Posted on 03/12/2011 2:58:25 PM PST by betty boop
Yep. The triumph of idiocy over reason. Score one for Satan.
Just some thoughts: This is not an "either/or" proposition. For as T.S. Eliot said, "Man lives at the intersection of time and timelessness."
What did Eliot mean by that? I think he was acknowledging the "duality" of the human person — eternal (that is to say timeless) soul plus physical/material body which, because it is physical/material, is subject to space and time. The latter moves along a horizontal timeline, which moves irreversibly from past, to present, to future. The soul, however, because it is eternal, partakes of the Eternal Now, which is timeless — the "vertical" movement that connects man to the eternal divine....
You asked: "Does the Bible speak to that or is this question a waste of precious time and space?"
My answers: Yes and no, respectively.
Thank you for your truly beautiful essay/post, dear Mind-number Robot!
While mulling whether to respond to a post above about lies, I was think along those lines. Many say that our basic characters and personalities are formed by the time we reach 5 - 7 years old. I see our development as a tree which sprouts into many limbs. As we accept something as true we follow that limb and all branches after that are influenced by that original choice. Of course there are many limbs and many choices as we proceed and each choice is influenced by the ones before it. If, along the way, we learn a different "truth" or have an epiphany, like a squirrel we jump to a different limb with different truths having resulted from the change.
As we accept false things as true, I don't consider the error to be a lie, just a mistake. The fact that we make other judgements based on a mistaken judgement does not make us liars. It just makes us wrong.
In the first place, OTHERS are too beneath the smugly, self-righteously arrogant for such a white-washed tomb to even contemplate such a refreshing redemptive experience—even if all mental/spiritual.
In the second place, the walking pit of vipers would not have a clue as to the first step toward such an empathetic experience.
Narcism is simply taking the consequences of Adam and Eve's disobedience to the extreme. Becoming self-aware introduced all our human foibles and separated us from pure spirit and union with God. We are in a constant battle to get back. Narcissists are headed in the opposite direction. They are moving further and further away from God and into a deepening pit of inequity and misery. Unfortunately, they like to spread that misery around.
What is Communism other than narcism of the elite? What are the consequences of Communism, even for the elite? Misery!
Thank you ever so much for posting it!
Truly, I find the techniques employed by so-called "New Age religion" deeply subversive. I think of them as Satanic attacks on the human psyche itself.
In short, it isn't so much about what New Age religion says, it's what it does to human reason, and sanity itself.
In the end, I gather these folks understand themselves as being in the "robotization of humanity" business. This is a soul-killing enterprise, from first to last.
JMHO FWIW.
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.
EXTREMELY WELL PUT.
THX THX.
FYI:
About 8-12 min . . . talks about
Rockefellers extended family and Warren Buffett’s extended family both scheduled to be in New Delhi in mid March.
I wonder where the other globalist leaders are . . . this week and next.
Anyone else have any info on any others? Where’s Bill Gates?
Where’s Ted Turner?
Where’s the Klintoons?
OThuga is in Rio . . . hmmmmm
Author of the video mentions Jesus showing her the dates 22, 23 March as some sort of warning
http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=66405&cpage=1#comment-377603
She very strongly insists folks have a bug-out bag with them at all times.
AND THAT THOSE LIVING IN FAULT ZONE AREAS TAKE A VACATION AWAY FROM SUCH AREAS SAY FROM NOW TO THE END OF MARCH—PARTICULARLY THE NEXT 5-7 DAYS.
-—PARTICULARLY THE 22-23 OR SO.
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.
Throwing masses of humanity into the wood chipper that empties into hell itself.
I see my question about Einstein’s theory drew little interest. However, it had a purpose. Not being burdened with the vast storehouse of knowledge of the rest of you, my simple mind is rather straight forward. I was not interested in just the ever-present now versus the ever-changing now, I was leading up to Einstein’s search for the unifying theory, the unifying force which is the center of everything and has been a quest of many. For me, one not even proficient in quadratic equations, but one who has much interest in the Bible and Christianity, the answer seems to be right in front of us. LOVE!
I know that will label me as a simpleton, not sophisticated enough to understand the nuances of such a problem, but instead one who offers a nonsensical solution, but I see love as a dynamic force, one that affects the external, one that can move the atoms and molecules and even the cosmos, one that comes straight from God. Isn’t that what the Bible says? In fact, the Bible says God IS Love! If God is Love and if God is the Center of it all, well .... ???
I suspect those of you more Biblical facile than I can even provide ample citations for such.
You’re welcome.
And Gagdad Bob has a LOT to say about the New-Age America hater, the demon Deepak Chopra in the comments section, too.
I don’t know if you are aware, or not . . .
Will and Ariel Durant spent more than 50 years of their adult lives studying all of recorded history to see what they could glean in terms of functionally powerful themes and lessons.
A reporter or some such once asked Will, if he could reduce all they’d learned into once sentence. He said he could reduce it into 3 words:
LOVE ONE ANOTHER.
Thank you! Either I wasn’t aware of it or my forgetter is working well.
My credit card payment and my rent are due on the 22nd and 23rd. I guess I can skip those. In fact, times awastin’. I have two more days to blow it all. It would be just my luck that there would be no disaster, no Armageddon, no anything but a broke robot.
Just to pose such a question irrefutably proves that you are no "simpleton," nor a person lacking in "sophistication." (Chuck the latter in any case, IMHO.)
If I understand you correctly, you were asking about Einstein's search for a "unifying theory"; and, were he to find it, how that would stack up against what the Bible teaches.
Just some thoughts: (1) Einstein, indeed, was in search of the fundamental, universal, "unifying theory" that could account for the order and process of the entire Universe. He, of course, failed at this: One of the four fundamental forces of nature, gravity, refused to behave! (2) Though most of the Neo-Darwinists/metaphysical materialists out there that I regularly talk to scream bloody murder whenever I so much as suggest that Einstein had a deeply religious sense of Reality, I am convinced he did. Like Newton, he was deeply motivated by the desire to disclose God's Order, which lies behind all phenomenal Reality. Einstein had the charming habit of referring to the Creator God as "the Old One," or "the Old Man."
Technically Einstein wasn't "religious" in the common sense of publicly attending church/synagogue services on a regular basis. He was "religious" by sheer habit of mind and heart....
In short, dear Mind-numbed Robot, you will not find your answer in Einstein. But he's asking the very same question you are.
May God ever bless you!
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
Live ready to go instantly.
Prepare for disaster within hours or days . . .
Plan for years yet.
“Though most of out there that I regularly talk to scream bloody murder whenever I so much as suggest that Einstein had a deeply religious sense of Reality, I am convinced he did. Like Newton, he was deeply motivated by the desire to disclose God’s Order, which lies behind all phenomenal Reality. Einstein had the charming habit of referring to the Creator God as “the Old One,” or “the Old Man.” “ ~ betty boop
The Neo-Darwinists/metaphysical materialists you talk to must also be deliberately ignoring things like this:
“Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” ~ Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, New York, 1954 p. 46.
Thank you for your response. However, you are ignoring that which qualifies me as a simpleton - the unifying factor and physical existence of Love. I am proposing that it is more than an emotion.
I read that Einstein had finally settle on gravity being the “wind” of space creating a sort of Venturi effect when passing over objects such as the planets.
Dimension space has three variable expressions, length or linear, planar or length and width, and volume, or length width and height taken together. If the big bang is an accurate description of how dimension space came into being, then the complexity of dimension space would have manifested from simplist to most complex, from point to linear to planar to volumetric.
If, on the other hand, the universe did not start from an initial bang, would dimension space have always been a volume, with lesser expressions like linear and planar?
To consider this conundrum, consider that a photon is a wee bit of space, a pinch of time, and some energy. The photon crosses unlimited expanses of space while remaining always in the present. Thats how sceince can discern what the nature of the star we detect is, what elements and in some fashion what amounts, because the photon is carrying an imprint of the present of the source for the moment it was emitted.
This packet of space, time, and energy is "in" the universe of spacetime and is a lesser expression of the environment where it exists. The universe is constructed "by" information, but it is the wee thing called photon which appears to be the most fundamental "stable thing" of which everything is composed above the seething quantum realm which bubbles and churns real and virtual particles into and almost immediately out of existence.
Albert sought a way to unify the fundamental forces which are discernable when "things" relate to one another. The problem he faced was finding a basic equational expression which would fit for the large reality of planets, stars and galaxies, and remain valid expressions when contemplating the very small, quatum realm of fundamental "things". I wish he had hit upon the notion of viewing the universe in phase states, such that gravity only emerged in the universe when the quantum realm found a way to stablize aspects of the spacetime/energy creation, thus trying to find an equation or set of equations which are valid for the very large and the quantum realm is not necessary since these are two different and distinct phase states of the thing God Created/is creating called "the universe".
I believe the universe has emerged along simplest to more complex strategy. ANd if salvation is any indication of continuing creation ('behold, a new creation'), the act of being born again is yet another phase transition in God's planned design. When the universe shifted from 'only' the quantum state, to have "things" emerge, the quatum state in no way disappeared, just as space, as a volume, has inherent in it the planar and linear expressions (and even the point expressions!). Dimension time works in a similar fashion, expressing variables such as past, present, and future ... time is a volume.
Well, I see I've gone on too long. Please forgive my long-winded post, but take heart in that spiritual reality is an emerging property of the universe which God has created and continues to create. Albert would never have sought to write equations to define spiritual reality which would encompass the quantum realm and the realm of the very large. But in effect, his search for a unified field theory is sort of like seeking to integrate all that has emerged, and it just might not be fashioned for such simplicity.
I’m somewhat familiar with Einstein’s theory, but not enough to comment on it intelligibly.
Having a strong scientific bent, nevertheless, it’s been interesting to have a change in perspective from a focus on the material and natural to what is really important and that is relationship.
Our whole culture and society is performance based and analytical but the most important things don’t fall into those categories.
Love does. It is the heart of relationships.
As I start reading your post I can see it is going to make my head hurt. You smart folks talk in mathematical symbols and I am restricted to the symbols of the English language, words with as few syllables as possible.
I am going to take a brief respite from theorizing and do something that has a lead pipe cinch guarantee, go buy a lottery ticket. (grin) Who says I don’t have faith?
I’ll rejoin the fray shortly.
John 3:18; 5:25; 9:35; 10:36 and 11:4. So although Jesus meant the same thing, or nearly the same, by those terms, I do not think it is correct to say he never used the term for himself. Thank you for the link about the "Son of Man", though.
One more thought, Jesus never corrected anyone who used the term Son of God for him so I am sure that, as you said, the terms were synonymous.
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.