The Word of God is the Will of God

[markomalley]

Actually, Mark, :) Your comments on the Unified Field Theory (which is waaaaayyyyyy beyond my understanding) seem to be reflected in the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. I haven't read it, but the "Cliff Notes" version talks about how Jesus came and gave us holy spirit and how we have all this power within us and how we're all connected one to another and everything we do impacts the lives of others and, therefore, how important it is to remember that in our day to day life. It's a more mystical, spiritual and personally empowering book on an individual level, which would have been very intimidating and threatening to those looking for absolute power over others.

Again, I fully acknowledge that you are light years ahead of me in your understanding of the churches and religious history. I'm trying to catch up and sincerely appreciate your input.

Well, I think you're making it a little too complex.

First of all, I do not pretend to be any kind of an expert on gnostic texts. As you know, I don't subscribe to gnositicism, so I'm honestly just not in any kind of position to discuss the merits of what was there or not.

The analogy that I was trying to draw (based upon the analogy of Newtonian Mechanics, not upon field theory), is as follows:

Gravity is nothing in of itself. Gravitational force requires matter (at least two distinct objects) in order to have any kind of meaning whatsoever. Even then, looking at it from a Newtonian perspective, gravity is not a thing, it's an attraction that the two have one for another. The formula I wrote for gravity, F_1,2=G×(m₁m₂/r_1,2²), is not gravity, it describes gravity.

The analogy is sort of like this:

Draw a parallel between the two objects (m₁ and m₂) with God and his creation. The attractive force (the interaction) between God and His creation exists, but, without the existence of God, it is rather meaningless. Likewise, without the existence of His creation, there is nowhere for that attraction to go. The attractive force that exist between God and His creation will grow the closer the creation moves to God. Likewise, if His creation moves farther away, it is more likely to be attracted to other objects (in this model).

(I know it is not a perfect analogy...in fact it is very flawed...m₂ is not dependent upon m₁ for its existence nor did m₂ create m₁ and likewise m₂ did not write about and describe m₁ or the F_1,2...just the most obvious flaw...but hopefully it is a bit useful despite its flaws)

Now the words that are written down and documented as F_1,2=G×(m₁m₂/r_1,2²) are meaningless without the objects. The words God inspired the authors of the canonical writers to put down are meaningless without God there to warrant them. Likewise, the words written down are rather futile if there is no creation to appreciate them. Did Gravity exist prior to the documentation of the formula: F_1,2=G×(m₁m₂/r_1,2²)? Of course it did. Does the interaction (the attraction) between God and His creation exist if there is no written word? Of course. Is gravity dependent upon the existence of the formula, F_1,2=G×(m₁m₂/r_1,2²)? Of course not. Is the interaction between God and His creation dependent upon the existence of a written word? Of course not.

So what good is the formula, F_1,2=G×(m₁m₂/r_1,2²)? If you choose to understand the interaction between the two objects, m₁ and m₂, you will need to understand the formula. If you choose to understand the interaction between God and man, you will need to understand God's Word. Will gravity work if you don't understand it? Sure. Can you gain some anecdotal knowledge without understanding the math? Yes. Will God continue to interact with man (with that attraction exist) if man has no understanding of God's Word? Yes. Can man gain some anecdotal knowledge without an understanding of God's Word? Sure. Can you get a false understanding of gravity as a consequence of not understanding it? Yes. Can you get a false understanding of God's interaction with man as a consequence of not understanding God's Word? Yes.

Finally, does Newton's gravitational formula work? Yes...to the degree of precision that was available given the technology and the theoretical mathematics available at his time. However, there are more modern and precise theories that help apply that principle to technologies around at this time. Can Newton's gravitational formula be shown false? Again, within the scope that it should be applied, no. Is written scripture true? Yes...within the levels of understanding that His creation had when this word was written. Are there additional formulae that help the modern scientist apply the basic principles behind Newtonian mechanics more precisely? Yes. And likewise, when helping us understand the relationship between God and His creation.

[lindyhopper]

I understand what you are saying there, Mark, even though I disagree.

Taking that comparison you just made, I would say then that for those that truly want to know God then they should expose themselves to as many "formulae" as possible and learn as much as you can from each. I say that as in "letting it (the formula) speak for itself" not take what matches with my current belief system.

That isn't what happens though most of the time, is it? What usually happens is that we stick with what is the cultural norm or family tradition, even if that norm is a formula from one group of people that hovered or were pushed around the Mediteranean and Asia Minor, which was written about 2000- 3000 years ago and take that as "the Word of God." They take that formula as a sole source to God and toss the others into a pile labeled "hogwash." What usually happens is that people accept it because it works for them or makes sense to them or is easily explained to them or explained away. This does not make something "the word of God."

I know that would be a lot of reading but not any more than studying the same book everyday of your life. Perhaps one might learn more! Maybe not.

BTW,

Personally I think the Catholics have one of the best perspectives on all this. Yall seem to focus more on the good actions and morals of an idividual in identifying a "godly" person and not what books they read or what title they put on the god box. I believe the last pope said something to the effect that there are Christians that don't know they are Christians or don't acknowledge themselves as such, because they live Christian values.

Edited February 8, 2006 by lindyhopper

[markomalley]

I understand what you are saying there, Mark, even though I disagree.

Of course, but I usually say YMMV...that's why...

Taking that comparison you just made, I would say then that for those that truly want to know God then they should expose themselves to as many "formulae" as possible and learn as much as you can from each. I say that as in "letting it (the formula) speak for itself" not take what matches with my current belief system.

Looking at it from a macro perspective, it is absolutely a wise thing to test any given formula presented. If the formula produces results that are in concert with known axioms and proven theorems, then it is likely a valid formula. If, on the other hand, the formula produces results that are not valid, then the formula is without a doubt invalid.

That isn't what happens though most of the time, is it? What usually happens is that we stick with what is the cultural norm or family tradition....

It may be for you, my parents were agnostics ;)

...even if that norm is a formula from one group of people that hovered or were pushed around the Mediteranean and Asia Minor, which was written about 2000- 3000 years ago and take that as "the Word of God."

Well, if you consider it, most of the foundations of modern western philosphy came from the mediterranean area from around that time, as well. Including the foundations of what 'agnostics' and 'atheists' tout as 'ethics.' Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Euclid, etc. The foundations of western algebra and geometry come from that time and region, as well.

...They take that formula as a sole source to God and toss the others into a pile labeled "hogwash." What usually happens is that people accept it because it works for them or makes sense to them or is easily explained to them or explained away. This does not make something "the word of God."

Of course, you recognize that I am not a sola scriptura Protestant (I believe that being sola scriptura is unscriptural :) )

I know that would be a lot of reading but not any more than studying the same book everyday of your life. Perhaps one might learn more! Maybe not.

I agree. That's why I enjoy studying Patristic writings and other theological works that help us understand the science of existence.

BTW,

Personally I think the Catholics have one of the best perspectives on all this. Yall seem to focus more on the good actions and morals of an idividual in identifying a "godly" person and not what books they read or what title they put on the god box. I believe the last pope said something to the effect that there are Christians that don't know they are Christians or don't acknowledge themselves as such, because they live Christian values.

Thanks. However, the Church teaches: "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" (there is no salvation outside the Church). However (a point that most Protestants and not a few Catholics don't understand) is that there is only one Church...there are ecclesial groupswho are in schism with the Church and there are those that, over a period of centuries, have fallen into heresy, but that doesn't all of a sudden change them into being different "churches." There is only one Church. Period. (cf 1 Cor 3:3-7, 1 cor 12:12-14). Christ, the Light of the World, is the head of that Church and illuminates our understanding. Even though an ecclesial group may be in schism, they are still lit by the light of the Word incarnate (cf Phil 1:18). So the statement holds true (extra ecclesiam nulla salus) for Christians who are raised in other ecclesial communities.

As you can see in the example below, Paul acknowledged what was true as taught in classical Greek philosophy(cf Acts 17:17ff) and used that truth to spread the gospel. There will be some degree of truth in virtually any philosophical tradition. I can say that because of the fact that we believe (from scripture) that all men had a common origin. As civilization spread, it is likely that there are some degrees of commonality of this common light was preserved in the traditions of all societies. Not all the light...and certainly not an equal distribution of that light, but some light, nevertheless. There is a natural law that is written on men's hearts (cf Rom 2:15). Whether that natural law is genetic or cultural is not important, the fact remains that it exists. So therefore, it is possible for a man to do good to others and to love and revere God to the best of the man's knowledge and ability, whether or not he has been taught Christ. As a result of this, we also believe that God will show mercy for the sake of true justice to those who have endeavored to live according to this natural law engraved on their hearts but, who through no fault of their own, have not been taught sufficiently enough to have the opportunity to believe on the Lord Jesus and be baptized. That's not to say that they are guaranteed salvation, that is not an excuse for willful ignorance, but it is an affirmation of the magnitude of the salvific work of the cross.

By the way, on this subject, I'd like to reproduce Paul's discourse on Mars Hill...I believe you'd find it most appropriate:

Act 17:16 Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols.

Act 17:17 So he argued in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the market place every day with those who chanced to be there.

Act 17:18 Some also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers met him. And some said, "What would this babbler say?" Others said, "He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities"--because he preached Jesus and the resurrection.

Act 17:19 And they took hold of him and brought him to the Are-op'agus, saying, "May we know what this new teaching is which you present?

Act 17:20 For you bring some strange things to our ears; we wish to know therefore what these things mean."

Act 17:21 Now all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new.

Act 17:22 So Paul, standing in the middle of the Are-op'agus, said: "Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious.

Act 17:23 For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, 'To an unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.

Act 17:24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man,

Act 17:25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything.

Act 17:26 And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation,

Act 17:27 that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us,

Act 17:28 for 'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your poets have said, 'For we are indeed his offspring.'

Act 17:29 Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the Deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, a representation by the art and imagination of man.

Act 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent,

Act 17:31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all men by raising him from the dead."

Act 17:32 Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked; but others said, "We will hear you again about this."

Act 17:33 So Paul went out from among them.

Act 17:34 But some men joined him and believed, among them Dionys'ius the Are-op'agite and a woman named Dam'aris and others with them.

You'll note a couple of things here:

• Paul was familiar with these other Gods -- and likely was familiar with other philosphical teachings espoused there.
  
• Paul used what was good from those schools to help make his point.
  

An issue that some could likely consider to their rhetorical profit...

[rhino]

... the Church teaches: "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" (there is no salvation outside the Church). ... Christ, the Light of the World, is the head of that Church and illuminates our understanding. .... So the statement holds true (extra ecclesiam nulla salus) for Christians who are raised in other ecclesial communities.

Did Christ make that statement? Sounds latin! If it was a pope, then how can you claim he was speaking for Christ and the whole church? And who splintered from whom?

You capitalize the Church ... and say IT teaches ... it seems you are equating Church with the Roman Catholic religion? ... Maybe I got lost somewhere in your discourse :)

Edited February 8, 2006 by rhino

[markomalley]

Did Christ make that statement? Sounds latin! If it was a pope, then how can you claim he was speaking for Christ and the whole church? And who splintered from whom?

You capitalize the Church ... and say IT teaches ... it seems you are equating Church with the Roman Catholic religion? ... Maybe I got lost somewhere in your discourse :)

Lindy made the following statement: Personally I think the Catholics have one of the best perspectives on all this. Yall seem to focus more on the good actions and morals of an idividual in identifying a "godly" person and not what books they read or what title they put on the god box. I believe the last pope said something to the effect that there are Christians that don't know they are Christians or don't acknowledge themselves as such, because they live Christian values.

I clarified what he stated. I stated the Church's position on the subject of salvation, extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

You asked, Did Christ make that statement?

No He didn't. It is attributed to St. Cyprian of Carthage (191-258), Bishop and Martyr.

Sounds latin!

Yes, it is.

If it was a pope, then how can you claim he was speaking for Christ and the whole church?

Of course, the Holy Father, on matters of faith and doctrine, speaks for the whole Church. After all, he is the successor to the one given the keys by Christ himself (cf Matt 16:19)

Having said that, though, the statement was made by the Bishop of Carthage (as I said above) in response to the schism of Novatian.

And who splintered from whom?

Well, obviously, the ultimate responsibility for splintering comes from the devil. However, the pride of man is typically the immediate cause. Who splintered from whom? Well, again, those who went into schism with the Church are obviously the ones who splintered. (Having said that, it is also fairly apparent that a lot of the splintering happened in the wake of some pretty stupid actions done by the men whose responsibility were to guard the Church)

You capitalize the Church

True enough...

... and say IT teaches ...

If I said "it" as the pronoun referring to the Church, I was in error. My apologies. The correct pronoun is "she."

it seems you are equating Church with the Roman Catholic religion? ... Maybe I got lost somewhere in your discourse :)

Actually, I am referring to the Church established by Christ and spread through the known world by the apostles. There are a number of worship traditions within that Church. They include the Armennians, Albanians, Belarussians, Bulgarians, Greeks, Melkites, Russians, Ukranians, Ruthenians, Latins, Copts, Ethiopians, Abyssinians, Maronites, Syriacs, Malankarese, Chaldeans, and Syro-Malabarese, to name a few. To say "Roman" is simply an inaccurate statement and discounts the work of the remaining apostles or the legitimate liturgical and practical traditions that have developed within each rite. But, to clarify, I am referring to the universal Church.

Edited February 8, 2006 by markomalley

[Belle]

edited because it was posted on the wrong dang thread.

Edited February 8, 2006 by Belle

[rhino]

....To say "Roman" is simply an inaccurate statement and discounts the work of the remaining apostles.... But, to clarify, I am referring to the universal Church.

OK, thanks ... I'm sure I'd say a lot of inaccurate things regarding that church history. I was thinking of other splinters ... like I am of Paul, I am of Apollos ... but maybe that happened within your universal church under the auspices of your holy father. I was just sorta surprised you had jumped to that, but I haven't read much of what you have probably written here before. Party on!

[markomalley]

OK, thanks ... I'm sure I'd say a lot of inaccurate things regarding that church history. I was thinking of other splinters ... like I am of Paul, I am of Apollos ... but maybe that happened within your universal church under the auspices of your holy father. I was just sorta surprised you had jumped to that, but I haven't read much of what you have probably written here before. Party on!

Actually, I cited that section you mentioned (Paul/Apollos) -- There is only one Church. Period. (cf 1 Cor 3:3-7, 1 cor 12:12-14). (the 1 Cor 3:3-7 is the Paul/Apollos account).

Rok On