Posted on 07/25/2010 1:37:12 PM PDT by betty boop
What "current group"? What theocrats in the White House or Congress?
I don't see any theocrats in either venue! Quite the contrary, in fact. What the White House and Congress seem to agree on is the need to remove all traditional religious and moral ideas from the public square.
And I also don't know of any U.S. citizens that are agitating for an American theocracy.
What am I missing here?
Still, I'm wondering about your definition of "theocrat".... I would like to understand this. Help me???!!!
I am being partially facetious while pointing out that liberals are believers. Obama is or possibly was their reigning demi-god. Sometimes liberals are just looking for a deliverer. If one fails, they just pursue another in perpetuity.
The fundamental problem with communism/socialism/progressivism is that they are belief systems. Reality constantly intrudes, yet the predictable and tragically bloody consequences of policies implemented by communists/socialists/progressives are ignored by them. It is as if history or causation or scientific proof don't apply to them. Why?
They've just not found the right people to be the Übermensch needed to save us from ourselves. They are true believers who pass Positive Law that violates Natural Law, but are always shocked that they cannot legislate reality.
They may be nominally any religion or none at all, what joins them in a mock-theocracy is their demand that we do what they want by force of violence. They will kill for the cause. Your beliefs and thoughts are their final goal.
Slavery, of course, is the province of the Prince of Lies. He is their master, and they, willing, happy servants.
They, ironically, always seem the most surprised when Sir Galahad turns out to be Cesare Borgia. When they discover this it is usually too late. As you can imagine they have all the accoutrements of a theocracy sans God.
Yes, I've noticed that too, 1010RD. Well said!
I think "progressives" in general actually believe they can change the world by changing the way we think about it, the way we describe it in language. The expectation is that rhetoric trumps reality, that reality must conform to the way we desire to think of it. The fact is it doesn't.
Positive Law disconnected from Natural Law is no law at all. Or so it seems to me.
Thanks for your excellent insights 1010RD!
Hence they worship themselves as gods
- theocrats, self-referencing theocrats, trying to establish theocracies with themselves installed as god-in-residence.
Who says the Ten Commandments aren’t valid still?
I was just rereading this thread and noted your comments. Take a look at the original Greek of Colossians 1:15-20. Invisible is better rendered as unseen or “that which human eyes are not capable of seeing”. What do you think of that?
Very acute analysis Kosta, well done. As I’ve read the comments it seems that we are having trouble reconciling eternal beings using temporal understanding. I feel that the Trinity was a reaction to imposed monotheism (the Jewish understanding) and spiritual superiority to physical (the Greek understanding). Would you comment on that?
"Invisible" in reference to Creation would mean creation ex nihilo:
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: - Romans 1:20
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence. For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.– Colossians 1:15-20
Finally, I offer the wisdom of the Jewish Mystics who use the term Ayn Sof when meditating on God The Creator. The word literally means “no thing” – namely, that any word a man uses to describe God reduces his understanding of God to the word he used.
God's Name is I AM.
We must avoid eisegesis in our approach to scripture study. It is hard because we are believers and we want to believe. Whenever we go beyond the word of the Bible we run a risk of missing the message, yet we are children of reason, made in the image and likeness of God.
"Invisible" in reference to Creation would mean creation ex nihilo
This statement of yours, dear Sister, is presumption and supposition. You are taking the Book of Hebrews out of context and choosing the wrong words. Furthermore, God is not invisible, but simply unseen by certain people.
We've discussed this before IIRC and it would be worth starting back at Genesis 1:1 to understand it correctly. Creation ex nihilo is not a necessary condition of this creation.
You: This statement of yours, dear Sister, is presumption and supposition. You are taking the Book of Hebrews out of context and choosing the wrong words. Furthermore, God is not invisible, but simply unseen by certain people.
We've discussed this before IIRC and it would be worth starting back at Genesis 1:1 to understand it correctly. Creation ex nihilo is not a necessary condition of this creation.
God is uncaused, He is the Creator of causation. He has no ancestor. He is the Creator ex nihilo of "all that there is" both spiritual and physical - whether universe, multi-verse, multi-world, ekpyrotic, cyclic, etc. - regardless of dimensionality.
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence. For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.– Colossians 1:15-20
In appearance, Yhwh () is the third person singular imperfect "ḳal" of the verb ("to be"), meaning, therefore, "He is," or "He will be," or, perhaps, "He lives," the root idea of the word being,probably, "to blow," "to breathe," and hence, "to live." With this explanation agrees the meaning of the name given in Ex. iii. 14, where God is represented as speaking, and hence as using the first person—"I am" (, from , the later equivalent of the archaic stem ). The meaning would, therefore, be "He who is self-existing, self-sufficient," or, more concretely, "He who lives," the abstract conception of pure existence being foreign to Hebrew thought. There is no doubt that the idea of life was intimately connected with the name Yhwh from early times. He is the living God, as contrasted with the lifeless gods of the heathen, and He is the source and author of life (comp. I Kings xviii.; Isa. xli. 26-29, xliv. 6-20; Jer. x. 10, 14; Gen. ii. 7; etc.). So familiar is this conception of God to the Hebrew mind that it appears in the common formula of an oath, "ḥai Yhwh" (= "as Yhwh lives"; Ruth iii. 13; I Sam. xiv. 45; etc.).
When the Name of God is at issue in a debate on this forum, I simply enter my testimony. I cannot be moved to deny a Name of God even hypothetically.
Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. – Matt 10:32-33
And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place. Ye shall not do so unto the LORD your God. - Deuteronomy 12:3-4
“Hallowed be thy Name.”
Agreed, but then you immediately step off the reservation into eisegesis. You have only the Bible to base your beliefs on. Cutting and pasting it into convenient bits doesn't make your case. You lose the context and thus the idea. Eventually, you lose your way.
You go on to make several presumptions not proclaimed in the Bible. Genesis 1:1 says what it says and nothing more.
The Midrash also states that the Torah was the blueprint used for creation. We could go round and round with Rabbinic tradition.
Genesis 1:1 reads: New Living Translation In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
The use of the word "created" is arbitrary. You could just as accurately use the word "formed", perhaps even more accurately as to the eastern mind creating order out of chaos is the greatest act of God. Here's another translation:
Young's Literal Translation In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --
The Rabbis recognize that surmising as to what occurred prior to Gen. 1:1 is unwise. Not knowing God you then aspire to describe his attributes. This is why for Jews Christianity is such an offense. Are you familiar with the Mitzvot?
These are the Mosaic Law from the Torah. There are some 613, but the gross number doesn't matter. The first six are universal and always apply. Of those first six the first three are very familiar to Christians:
Ex. 20:2 New Living Translation "I am the LORD your God, who rescued you from the land of Egypt, the place of your slavery.
Again, check the Hebrew carefully and the context also. Who is the audience? We're just looking over Moses' shoulder.
When Alamo_Girl states that dimensions time and space were part of the creation, I take that implies God The Eternal Almighty pre-existed anything and everything we seek to comprehend, and certainly all the dimensions we may define.
We humans characterize the chaotic state and presume it is from such a chaos that The Creator fashions everything. We Christians would also presume that the 'thing', the state of chaos, was created by The Creator of all there is, has been, or ever shall be.
Frankly, I don't agree that there was an actual state of chaos, from The Creator's perspective.
The scriptures give us huge clues regarding a reality (which I've charqacterized as a where/when) that we presently cannot sense. It is from this 'other where/when' that the hand reached to write upon Belshazzar's wall.
Perhaps it is this 'other' where/when to which Jesus went when He arose from the burial clothes without unwrapping them or rolling away the stone fromt he tomb.
Perhaps it is back and forth with this where/when that Jesus used to appear and disappear following His resurrection. But we also have clues that He used this where/when before His crucifixion, when He 'passed through' those taking up stones to kill Him for portraying Himself as the Son of Man; when He stretched a few loaves and fishes to feed 5000; when He appeared upon the lake and upon entering the boat with the disciples, they were immediately at the shore when moments before they were in the midst of a storm and out in the lake.
And there are other clues scattered throughout the Bible (OT and NT) which give strong hint of another where/when not accessible to our senses, yet. This other where/when has spatio-temporal characterisitics thus it too is a Creation by The Creator, for The Creator God IS before ever there was anything. His name is I Am.
Meant to ping you folks when I typed this response.
No different than the believers who "know" the reality must conform to the way they believe it is.
Indeed, no thing and no one precedes God The Creator of "all that there is."
That includes spiritual and physical, space, time, energy/momentum, matter, causation, form, dimensionality, logic, etc.
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence. For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.– Colossians 1:15-20
But if there is structure and order in the universe (and we perceive that there is), then there must be something universally "true" at the foundation of the order we perceive. Otherwise the world would be one way this instant, and something entirely different at the next instant. In short, the universe would be fundamentally chaotic. But if so, then why are things persistently the way they are, and not some other way?
Such a view requires denial of the universal order which we do perceive. Such a refusal to apperceive the obvious constitutes an "opinion" that rests on nothing but a refusal to recognize that truthful human knowledge is the product of engaging the real world by observation and experience. This is to acknowledge that there is a "givenness" to the universal system of which we are parts and participants. That givenness entails that the phenomenal universe (which we perceive to be ordered) and the human mind (which also possesses order by virtue of its capacity for logic and reasoning) can be brought into correspondence. This is the basis of all truthful knowledge. This is the basis of science.
Case in point: There are many fans of "eternal universe," "steady-state" or "boom-and-bust" cosmological models. These opinions are increasingly being undercut by physical observations of, e.g., the cosmic microwave background radiation, and the cosmic expansion, which point to a real beginning of space and time. Despite the accumulating evidence, many still cling to their preferred opinion that the universe is eternal, and/or steady-state, and/or boom-and-bust.
In effect, the holders of such views are attempting to make their own preferences the measure of what the universe is. All such views seem motivated by a deep distaste for, and desire to avoid the "origin problem," i.e., a universal beginning of space and time in a unique cosmic event. In other words, a creation event. They cling to their preferred opinion, despite the piling up of evidence that refutes it.
What is the value of an opinion (or as you put it, a "belief") that can be falsified on the basis of evidence, logic, and reason?
I'll probably have more to say about this shortly. But this will have to do for now.
Thank you so much for writing, dear kosta!
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die....
This metaphor (and it is a metaphor..) limits humans to Gods(who walks in the garden) views of reality(bible).. Unless humans want their own views of reality.. and they did and do.. so they form groups of opinion.. with variations..
So humans invented their own Gods and there are many of them.. with views just like their own or close to their own.. To wit; Cargo cults of every size shape and function.. a panoply of Cults..
Today; what is "the Good" and "the Evil".. is germane..
The good(truth) and the evil(wrongness) has expanded its scope..
We call it science and/or religion.. or the science of opinion..
There are a million Yarns in the big city.. with Gods to back them up..
Science fiction requires the Yarn to logical, reality does not require that..
Where do "I" stand in all this drama?...
Jesus came to make literally all religion obsolete.. AND Did..
And I honor his work...
Such a refusal to apperceive the obvious constitutes an "opinion" that rests on nothing but a refusal to recognize that truthful human knowledge is the product of engaging the real world by observation and experience.
To perceive reality as accurately as possible is ultimately a gift given by the Holy Spirit. So maybe it's not so much a "refusal" as an "inability."
But as you say, the only way we can really know if our beliefs are in accord with the truth of the universe is through experience. So when I read this article, I was surprised that Pythagoras said “The beginning is the half of the whole,” when all these years I thought my dad wrote that line. "Beginning is half done" was one of his favorite Dad-isms.
In spite of my father's plagiarism, following that maxim illustrates the truth of it. Beginning something is more than just a start. A plan has been formulated and the energy to undertake that plan propels it forward. Beginning is closing in on completion.
So in the long run our lives either prove the love of God, or they prove something else. Either men are happier, more secure, better grounded and fruitful believing we belong to the Triune Creator of heaven and earth and everything therein, or we're not. And experience shows me, we are.
To perceive reality as accurately as possible is ultimately a gift given by the Holy Spirit. So maybe it's not so much a "refusal" as an "inability."
IIRC you don't believe in free will or human will, but I postulate that the difference doesn't exist. We either turn our will to God's or not and therefore the refusal creates an inability. See:
Luke 22:42 New Living Translation (©2007) "Father, if you are willing, please take this cup of suffering away from me. Yet I want your will to be done, not mine."
Christ provides an example, a clear example as to his followers that faith is an act of will and what follows is Salvation. Belief is an action.
Pythagoras' statement, “The beginning is the half of the whole" doesn't draw the conclusion you come up with Dr.
It isn't any beginning, but "the beginning" - begin wrong and you're already halfway done. Correctness from the start is critical. Like a compass needle that is just off a degree leading us further and further into error, if we begin from a false premise the result is near inevitable.
Not knowing the Bible or refusing to believe what it says because it doesn't say what we want it to say is idolatry and eisegesis. Prophets are always sent to reset the people on the right path. See: The Bible
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.