blessedpeter

We know that all bodies with mass attract each other. What the force is that attracts them we knoweth not. Einstein postulated that it was the curvature of space caused by the mass of the body that gave the illusion of a force of attraction. Like Newton's theory of gravity, Einstein's theory of gravity (Relativity) has given us many useful insights into the nature of the universe, and like Newton's theory, Einstein's theory is not quite exactly right. The more we learn, the more we see that there are parts of his theory that could use some major overhauls, but all in all his theory is more than adequate for our present state of understanding. If you really want to see the theory of relativity put to good use I highly recommend a good in-depth look at Dr. Russell Humphries' "Starlight and Time." Like the Big Bang Theory, Humphries` theory has undergone some revisions thanks to those among his peers who looked at it and offered their criticism. It does suffer from some major obstacles, but then Humphries is just too much the scientist to go inventing things like ``dark matter`` and ``dark energy`` to save his theory. That the Big Bang Theory requires the invention of unseen and undetectable things in order to make it work tells me that it is on life support. But that is science. Good science. As more knowledge (scientia) is accumulated, the theories which opened the path to getting that knowledge begin to prove inadequate to accommodate the new knowledge and a different theory is born. For example: Newton`s theory still works just fine here on earth, and Einstein's theory still works just fine in our known universe, but there are getting too many equations that are ending in infinity, and physicists are starting to look for something else. They will not abandon Einstein`s math any more than they abandoned Newton`s math. That would be foolhardy. But a more adequate theory is now being considered which can accommodate the new understandings physicists are gaining of the universe. The one guy I would say who is the leading the rest is Dr. Leonard Susskind. He is light years ahead of Hawking, and even though he is an atheist, he does not care where his math leads him, even to God. Another guy who is interesting to look into is Dr. Amit Guswami. He is the only one who is really dealing with what physicists have known for a few decades now: without consciousness there is no universe, and consciousness must of necessity preceded the creation of the universe. So, while the biologists headed by Dr. Richard Dawkins literally gnash their teeth at Christian metaphysics (cf. Saint Thomas Aquinas), physicists are on the verge of proving Christian metaphysics to be true. It is a wonderful time in which we live.

Probably because fully formed functioning birds existed in China at east ten million years before the earliest archaeopteryx. That is according to radiometric dating, if you believe that kind of stuff.

I have read from astrophysicists that either system, helio or geo, satisfies the laws of physics. It is just that the helio system has more evidence and is simpler mathematically.

One must believe not only in His Sonship, but that He is both fully man and fully God, born of a Virgin, was crucified, died, and was buried, rose again from the dead, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. He is the propitiation for our sins. One must also be obedient to His commands. No one can say "I follow Jesus" who does not obey His commands.

I am sure the Christians who were subject to the persecutions under Nero and Diocletian thought that they were surely undergoing the Tribulation, but I do not think they ever thought they were enduring God's wrath. Nor have these brutal persecutions of Christians ever ceased in the world. We here in North America undergo no persecution at all. The question I ask myself is if I can undergo such persecution. Will I really face a most horrible and excruciating death rather than just place a little pinch of incense to Caesar on the sacred fire and then be on my way? If not, am I really worthy of Christ? "Whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever would lose his life for My sake will find it."

Paul is quite clear that works do not save. In fact relying on works for salvation prevents salvation. Neither faith nor works save. Grace alone saves. Relying on works without grace does not save. Relying on faith without grace does not save. Only grace saves.

No, I’m not sure I would phrase it like that. But I’m not sure how exactly I would phrase it. That has always puzzled me. If anyone has a pertinent answer, looking forward - and thanks. The answer is really simple: God did not create a fruit that would make us mortal. We were created with mortal bodies and were given the gift of immortality or the body. When Adam disobeyed God, he lost that gift not only for himself, but for all of his posterity.

I agree with you, Alph. I also note that is impossible to state our Faith without making some scientific claims. The Resurrection, for example, is a very scientific claim. So is the Ascension. These we should never give an inch on. Science cannot say anything one way or the other about miracles. The creation of the first life form, what scientists call our universal common ancestor, is also by definition a miraculous event. Science should not be saying anything one way or the other on that one either. They can postulate it as part of their theory or hypothesis, but there they really have to let it go. When I read "scientific" papers and every second sentence contains "we believe" and "we think" then I am actually reading the thesis of some religious person, not a scientist.

Faith is not of ourselves, lest we boast. Faith is a gift from God which we receive through His grace. We are saved by grace. We do not have grace because we believed. That would make believing a work by which we are saved. On the contrary, we have faith because we first received grace (cf. Titus 1:11). We also know that faith without works is dead. What then is the source of our works which are pleasing to God? (cf. Matt 25) Grace alone. The works we do through grace are salvific in that by doing them we are carrying out not our own will, but God's will. He wills our faith and He wills our good works. Just as faith without works is dead, so is works without faith dead. They are like the two peddles on a bicycle, and the energy we use to ride that bicycle to heaven is grace. We cannot serve God by saying: I will only believe. We will never hear the words: "Well done good and faithful servant," if we do not carry out the will of our Master. So, yes, works of the Law are not salvific, and works that we do on our own are not salvific, but works that we do through grace that carry out the divine will of God are salvific. That is the meaning of Jesus' discourse on works done to be glorified by men, and works done in secret which are pleasing to the Father. That is why the former receives no heavenly reward, while the latter does indeed receive a heavenly reward.

Science can never prove anything contrary to the Faith. The real question we need to answer is what exactly is "The Faith"? There are two ways to know about God. One is through natural reason (cf. Romans 1), and the other is through divine Revelation. What can be known through natural reason is the area of study for scientists who study creation to discover its secrets. What is known by divine Revelation is the area of study for theologians who apply the gifts of reason and logic to what God has directly revealed about Himself to bring forth new insights concerning both our Creator and His creation. That is why the two disciplines, science and theology, can never contradict each other. If there is a contradiction, it is either because the science is wrong or the theology is wrong. That problem usually arises when either the theologian takes it upon himself to become the scientist, or the scientist takes it upon himself to become the theologian. Very rarely does the theologian become the scientist, but more and more today we are seeing the scientist become the theologian. For examples of this, look at the talks given by such men as Krauss, Dawkins, and Hawking. These men may be entitled to their opinions about the Creator and creation (I personally would contest that) but not in the classroom. If creationism has no place in the science class, neither does the continuous spewing of anti-creationism belong in the science class. For a great insight into what has slowly taken place in Christendom over the last century, I highly recommend reading Phillip Johnson's "Reason In The Balance". To sum it up, we have now gotten to the point where only those who hold to philosophical naturalism are considered "sane" by the courts. A terrible mess of pottage we are in, but I am sure with much prayer and fasting we will find our way out again.

Because scientific sites run by philosophical naturalists will not answer such questions truthfully, but will instead point you in the direction of myriad ad hoc mathematical theories to explain what philosophical naturalism cannot explain. Also, it is not so much that they cannot face the truth. Rather, it is because science is so infected with bad philosophy that they simply cannot find the truth.

Soul means the animating principle. The soul gives form to our body. The soul is what builds material substance into the shape of the body, and what makes the material substance of the body "alive". The higher functions of the soul, i.e. abstract thought, intellect, are called "spirit" as they do not deal with maintaining the body (building and animating).

To the point where we now tolerate the intolerant.