it's exactly the same. physics is consistent. in thermo, the equivalent expression is
and you can do no 'thermodynamic work' if dV = 0.
thermodynamics is not in any sense "more pure" than physics itself; thermo is merely a branch of physics: the physics of heat transfer. work 'in a thermodynamic sense' is nothing more than the same physical definition of work applied to the particular phenomena that fall under the category of heat physics, with the caveat that normally in thermo one talks about the work done by a system only, excluding work done on a system.
. . i'd hoped to inspire some spiritual thought, rather than misunderstood physics.
it is interesting though that when we talk in a less general sense about work done by a system, the implication of path-independence no longer applies ((if the process is non-adiabatic)). that is a characteristic when looking at work done on a system. this is the difference you are pointing out -- it's not that 'people who know better' realize this; it's looking at work in a less general way and exclusively at work that a system itself does -- did you 'know better' in that sense, friend?
now we both do!
and also -- even considering work in a thermodynamic setting, work done by a system is path-independent if the process is adiabatic. it depends only on the initial and final states; any path results in the same work ((the transfer of energy out of the system)). if the initial and final energy states are the same in an adiabatic process, then no work is done - it's a null process.
can you relate that to the Spirit?
in a spiritual sense, one might say this is not knowing better at all -- because for the believer, it is the work done on the system that matters - the righteousness that is imputed to us by Christ. the work done by the system in this case ((what you called 'thermodynamic work')) is what catholicism calls 'works of merit' and legalists call the things we do to 'earn' the grace we received: the 'works' that men do. these are not the works that save -- and understanding the mystery of Christ in us, He doing the work through us, not ourselves -- this is work done on not by the system consisting of the individual. this is path-dependent if we consider it our own works; then the amount of energy we expend out of the system contributes to the 'work' we calculate, and that amount of energy depends on path.
but nature seeks equilibrium, the lowest energy-state. when the work is being done to the system, the system itself expends no energy: this is the most efficient thing from the point of view of the system. and this, relative to the system itself, is path-independent. if we who walked in darkness return to darkness, whatever path we take to return to darkness, no work has been accomplished on us. but if we who were aliens and strangers to God remain in Him to which we were joined, then He has accomplished 'a positive work' indeed!
Then do not answer. I really did not expect you to. So no surprise you haven't, that is ok.
As for debate? Why are you making it one?
Why am I asked about debating, to simply ask for an unbiased view of what is cultic? I think you are combative but maybe that is in the eyes of the beholder as well here. Hypocrisy is a huge issue in the body of Christ you know.
Either sacraments are cultic or they are not? Either priestly mediation is cultic or it is not.
It was realy really very simple questions. I do not understand why this is so difficult. But I can see that with one group it is accepted as not good , and in another we just cannot say, and I am the problem.
Hey We all have our experiences. I guess with some people their own experiences are more real and more legitimate than those of some of the rest of us.
I have to ask ,do you just like to debate for the sake of debate? You keep asking the same question over about the "sacrament" & the Judaism stuff,,,I answered you the first time & that is why I didn't answer the 2nd time,,,,,,,No,I wouldn't consider it a cult,,,,I would say it is "false Christianity" As far as 'cults<which is the Topic,,,,,I think the How is much more significant that the "what",,,,,,lHow it is "taught" like "brainwashing" & that is just my opinion,,,I am no authority or expert in the matter
I truly find it amazing. I have given you that several times already.
What he has said is....there is no different FUNCTION between a Jewish sacrament and a Christian sacrament. To speak of one set of sacraments as non sacramental and the other as sacramental are artificial polemics.
So are sacraments cultic?
Okay, without addressing any post or person in particular here, I seem to have caused or contributed to some confusion, concerning whether there can be something that lies between free will and whatever it's counter part is, or whether they can be limited free will, or semi free will etc.
It seems as though people, some people, see it a binary, black or white, yes or no. Part of the problem here, I think, lies in the fact that the term "free will" might mean different things to different people. Because of that, we are experiencing a break down in communication/understanding.
I will see if I cannot expand on the concept, and how it might fit into the Calvinism/Arminianism discussion, and maybe elliminate or reduce some of that confusion.
Give me some time to collect my thoughts, so that I can try to make a presentation that might have to cover some ground, yet hopefully be somewhat concise (not my expertise) easier to understand. God is not the author of confusion, but maybe I am!