmatic declaration of what the canon of Scripture was?”
In the East I don’t believe it was ever done as a truly dogmatic matter. Certainly no Ecumenical Council ever decided such a thing. Local councils decided what would be used for local or regional churches. My memory is that Trent did define the canon for The Church in the West, but I could be wrong on that.
WF, at least in the East, the tender sensitivities of the hierarchy of The Church will not be hurt by some bible thumper in a cheap suit. Centuries under Mohammedanism or decades crushed under the heel of atheistic communism have given them a sense of perspective sadly lacking in the West.
“Allowing those in obvious error to determine what you can and cannot do makes no sense.”
I agree. That's why the statutes outlawing proselytizing by heretics are so popular in the East.
“South America is a perfect example with the ridiculous levels “Marian Veneration” has risen to.”
I wouldn't know about that. Has it risen to “ridiculous levels” there?
“It is a Christian's duty to preach The Gospel.”
It is? Which Christians?
I think this is because the Scriptures were widely recognized from the beginning. It was only when large movements developed that written declarations of what comprised Scripture were made. For example, confronted with a growing gnosticism St. Athansius made a written declaration of what the canon was as the bishop in Alexandria.
Another example is the Muratonian Fragment which dates back to 170 AD. It follows the Marcion movement.
Sometimes in the rush to take credit for something we fail to recognize how seriously Christians of the Apostolic Era and the century immediately following considered these matters. They knew who the Apostles were and they knew who traveled with them. They were pretty quick to discredit writings of "recent appearance", "questionable authorship" or that were not "God Breathed".
Thankfully we have not had to endure that.
WF: “Allowing those in obvious error to determine what you can and cannot do makes no sense.”
K: I agree. That's why the statutes outlawing proselytizing by heretics are so popular in the East.
What a shame. If an Evangelist were to come and you are convinced they are in error, rather than having a "Mars Hill" moment and correcting the evangelist you would have the power of the State stop him. It does not evidence a great confidence.
WF: “It is a Christian's duty to preach The Gospel.”
K: It is? Which Christians?
Any and all.
“It does not evidence a great confidence.”
We can agree, I am sure, that it does evidence great power, though; right?
“Any and all.”
Says who? :)
“They knew who the Apostles were and they knew who traveled with them. They were pretty quick to discredit writings of “recent appearance”, “questionable authorship” or that were not “God Breathed”.”
As a general proposition, I think you are right, but its important to remember writings like Barnabus, The Shepherd and the Clementine Letters just as it is important to recognize why, say, The Shepherd was rejected ultimately as compared to why the Gospel of Thomas or that of Judas were rejected or how Hebrews and Revelations came to be part of what we have as the canon of the NT today.
Thank you. It is rare we agree on something. :-)
it is important to recognize why, say, The Shepherd was rejected ultimately as compared to why the Gospel of Thomas or that of Judas were rejected or how Hebrews and Revelations came to be part of what we have as the canon of the NT today.
Absolutely.
It does evidence power, but has it stopped the missionaries from evangelizing?
Says who? :)
Scripture.
He used "theology." He first introduced a slight alteration in theology which, once it was accepted, he managed to increase more and more to the degree that Christianity became completely unrecognizable...Did you ever try to pinpoint what is the principal characteristic of Western [Protestant] theology? Well, its principal characteristic is that it considers God as the real cause of all evil."
Why did you add that bracket, Kosta? Here is the sentence that follows:
"What is evil? Is it not the estrangement from God Who is Life?1 Is it not death? What does Western theology teach about death? All Roman Catholics and most Protestants consider death as a punishment from God." [emphasis mine]
Whatever Kalomiros had to say about Protestants, he said the same or worse about Roman Catholics. All Roman Catholics??? Where I come from, that quantifier has a precise, logical meaning. In fact, he was attacking Western Christianity in general, not just Protestants*. Kalomiros had some great things to say--taken straight from the Fathers--about the fire of God's unconditional love, so it's a shame that he turned his address into a broad, over-generalized screed against the entire West because that made it almost unpalatable.
Incidentally, I had found Kalomiros' River of Fire on the same site where I found C.S. Lewis' Introduction to +Athanasius. One of life's little coincidences, I suppose...
I think this goes back to the point that MD keeps making about trying to understand where we're all coming from and being precise** about what it is we're arguing for or against so that we really understand our similarities and differences before launching into invectives. These threads on the Religion Forum tend to turn into one giant and prolonged game of "Gotcha!" and this same "game" is played over and over and over, with no progress in sight. I am guilty of the same, and so I ask anyone who happens to read this for forgiveness for my own lack of charity and patience.
* The term "Protestant" is itself often used vaguely and imprecisely, especially on this thread. "Protestant" is not a religion (except perhaps for those who make an idol of their rejection of Rome's claims); it is simply the name for Western Christians who are not in communion with Rome.
** On a side note, MD, this is why I insisted a while back that--in this sense--precision is necessary for accuracy.
Thanks for the discussion on time, MD. To make your thought experiment a little more concrete, suppose that everything in the universe just “stopped” for a million years, and then started up again. How would we know? In fact, how do we know that doesn’t happen periodically? The important question, which you asked, is: Does it even make sense to talk about “time” with no change or motion? Only in an abstract philosophical construct, which may or may not be useful in describing the world around us.
“It does evidence power, but has it stopped the missionaries from evangelizing?”
In the context of Orthodox countries, no, not totally...but we are making progress! :)
“Scripture.”
Really? Where?
Kalomiros, like Fr. Romanides of eternal memory, reflect a particularly “in your face” sort of Orthodoxy that irenicists and ecumenists especially find off putting. That said, they argue nothing which is not generally held in Orthodoxy. Their theology is, as you have observed with Prof. Kalomiros, patristic and as such theological contrasts of greater, as with Protestants, or lesser, as with Latins, degrees are drawn. That's really no big deal and doesn't call for the sort of commentary you find disturbing. What that commentary does do, and no one in the modern era does it better than Fr. John or Prof. Kalomiros, is demonstrate the truly profound difference between an Orthodox phronema or mindset and that of all the Western churches and ecclesial groups. For the Western Christian, a reading of the writings of those men will lead one to the interesting notion that Anglicanism and possibly Lutheranism are actually closer in mindset to Orthodoxy than Roman Catholicism. Certainly observation of the course of converts from those three to Orthodoxy seems to bear this out which is fascinating in and of itself since the theology of Rome and the theology of Orthodoxy are virtually identical, certainly far more so than that of Orthodoxy with those of Anglicanism and Lutheranism. Maybe this is a demonstration of how ecclesiology can drive phronema and how even a seemingly tiny theological difference can have major ecclesiological consequences.
Personally, I think your finding The River of Fire next to Lewis’ magnificent introduction to “On the Incarnation” is a coincidence of the “delicious” kind. :)
Why "the Church" as if questioning that the Church existed? Ridiculous.
The Church made a dogmatic declaration of the canon at the Third Council of Carthage, at the very end of the 4th century. Until that time, the canon varied from church to church, as can be seen from the various private canons (from Bible Research)
| Athanasius (b. 296) |
Origen (b. 185) |
Irenaeus (b. 130) |
Marcion* (b. 85) |
| Matthew | Matthew | Matthew | |
| Mark | Mark | Mark | |
| Luke | Luke | Luke | Luke |
| John | John | John | |
| Acts | Acts | Acts | |
| Romans | |||
| 1 Corinthians | 1 Corinthians | 1 Corinthians | 1 Corinthians |
| 2 Corinthians | 2 Corinthians | 2 Corinthians | 2 Corinthians |
| Galatians | Galatians | Galatians | Galatians |
| Ephesians | Ephesians | Ephesians | Ephesians |
| Philippians | Philippians | Philippians | Philippians |
| Colossians | Colossians | Colossians | Colossians |
| 1 Thessalonians | 1 Thessalonians | 1 Thessalonians | 1 Thessalonians |
| 2 Thessalonians | 2 Thessalonians | 2 Thessalonians | 2 Thessalonians |
| 1 Timothy | 1 Timothy | 1 Timothy | |
| 2 Timothy | 2 Timothy | 2 Timothy | |
| Titus | Titus | Titus | |
| Philemon | Philemon | Philemon | Philemon |
| Hebrews | Hebrews | Hebrews | |
| James | James | James | |
| 1 Peter | 1 Peter | 1 Peter | |
| 2 Peter | 2 Peter | 2 Peter | |
| 1 John | 1 John | 1 John | |
| 2 John | 2 John | 2 John | |
| 3 John | 3 John | 3 John | |
| Jude | Jude | Jude | |
| Revelation** | Revelation | Revelation |
Italic type indicates that the writer either does not mention the book or expressed some doubt about the status of the book.
The Muratonian Fragment from 170 AD does not include the Shepherd of Hermes or the Epistle of Barnabas as Scripture, but does indicate they are worthy of being read.
That's right. Many variations, showing individual interpretations and no unity. Hardly the work of the Holy Spirit!
Because the RCC has made great strides in returning to its patristic roots since Dr. Kalomiros' 1970's address. The same cannot be said of the Protestant part of Western Christianity. What he wrote then still applies to various Protetsant sects.
The 3rd Council of Carthage was a local, North African council and thus could not proclaim anything dogmatically for the One Church. As you know, Revelations wasn't included in the East until the 9th century.
Show me where it says that in the Great Commission. It is the duty of the disciples, and their direct successors, not of laity.
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.