Posted on 07/25/2010 1:37:12 PM PDT by betty boop
Praise God for your kind words.
Of course, I agree with you about freedom vs license.
"For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive?" -- 1 Corinthians 3:7
"Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you." -- John 15:16"Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee" -- Psalm 65:4
It just makes more sense to me to believe that whatever occurs does so because God has ordained everything in this world, one way or another, for His glory. He creates vessels of wrath fitted to destruction to display His judgment and vessels of mercy which He had before prepared to make known the riches of His glory (Romans 9.)
What if every man was born with the ears and eyes, but then some choose to shut them up against all the freely available evidence that God is Lord and Master of all creation from beginning to end?
But no one is born with ears to hear or eyes to see since all men are fallen and none is righteous but God. New ears and eyes are gifts from God which are given to those He regenerates by the Holy Spirit.
It makes me happy to believe God is in charge. That way I know whatever happens, "all things will work for for the good of those who love God, who are the called according to His purpose" (Romans 8:28.)
Thus I rest in God the Father, His Son, and the Holy Spirit: If I don't have the answers, I'm entirely confident that God does. And maybe someday He will share them with me. But probably not in "this" world.... Whatever the case, God's will WILL be done, in heaven and on earth. I'm entirely confident about that, too. And with this understanding comes peace — and joy.
AMEN!
God's blessings be upon you, dear sister in Christ!
And to you, Betty. All God's blessings.
Evidently, while you were posting it I was in the process of confirming what you so accurately suggested was my testimony vis-à-vis Creation ex nihilo. And I was delayed getting back to this thread. So, my apologies.
From the beginning of the sidebar, my spiritual sense is that the present challenge centers on the Name of God, i.e. Who God IS.
And Who God IS is a revelation which is to say, it cannot be known by mere mortal reasoning, sensory perception or Bible reading.
He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. - Matthew 16:15-18
Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and [that] no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. –I Corinthians 12:3
The father, son and holy spirit appear to be a committee..
Unless there is some kind of modalism involved..
I have no problem with that.. Whatever is... Is.. Whatever ain't..... Ain't..
I beg to differ, dear kosta:
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 1:20In what way does DNA "build itself?" How do you know this?
A supernova is not a "catastrophe" in my book. A star exploding is simply a star at the end of its stellar life cycle. All things in nature pass away; i.e., die. But the death of a star distributes essential heavy elements into the universe, which, on the large view, has the effect of supporting conditions that maintain life. When humans die, we don't call that a "catastrophe." Why would it be catastrophic for a star to die?
You aver that "Others, however, have to invent god so they can 'create' their own version of truth." To which I reply, God is not "invented." He is discerned. I discern that His truth is already in the world, and that it can be perceived and understood by man. So on this point, we disagree. And probably will continue to disagree.
You know the old saying: "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink."
If the horse is thirsty, he will drink. If not, then not. This analogy goes to the recognition that you "are not thirsty," and so don't "drink" the water that is offered to you.
You wrote:
Scientific evidence is a small part of the puzzle. It must never be believed absolutely. Big bang will be replaced in another generation or two with a new theory, each having a little of the truth but none all of it.New scientific theories do not so much "replace" earlier theories; rather they usually build on the existing theories, making corrections based on new evidence and observations.
In any case, Einstein's general relativity theory did not "replace" Newtonian mechanics. Einstein was careful to build on Newton's magnificent formalism; he just showed, among other things, that at very high velocities (i.e., velocities approaching the speed of light, which are not normally observed in ordinary four dimensional spacetime conditions) that the Newtonian physics will not completely account for the behavior observed. Newton's physics still work great in the 4D spacetime "block." Certainly Newtonian theory was not "replaced" by Einstein's work.
Your position seems to be that if you don't "know everything," then you really can't know anything at all (i.e., with reasonable assurance of validity), so why bother? That is an impossible standard, epistemologically speaking.
BTW, I do not "believe" in talking donkeys.... Although they may appear in fictional works and, thus, have a kind of phenomenal reality — though not that which pertains to real flesh-and-blood donkeys.
I hope you're enjoying your visit to Seville! Lucky you!
Thanks so much for writing, dear kosta!
I suggested before to Kosta that he should have a child. Then he might understand much better that the universe says plenty about God and it sure doesn't come from us.
My husband says it was when he first held his son that he finally understood what God's free grace actually meant. Nothing in his life could have merited or earned the splendid gift of a child.
"There is not one blade of grass, there is no color in this world that is not intended to make us rejoice." -- John Calvin""Thou hast formed us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless till they find rest in Thee." -- Augustine
BETTY TO KOSTA: Your position seems to be that if you don't "know everything," then you really can't know anything at all (i.e., with reasonable assurance of validity), so why bother? That is an impossible standard, epistemologically speaking.
That does seem to sum up Kosta's view of things which as you've said is a self-defeating exercise in frustration.
I guess it comes down to what we're most comfortable with - doubt or trust.
"Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and [that] no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." –I Corinthians 12:3
AMEN. Yet Bible-reading, made knowable by the Holy Spirit, is the way God has chosen to reveal Himself to us.
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." -- 2 Timothy 3:14-15 "But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
Christ, the word of God made flesh. Scripture, the word of God made known.
Indeed, the people Jesus is addressing below were physically hearing Him, but they could not spiritually hear Him. They did not have "ears to hear."
Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. – John 8:43
AMEN. I was just reading John 8 this morning...
"He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." -- John 8:47
That's quite an indictment. But the glory of God is such that anyone with a contrite heart who asks for new ears to hear the truth and new eyes to see the truth will not be turned away because it is the Holy Spirit working within them to desire such things, and thus they were always "of God."
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." -- John 10:27-28"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me;
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. - Revelation 1:8
AMEN!
Thx for your splendid comments and ping.
Best wishes to you all, this horse is dead.
I guess that's right, dear sister in Christ!
However, I do note: That which we doubt can have no claim on us.
Our dear kosta seems to be a pretty good psychologist. I wonder whether he has ever truly, deeply contemplated the problem of doubt.
Thank you ever so much for your astute insights!
Per #893: “That which we doubt can have no claim on us.”
My! What a captivating discussion you are having here, dear boop. Thank you for including me.
Puts me in mind of Tocqueville:
“It is clear from the works of Plato that many philosophical writers, his predecessors or contemporaries, professed materialism. These writers have not reached us or have reached us in mere fragments. The same thing has happened in almost all ages; the greater part of the most famous minds in literature adhere to the doctrines of a spiritual philosophy. The instinct and the taste of the human race maintain those doctrines; they save them often in spite of men themselves and raise the names of their defenders above the tide of time. It must not, then, be supposed that at any period or under any political condition the passion for physical gratifications and the opinions which are superinduced by that passion can ever content a whole people. The heart of man is of a larger mold; it can at once comprise a taste for the possessions of earth and the love of those of heaven; at times it may seem to cling devotedly to the one, but it will never be long without thinking of the other.” (Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy In America, Volume II, Second Book, Chapter XV, pg 146)
To this, Tocqueville says a page earlier: “Most religions are only general, simple, and practical means of teaching men the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. That is the greatest benefit which a democratic people derives from its belief, and hence belief is more necessary to such a people than to all others. When, therefore, any religion has struck its roots deep into a democracy, beware that you do not disturb it; but rather watch it carefully, as the most precious bequest of aristocratic ages. Do not seek to supersede the old religious opinions of men by new ones, lest in the passage from one faith to another, the soul being left for a while stripped of all belief, the love of physical gratifications should grow upon it and fill it wholly.” (Ibid, pg 145)
“In the passage from one faith to another,” many seek to replace the Judeo-Christian tradition in America with a materialistic faith that bears none but a bitter fruit that dumps one out on a desolate landscape. We know that such is not the case with friend kosta. He seeks a more fulfilling answer, but much of what he argues sends many off to that desolate landscape mentioned above. So, he can hardly expect less than emphatic dispute.
BTW, FWIW, after my own fashion, I do believe in talking donkeys. They provide a sometimes much needed comic relief (and it is often the case that with it, comic relief brings its own profound truth).
Betty boop, why should I believe him? Paul gives me no evidence that he can see and understand that which is aoratos, or unseen/invisible—even divinity itself?
If you can see and understand divinity, then describe it for me.
In what way does DNA "build itself?" How do you know this?
DNA can be observed replicating itself. Is DNA "alive"? Viruses, which are nothing but ribonucleic acid, are "alive" only in parasitic form, when they invade a body. Otherwise they are "dead".
A supernova is not a "catastrophe" in my book. A star exploding is simply a star at the end of its stellar life cycle.
In your post 870 you said that Cataclysmic events do not change the underlying structure of the universe. They are temporary departures from it. And when they blow over, we get back to the status quo ante.
I disagreed with this because that which is destroyed in a cataclysmic/catastrophic event (a violent upheaval), there is no return to status quo ante, concluding that cataclysmic events change the reality irreversibly. When you show me that an exploded star can return to status quo ante and be the same star it was before it exploded, I will accept your opinion.
All things in nature pass away; i.e., die. But the death of a star distributes essential heavy elements into the universe, which, on the large view, has the effect of supporting conditions that maintain life.
That is not returning to status quo ante, bb. That is "recycling."
When humans die, we don't call that a "catastrophe."
Because there is no return to status quo ante, bb. I don't see anyone ecstatic when a beloved one dies, especially a young one. Often people say "it's a shame," or "how sad!" and words to that effect. There is no "happy, happy, joy, joy" at death of a beloved one.
No one is ever too joyous at the prospect of that person being "reconstituted" somewhere to the status quo ante and living in bliss. I don't see Christians lining up to die as soon as possible or sending their children to play in traffic. There is an inherent disconnect between what Christians profess and how they react to death. Death is a catastrophe, bb, judging by how people react to it, no matter how much religious or cosmic romanticism is poured out to ease the pain .
You aver that "Others, however, have to invent god so they can 'create' their own version of truth." To which I reply, God is not "invented." He is discerned.
Same thing, different words. The source of this "discernment" is still a human being who claims to "see" and "understand" the invisible. Real things are discerned by everyone, not some. Try a hot stove top and see how many people can touch it without "discernment".
I discern that His truth is already in the world, and that it can be perceived and understood by man. So on this point, we disagree. And probably will continue to disagree.
That is obvious and a given. But since I am the one who is "blind" to, and unable to "understand" the unseen I ask that those who claim they can to please describe what they see and understand in real terms. Until then I will maintain that humans have a limited knowledge and cannot know everthying there is in this world because of its sheer size and complexity.
I will also maintain that we cannot telepathically know what is on other planets until and if we ever reach them physically (fat chance), because there is no magical crystal ball, a cosmic Google search engine, that answers all our questions in an instant.
You know the old saying: "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink."
Maybe it's because there is no water to drink bb. :) Maybe it's because the water is only imaginary and, to paraphrase David Frost, "the horse must think it queer to stop and drink without any water near."
New scientific theories do not so much "replace" earlier theories; rather they usually build on the existing theories, making corrections based on new evidence and observations.
That's another sweeping generlaizaiton, imo. Some evidence builds on existing theories, refines them, but other evidence replaces existing theories altogether, such as ism the case with the Steady State Theory, or the theory of infectious disease. The Big Bang of today is for all practical purposes a different theory from the original Big Bang, etc.
Your position seems to be that if you don't "know everything," then you really can't know anything at all (i.e., with reasonable assurance of validity), so why bother? That is an impossible standard, epistemologically speaking.
My position is simply that if we can't know everything we can't know everything, bb. :) That means we know something, but not everything. Given the size of the world and the mystery it holds for us, what we do know is pretty much nothing for all practical purposes. All our knowledge really amounts to a little more than nothing on the cosmic scale. In reality, what we do know cosmologically is pretty much a theory, and an ever-changing one at that.
BTW, I do not "believe" in talking donkeys.... Although they may appear in fictional works and, thus, have a kind of phenomenal reality — though not that which pertains to real flesh [sic]-and-blood donkeys.
Fictional work? A talking donkey is in the Bible, a real "flesh and blood donkey."
I hope you're enjoying your visit to Seville! Lucky you!
Thank you. Beautiful churches, good food, wine that is not dry (!), and air that is incredibly clean and fresh. I am overdosing on oxygen. And music to die for.
I seek neither to replace one for another, nor do I wish to "convert" anyone, nor do I expect praise. I simply ask of those who claim to see and understand the unseen divinity to describe it for me in real terms.
There is a way to explain (for those who will listen with their heart) how it is that Jesus would be God yet pray to The Father in Heaven. In the process of this analogizing, the nature of God, to some extent, will be revealed.
Assuming first that God IS, The Creator, The Holy Spirit, and Jesus, it is a function of what work God is doing by which we may focus upon which of the three expressions of God. Here's how:
Starting with something simple, if you were a two spatial dimension being, having only length and width, any third direction of spatial expression would be unknowable to you via your senses. Now, if higher dimensional being wanted to explain what a pencil is or anything with 3D spatial characteristics, the only way you could sense the 3D object is where that 3D object intersects your 2D world.
As a pencil--for instance--passes through your 2D plane, you look at the intersection intensely and perhaps imagine how adding up all the sensed intersections would sum up to a 3D object. But you could only sense where the 3D object intersects your 2D world. Jesus focused Philip's attention upon this same problem in John Chapter fourteen, where Jesus told Philip (paraphrasing), 'If you've seen me you've seen the Father, because all you can see of the Father is what you see in me, for I am in the Father and the Father in me.' Literally, what Jesus was teaching Philip was that human limits in dimensional sensing allow Philip to see only the amount of The Father that is in Jesus.
Now let's apply that to the expressions of God in Three persons, the Trinity, and see how the work that God is doing helps to focus us upon which of His personage is the essence. God's name is I AM. I take that to mean He is timeless, and therefore the Creator of dimension time and dimension space. It is a human trait to which we must analogize, but it helps to imagine that God imagined Whom Jesus would be as an expression of God, then God created space and time and all that there is in the known and unknown universe. That Creation process is by God greater than the creation.
The balance of forces is so delicate for the universe which has brought forth Jesus that God as Holy Spirit sustains it all in this extremely delicate balance.
So we have God The Creator bringing into existence time, space, and all that there is in the universe, holding it all in an extremely delicate balance by His Holy Spirit, so that God as Jesus can eventually come forth within the Created universe. Three expressions of One God, indentified by the work He is doing, the reality He is expressing.
The Bible tells us that God in Jesus made Himself a little lower than the angels (in expression and sensing). As God became flesh and dwelt among us, He had to limit the expression of Himself in order to 'fit' within the limits of our space and time.
HOWEVER, as God He retained the knowledge of what the forces are that His Holy Spirit sustains to keep the dynamic universe operating. Knowing the physical laws in total allows Him to do things like feed 5000 with but a few loaves and fishes.
Literally, everything that is happening is happening because God is sustaining the delicate balance which allows the universe to continue in existence without collapsing or quickly dissipating.
If you knew the complete physical laws of the universe, including the way God is sustaining the whole in delicate balance, you would be 'seeing what God The Father is doing.' Because the universe is in delicate balance yet is dynamic in nature, events can occur and so long as the physical laws of His universe are not violated, choices by living things can be made.
Here is another analogy which might help this explanation. Suppose you were privy to a pair of time binoculars, by which when you look through them you can see an object as it is expressed in spacetime for the next three hours, displayed before your eyes in total as you look through the lenses. Perhaps the lenses run a rapid movie of what is actually coming over the next three hours when you look through the lenses at an object located in the dynamic universe. You could literally say that you are seeing what God is doing, since it is His Holy Spirit that sustains the entire dynamic process of spacetime! Now, how much more power would you have if you comprehended the entire set of laws by which the entire universe is sutained?
If there are other unsensed expressions of dimension time, that as a 'knowing being' you were privy to as you dwelt upon the earth, perhaps you could moved between locations in time, perhaps leaving a stone tomb without rolling away the stone.
In a dynamic universe, if you could step 'sideways' in spatio-temporal expression because of your understanding of the volume of time in which the plane of present exists moving linearly from past to future, the planar location of the insides of the tomb in spacetime move on, leaving you outside of the tombs insides, able to step back into spacetime or remain in the where/when to which you stepped 'sideways'!
Now, perhaps the question bubbling up in your mind is 'so you're saying there is no free agency, we are stuck on a track doing that which God has already determined will be?' And my immediate answer is, no, because God chose, as one of the characteristics of this universe, that He would sustain the processes and the physical aspects while leaving open the choices living things can make which effect the universe He is sustaining ... God's Holy Spirit sustains the spacetime bubble we sense, but He allows us to alter/affect the dynamic expression within that bubble of spacetime since we in our limits cannot change the forces He is sustaining across the entire universe.
We have free choice, to a point that is limited by our temporal and spatial limits as 4D beings, physically. BUT, we are greater than 4D because we are alive, and the expression of life and spirit choice of right and wrong are dimensionally greater than 4D, yet occur within the universe which God Created(Creates) and which His Holy Spirit sustains in the delicate balance we sense and even the portions we cannot sense. To my thinking, that phenomenon of thoughts being real yet outside of 4D and effected/effecting 4D, tells me the Universe God Created/Creates is greater in dimensional expressions than we can sense directly.
And there are realms of reality which we cannot sense, which are referred to in the Bible, old and new testament. Daniel Chapter five will reveal one such realm, which is accessible to Jesus before and after the resurrection but is not accessible to us because we do not see what the Father is doing in sustaining that other realm, because we are merely 4D spatio-temporal beings where our physical senses are concerned.
Oh thank you so much for your kind words, dear YHAOS! With which you bring this thread back full circle to the article at the top.
In a nutshell, the article compares and contrasts the Anglo-American with the Franco-German philosophical traditions, with their respective ramifications for social and political life. The Anglo-American view traditionally, historically, is "under God." It holds God to be the creator and source of human rights, and also as the primary law-giver in the universe. In contrast, the Franco-German view seeks to describe a universe without God.
I have to thank dear kosta for his exemplification of the Franco-German approach.
Thank you ever so much for writing, dear YHAOS! I'm delighted you have found this discussion captivating!
Indeed, dearest sister in Christ, contemplation of the holy Names of God is magnificently instructive! There is no better way to come to an understanding of the divine Power that made and continues to rule this universe and the world of men, from Beginning to End.
And indeed, His was/is indubitably an ex nihilo creation.
Thank you ever so much for your outstanding essay/post!
To God be the glory!
You’ve not heard of an Irish wake? Or of the similar gatherings of black families and friends? I must have near a hundred recordings of the music played by Negro bands as they march back from the burial of a loved member of their community. There must be similar happenings from other cultures about which members of our forum could inform us should they chose.
I mention this not to be picky, but to indicate that human action is much too involved to be so lightly dismissed. Status quo ante is apropos here. The death of a family member may have its momentary effect, but it does not alter the fabric of society any more than does the death of a star alter the structure of the Universe.
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.