Posted on 05/03/2015 5:00:52 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The Universe will never be fully revealed this side of His coming....I believe quite impossible to reach far enough....there will always be more...and more within the more etc.
It’s fascinating when you realize the balance and ‘Interface’ designed into our world and the universe which we do know......Yet also reminds me of scripture where God speaks of the Heavens being shaken one day.....
It’s rather like the human body.....they still do not know all the elements of how it’s arranged and interacts....we are truly “awesomely” made!
BTW I always enjoy your posts for they are revealing and interesting every time! Even though they can go beyond my limited ability to understand in full...I always learn!
The main point of our book, "Timothy," is that faith and reason — theology and science— are NOT mutually exclusive entities. Rather, they represent the fundamental complementarities of Nature itself.
We are not exactly getting rich from royalties on this book. But I don't care; and I strongly doubt that A-G cares about this, either.
We said what we wanted to say, thinking it important. The one reviewer at Amazon understood perfectly. I am so grateful to that person.
Anyhoot, the important thing is not to think that faith and reason are somehow at odds to each other, or contradict each other. Indeed, Christianity is replete with examples of the search of reason in faith — of the perennial fides quaerens intellectum.
I'm currently reading a great book, from which I have cited key passages on this thread. It was written by a Jesuit priest by the name of Robert J. Spitzer. It seems his entire mission in life is to show that faith and reason are completely reconcilable. He has created a website devoted to this proposition, the the Magis Center. I have found it a wonderful resource....
Not that I am in love with Jesuits per se. In my mind, so often in the past they have constructed modes of thinking/analysis that fall under the head of casuistry. Regarding which I do not find a dime's worth of difference from classical sophistry — recalling that it was with the Sophists that Socrates did battle in his own time. [And they judicially murdered him for it, in the end.]
Then again, I recall that one of the greatest innovations in modern science was the product of a Jesuit thinker. In particular, I would point out Georges LeMaitre, the father/founder of big bang/singularity cosmological theory....
Lots of great scientists were "men in orders." Indeed, the father of the science of genetics was an Augustinian monk — that is, Gregor Mendel....
Just some thoughts....
Thanks ever so much, dear brother in Christ, for your very kind words of support for A-G and me.
Indeed, dear caww. Meanwhile, we humans "see as if through a glass, darkly." But we are also drawn unto His Light...
All thanks and praise be unto the Lord!!!
It certainly has all the most unattractive characteristics of a “religion”; a rabid following of “True-Believers,” Hell-bent on destroying anyone who might disagree with any particular ~ an insistence on strict adherence to the prescribed Liberal doctrine ~ etc.
As with all other “religions,” it is a belief system
A District Court has found Atheism to be a religion. I don’t know that the issue has gone any further than that.
As far as the issue of “Gay” marriage is concerned; I know of no other word, besides “marriage,” where its meaning is mandated by Law and the Courts (a considerable departure from the customary “evolution” of a word).
~~~~~~~~~
I couldn't agree more! As bb & A-G and I have discussed at length, mankind's knowledge of the universe will always be limited by C. All of our info is conveyed by one form of electromagnetic radiation or another. (If something is a light-year away, we're seeing "last year's news"...)
And, unless Einstein was totally wrong, we can never significantly improve the situation by reducing the distance to far-off objects.
But, God, from his Creator's reference frame, can see the entire universe, simultaneously (what we refer to as "Universal Now"... But, just imagine what insights we may gain once we are, ourselves, "in His domain"...
....” just imagine what insights we may gain once we are, ourselves, “in His domain”.....
Amen!...Yet I cannot help but think of the glimmers of that He gives us now. Most of all in His Word when HE reveals so amazingly His deeper truths. ...and you’re left speechless and in awe because you KNOW that that which seen revealed could not have happened in ones own understanding.
It was said to me once...that life IS difficult and full of problems, maintaining our life is hard work..... But then as we walk through these times God gives us bright moments.....a family picnic with loved ones, the birth of a new baby, a smile from the man or woman we love, catching the big fish that we’ve tried for years to snag, all these moments that’ help us to return to life and carry on’.....the hard work is still there but we are refreshed along the way...in heart.
>> But, just imagine what insights we may gain once we are, ourselves, “in His domain”. <<
.
Do you mean when “The Earth and heavens departed from his face for no place was found for them?”
The physical universe will have ceased to have a purpose, much like our flesh and blood bodies will have no purpose.
Cheer up, atheists! Though the atheist may not be covered by the Religion clauses of the First Amendment, they are still fully protected by its guarantee of Free Speech, not to mention Free Association….
Sure they are... The god in the American Constitution is a “Generic God”... take your choice..
The founders were quite wise in that..
They didn’t try to BAG God...
If yer god is Jesus more power to ya..
If NOT, then make one up...
Heck ALLL Marxists(of whatever stripe) make givernment God..
WHICH; is the main glaring ERROR of marxism...
Making givernment God trasports you to “OZ”....
with wizards, witchs, strawmen, tinmen even Munchkins..
Follow the RED Brick Road... to see the wunderful wizard of TAXES...
He will tax YOU and your little dog too..
Just shows how out-of-practice I am on "doing" FR... '-)
Just shows how out-of-practice I am on "doing" FR... '-)
"Genesis: A Scientist Looks At the First Two Verses"...
At present, the effort is dormant, because I am focused on rescuing a lifelong, "senior" friend from the clutches of abusive relatives.
However, if you are truly interested, and are vouched for by my "consulting/praying partners", bb & A-G, I might give you privileged access to a glimpse of a few of the graphics that I have stored online.
Interested, caww?
bb & A-G: I may be contacting you via FReepmail...
....didn’t get enough attention from Mommy and Daddy.
But that is not to say that a "belief system" is necessarily a "religion." And therein lies the rub....
You wrote:
As far as the issue of “Gay” marriage is concerned; I know of no other word, besides “marriage,” where its meaning is mandated by Law and the Courts (a considerable departure from the customary “evolution” of a word).This is exactly what troubles me. Why on earth do we need to have official court definitions of what "religion" or "marriage" is?
Though at least one federal appeals court has found that atheism is a "religion" and thus is fully protected on "free exercise" and "equal protection" grounds, SCOTUS has not yet weighed in on this thorny question.
SCOTUS will get the gay marriage question first. God only knows what they will do with it; their decision is forthcoming, by the end of June.
What bothers me about all this is, give a problem to courts and lawyers, then all of the sudden the "clarity of definition" of the relevant terms becomes paramount. Actual human experience dating back in millennia of human history, and all common-sense knowledge of such matters derived therefrom, is totally eclipsed in this process.
"Marriage" heretofore has universally been understood by We the People and the countless generations that came before us, as the word attached to the concept of a union of a man and a woman for the purpose of bearing, protecting, and nurturing their offspring. As such, so-called "romantic love" isn't even mentioned, let alone considered fundamental to the marital relation. Perhaps we might say that "marriage" is the legacy of biologically-neccesitated male–female bonding, for the benefit of progeny.
But the legitimacy of "Gay" marriage is entirely based on the idea of "romantic love." To confirm this idea would constitute the complete redefinition, if not outright inversion, of the common understanding of what marriage is at its very essence.
Likewise the problem of the definition of "religion." Again, courts and lawyers are always interested in the precise definition of things — usually in ways that tend to denigrate actual human historical experience.
"Religion" has been in this world ever since Man arrived. Man has ever so much more experience with this, going back millennia, than SCOTUS does. On the universal report of mankind, "Religion" pertains to a realm "not of this world," a spiritual, metaphysical realm wherein God and soul are reconciled in eternity....
But as already noted elsewhere, if atheism is absolutely committed to the denial of God and soul both, then in what way can it be said that anything the atheists are doing has anything to do with "Religion?"
See what I mean about the significance of definitions???
I think it is improper in principle for secular courts to be deciding such matters of such profound consequence to American society.
Certainly Congress is prohibited by the First Amendment from acting in such "definitional" spheres. Article II Executive powers do not seem to include any such grant. The Article III courts have not been granted any such power either; their role "extends to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution" — but it seems the Constitution does not grant what we have called these "definitional powers" at all, to any branch of the federal government, in the first place.
Just some thoughts. Oh, we do live in such interesting times, my dear brother in Christ! Thank you so much for writing!
I just love it, that you have compared and contrasted two (of four) of God's sublime revelations to Man — Holy Scripture and the Book of Nature (the Creation) — and found them logically, internally consistent. As I do! (And I daresay, as my dearest sister in Christ, A-G, does also!)
May our Lord ever bless you and all your dear ones!
Oh yes indeed I’m interested.
T think His Word opens and is revealed as the Universe does...there’s always more. Not only that but they both breath life!
And that, Dear Sister, is why the courts are so focused on definitions...a cynic would say they're focused on "their" authority to make definitions. That is heard in the consternation of Kennedy when he observed that the definition of marriage has been man/woman for millennia. He knew they would be bucking a bit of a trend in the definition of marriage were the Court to go with a definition that is about a decade old in their discarding of one that is millennia old. The concern might have been more "How do we sell this novel definition?" rather than "Is this homosexual marriage within our authority to force upon the nation?"
Since marriage is no place mentioned in the Constitution but the power of the People and the power of States is specifically placed over everything not mentioned in the Constitution, then Kennedy was searching for a definition to fit into his bailiwick of 'dignity', the word he has used to justify other excursions into heretofore unknown rights. He seems to think the Constitution grants a "right TO social dignity". (He is wrong, of course. Dignity, like reputation, is earned.)
Kennedy is left with declaring marriage to be about 'romantic love', if he goes down his 'dignity' pathway again. And just about every culture from the inception of time that saw value in arranged marriages will laugh at him. Every culture that valued natural law will laugh at him. Every Judeo-Christian nation in history will laugh at him.
And in the end, God will laugh at him.
As if to redefine a word will effectively "change the world." I rather doubt it: One cannot trim truth down to one's own set of personal preferences. Though heaven knows, people do try, what they end up getting is not a world transformed, but a world totally disordered.
I just read a wonderful article by David French — "The Battle of Indiana and the Promise of Battles to Come" — in the latest edition of Hillsdale College's Imprimis (April 2015/Vol 44, No. 4; it's not yet posted on their site). The article is an analysis of Indiana's recent attempt to incorporate the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act into Indiana law, against the fierce, massive resistance of the gay rights movement and their collaborators — in academe, the media, and even some Christian churches. Neither party to this debate got what they wanted. And so this particular culture war will continue to be waged as far as the eye can see.
Still, French is rather upbeat about American cultural prospects. Here's the way he sees it:
To understand the future, let's revisit and explain the four truths of the modern culture war.Let's hope David French's analysis proves correct.
First, the conflict is not between gay rights and religious liberty, but between the sexual revolution and Christianity.... And just over the horizon are new, widespread battles over the very definition of what it means to be male or female. Simply put, the sexual revolution questions everything about sexual morality and identity — demanding changes in every aspect of traditional sexual morality and, consequently, orthodox Christian theology.
The gay rights movement is inseparable from the sexual revolution, and the sexual revolution is inseparable from the gay rights movement. The principles of radical sexual autonomy, freedom from any form of moral judgment, and government support to ameliorate the consequences of sexual libertinism are present in the fights over abortion, gay rights, and now transgender issues....
Second, not a single major orthodox Christian denomination is reconsidering its stance on sexual revolution issues. While the media reports on the "progress" of the gay rights movement in mainline denominations — for example, the Presbyterian Church (USA) recently changed its definition of marriage to include same-sex unions — this movement is irrelevant to the much larger Evangelical and orthodox Catholic communities. None of the large orthodox Protestant denominations are changing their stance on human sexuality. Neither is the Catholic Church. Neither are the various branches of orthodoxy. And these institutions collectively dwarf the liberal, mainline churches when it comes to churchgoing adherents.
Given this reality, the rapid advances of the gay rights movement and its allied sexual revolutionaries — coming as they do largely from liberal and less churchgoing segments of the population —will soon stagnate as they face the challenge of persuading tens of millions of Bible-believing Americans that there is nothing wrong with same-sex marriage. Given the absence of scriptural support for this position, the gay rights movement will face many of the same challenges as the abortion lobby, and will likely meet with a similar lack of success.
Browbeating Christians into submission is not a new tactic....
Third, the religious liberty movement is showing increasing, not decreasing cultural strength.... [He gives several examples.]
Fourth, conservative public intellectuals are holding firm in defense of life and religious freedom. Throughout the Battle of Indiana, there was striking unity among leading conservative thinkers. The consensus was clear even among those who support gay marriage: The Left had become illiberal and dangerous. A pluralistic nation must have room for cultural dissenters, and the desire to shame and blacklist individuals and businesses had to be opposed, and opposed vigorously.
In fact, one was more likely to read about discomfort on the Left at some of the mob tactics than about discomfort among conservatives at the defense of religious liberty. This unanimity left Republican politicians relatively isolated, in the familiar position of abandoning their culturally conservative constituents to do the bidding of their corporate supporters.
Yet even this is likely to change. Most politicians are cultural followers, not cultural leaders, and if the base and the intellectual core of the conservative movement remain relatively united, Republican politicians will eventually bend....
What he definitely gets right (IMHO): "These battles will stop only if Christians abandon their historic faith on a truly national scale or if the Left decides that it is content to 'live and let live' — to work, attend school, and share the public square with people who express moral disagreement and who work actively to promote a cultural return to traditional morality."
For the time being, however, neither side looks ready to yield. So conservatives should be prepared for more — more battles over weddings, more campus intolerance, more boycotts, more buycotts, and more cultural anger and division.French closes with a very sobering reminder to us Christians:To be sure, this is not the future that anyone desires, but for Christians, it is a far better future than one of isolation, censorship, and marginalization.
...[F]or Christianity, this is nothing new. Cultural rejection is a scriptural promise and a longtime historical fact. As Christians in the Middle East and Africa face hideous violence, American Christians shouldn't feel overwhelmed in the face of relatively minimal persecution. Christianity has survived lions. It is surviving beheadings.... When it comes to the core of their faith, millions of Christians will echo, by word and deed, the words of Martin Luther: Here we stand. We can do no other. [Italics added]Let us not forget: Our strength is in our Lord. All thanks and praise be unto Him!
Thank you so much, dear brother in Christ, for your eloquent essay/post!
Again...Excellent!
I have copied your post for future reference....thank you!
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.