Sunday, March 23, 2014

Sunday Faith Blog

Here's an article Mustang alerted me to this past week.   We think it's pretty darned fascinating and pretty darned faith building:   The full piece is HERE.
(if you click on the image, you'll see it large enough to easily read)

Astronomers have discovered what they believe is the first direct evidence of the astonishing expansion of the universe in the instant following the Big Bang -- the scientific explanation for the birth of the universe some 13.8 billion years ago.
Scientists believe that the universe exploded from a tiny speck and hurled itself out in all directions in the fraction of a second that followed, beginning just 10 to the minus 35 seconds (roughly one trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second) after the universe's birth. Matter ultimately coalesced hundreds of millions of years later into planets, stars, and ultimately us.
And like ripples from a ball kicked into a pond, that Big Bang-fueled expansion caused ripples in the ancient light from that event, light which remains imprinted in the skies in a leftover glow called the cosmic microwave background.   (Z:  check the next sentence out:)

Scientists still don’t know who kicked the ball*.  :-)

But if confirmed, the newfound ripples would be amazing proof of what has long been mere theory about what happened in those first millionths of a second.
'[It's] a direct image of gravitational waves across the entire sky, showing us the early universe.'
- John Kovac, of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
“The implications for this detection stagger the mind,” said Jamie Bock, professor of physics at Caltech, laboratory senior research scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and project co-leader. “We are measuring a signal that comes from the dawn of time.”

"It would be the most important discovery since the discovery, I think, that the expansion of the universe is accelerating," Harvard astronomer Avi Loeb, who is not a member of the study team, told Space.com. He compared the finding to a 1998 observation that opened the window on mysterious dark energy and won three researchers the 2011 Nobel Prize in physics.

The groundbreaking results came from observations by BICEP2, a telescope at the South Pole, of the cosmic microwave background -- a faint glow left over from the Big Bang.

Beginning a fraction of a fraction of a second after the universe's birth, according to the current theory, space-time expanded incredibly rapidly, ballooning outward faster than the speed of light. The afterglow from that expansion is called the cosmic microwave background, and tiny fluctuations in it provide clues to conditions in the early universe.

For example, small differences in temperature across the sky show where parts of the universe were denser, eventually condensing into galaxies and galactic clusters. Since the cosmic microwave background is a form of light, it exhibits all the properties of light, including polarization. On Earth, sunlight is scattered by the atmosphere and becomes polarized, which is why polarized sunglasses help reduce glare. In space, the cosmic microwave background was scattered by atoms and electrons and became polarized too.

“Our team hunted for a special type of polarization called ‘B-modes,’ which represents a twisting or ‘curl’ pattern in the polarized orientations of the ancient light,” said Bock.

The team presented their work at a press conference Monda at Harvard -- the discovery of that characteristic pattern of polarization in the skies, which they called proof of the gravitational waves across the primordial sky.

“This work offers new insights into some of our most basic questions: Why do we exist? How did the universe begin? These results are not only a smoking gun for inflation, they also tell us when inflation took place and how powerful the process was,” Harvard theorist Avi Loeb said. (end of article)   Oddly enough, just yesterday at breakfast, a friend told me about HUGH ROSS.  If you're interested in how faith and science converge on creation, click HERE.
   
*"My hand laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand forth together."   Isaiah 48:13

Have a wonderful Sunday;  stay close to the Creator.............He had it right all the time.

-Z and Mustang.

107 comments:

DaBlade said...

broken link fixed
Scientists still don’t know who kicked the ball.

Good post Z. I have always been amazed at the efforts by radical atheists who attempt to make religion and science as somehow mutually exclusive.
"Religion is not the implacable foe of science, just the contrary. Religion rightly construed is the ground and foundation of the sciences." Fr Barron comments on 'Cosmos'

Jack Whyte said...

I am constantly amazed by the fact that leftists will believe that pigs can fly before they will acknowledge the Almighty. I laugh whenever I hear one of these morons demand, “Show me the proof.” As if there is ANY proof whatsoever in any of the scientific theories. You see, that’s what theory means: conjecture. And they’ll believe that there are aliens before acknowledging the Almighty God. Personally, this is okay with me. I don’t want to spend eternity in heaven with a bunch of leftists. I really don’t.

And if they deny their Father in Heaven, he will one day deny them ...

Constitutional Insurgent said...

I fully agree that religion and science are not mutually exclusive. There can easily have been [/is] a Creator, who directed what we consider Evolution.

I think debates on the subject are fascinating, and often fruitful as long as both parties enter with an open mind. The recent Bill Nye - Ken Ham debate was such an example. I'm sure no minds were changed, but but it was interesting from an academic standpoint.

I just draw the line where there is religious inspired legislation, without any secular value.

Sam Huntington said...

I have no interest in living under theocracy, but neither do I agree with the suppression of religion by those demanding separation of church from every aspect of our lives. They seem only to do this with Christianity and Judaism, by the way ... which I find curious. As an example, why are Moslems allowed to tie up traffic in downtown New York in order to push their asses in the air and scream out petitions to the moon god? Neither do I find much of anything in the Old or New Testament harmful to a free society. The advice offered to “spare the rod and spoil the child” does not mandate beating the crap out of children ... it only suggest that children need discipline. Finally, individuals who feign outrage at depictions of the ancient lawgivers at our courthouses really do push the boundaries of idiocy. When all of the ancient lawgivers are shown, there is no preference to one over the other. More than this, the Ten Commandments are accepted as God’s laws by the three major religions of the world. We need to demand more sanity in public discourse.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

"Neither do I find much of anything in the Old or New Testament harmful to a free society. "

I would presume that you don't, given that you use this book as a guiding force in your life [please correct me if I'm wrong]. But you see no problem with the myriad of edicts directing what one may wear, eat, love and act? And I don't mean that by your personal decision making, but on a free society as a whole?

Sam Huntington said...

A guiding force in my life—yes. As a set of policies that must be obeyed, no matter what? No. These proscriptions and edicts were given to the tribes of Israel who wandered in the desert for 40 years many thousands of years before the advent of the Food & Drug Administration. We all have “free will.” By definition, a free society has free will ...

Scholars look upon the ancient rules, as found in Hammurabi’s Code and the Ten Commandments, as guidelines for maintaining a harmonious community. It is difficult to find harmony when everyone is coveting his neighbor’s ass, or murdering people, or behaving disrespectfully toward one’s parents. Yet, people do break the rules and human societies exact a penalty for that—back in the olden days, and presently. As to penalties in the after life, you’ll need to consult the New Testament for that.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

I don't disagree with what you say, which is why I don't have a problem with legislation that has crossover between religious and secular value.

I do find the irony in attempting legislation that is based on the Old Testament, and has no such crossover with secular value, especially....when a free society protects the premise of free will.

Ed Bonderenka said...

Binary choice.
There is a God or not.
Design is so evident in what we refer to as "creation", that we either say that cells organized themselves specifically to thrive on this planet (ignoring cosmology for now), or there was an external Designer.
Those that argue for happenstance evolution ignore entropy.
The thought of cells organizing themselves to a more complex system implies intelligence they don't have.

Impertinent said...

@CI:

However:

“The more I learn about the universe, the less convinced I am that there's any sort of benevolent force that has anything to do with it, at all.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson

Robert Sinclair said...

@ Imp

Imagine that! A scientist with a closed mind.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Imp - You'll have to clarify the point of the quote for me.

Impertinent said...

@Robert S:

Not only that but apparently he has a large following within his sphere of influence and study.

Claiming that 85% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject God too.

Tyson considers himself and all of us, children of the stars,atoms and atomic dust.

Ed Bonderenka said...

Just because a finite mind like Tyson would not design the universe the way it is, doesn't make it wrongly designed.
It makes it not the way Tyson would do it.
And we know how much experience HE has with designing universes.

Impertinent said...

@CI:

Just saying that there are many academics and scientific voices out there that not only don't see the value in the Bible, it's edicts, it's disciplines and it's claims of the origin of our creation. But completely reject it in a secular society.

CI:

"I just draw the line where there is religious inspired legislation, without any secular value."

Impertinent said...

@ED:


Tyson is quite entertaining in his passions and beliefs though. And has throughout his study of the universe amassed many, many followers to his fold.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Imp - Sure. Just as there are those who try to claim that "We got off the track when we allowed our government to become a secular government. "We stopped realizing that God created this nation, that he wrote the Constitution, that it’s based on biblical principles.” - Tom DeLay

I don't put any more stock in a closed on one side of the debate, than I do the other. There are many who believe that this society must conform to biblical principles in it's legislation, and yet still deign to call it freedom.

Impertinent said...

@CI:

"There are many who believe that this society must conform to biblical principles in it's legislation, and yet still deign to call it freedom."

I look at is at a set of 10 guiding principles that prevent society from falling into chaos, lawlessness and general anarchy CI.

A set of rules that govern and dictate man's behavior towards his fellow man.

And I believe that these principles adopted by this society and the major religions have had a hand in preventing us from falling into barbarism.

With one exception lately of one "religion" that we're keenly aware of.

I don't believe we ought to be "free" of any limitations that enhance a civilized society.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Imp - "I look at is at a set of 10 guiding principles that prevent society from falling into chaos, lawlessness and general anarchy."

I look at it as 3 out of 10 guiding principles that have secular and social value in a free society. The remainder being perfectly appropriate for personal decision making...but not legislation.

"I don't believe we ought to be "free" of any limitations that enhance a civilized society."

Yet aside from the perviously noted principles that have a secular nexus, enforcing said limitations would be based on what is essentially personal opinion.....and therefore antithetical to individual liberty.

Impertinent said...

@CI:

I'll just say we agree to disagree.

You choose 3? I'll choose all 10.

Not to say you'll be less of a contributor to society than those of us that embrace them in totality. I'm pretty sure I know which 3 too.

Thanks.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Imp - I am specifically referring to which of the 10 Commandments have value in being legislated. You're not telling me that the force of US law should mandate not taking God's name in vain, having no other God's, graven images, working on Sunday, etc...are you?

Impertinent said...

@Sam:

"It is difficult to find harmony when everyone is coveting his neighbor’s ass, or murdering people, or behaving disrespectfully toward one’s parents."


Thanks Sam...that's precisely what I'm talking about.

Impertinent said...

CI:


You're asking me to defend what I choose to accept and believe in? Because you chose not too?

Please. We both have free will and I will abide by mine. You're almost poking me in the eye here, with the mentioning of those specific commandments as somehow being ridiculous?

Have a great day CI...I'm off to the planetarium.

Impertinent said...

Has everyone gone home here?

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Imp - I'm not disrespecting your right to believe and act in accordance with whatever principles you desire. That is religious liberty.

I wasn't referring to individual faith. I'll say again.....I am specifically referring to those that should be legislated, with the force of law.

Z said...

I'm wondering which of the 10 commandments is so bad that we should look upon them as oppressive or only Christian or Jewish-led??
Does anybody get in a voting booth without their beliefs in there with them? Is it even okay to vote by those amazingly uplifting and positive commandments?

And where in our country are they forced down anybody's throat? is there a "thou shalt not steal" in the Constitution?

Imp, you are SO RIGHT about YOU having to defend something you believe in because another doesn't. Why should you, indeed?? :-) WELL put...and it's frequently here, particularly among the far left. \
Tyson's quote, by the way, is very typical among scientists; what's less typical is the list of scientists , some of whom are not Christian, who admit there's 'something' they find when they go farther and farther back which they can't define, something they can't put their finger on, that started the whole creation going.
Please check out that Hugh Ross link at the bottom of my post; I think you'll like it.
REALLY smart guy who is a believer and more.

Jack; you get the award today; They WILL acknowledge aliens before acknowledging God...so much easier, I guess. Let's not forget aliens don't have morals (at least we don't think so) or put ground rules on folks which many realize are for our own safety and lives of grace and beauty and some look upon as bigoted and unkind.

Sam...it's always Judaism and Christianity which are getting the criticism, you're right. Particularly from our 'open minded' left, which apparently doesn't care enough to dig deep and see which faiths come from love and which faiths come from elsewhere.

Ed, well put about the cells..you're right.

Today in church, I looked around at the lawyers, school administrators, engineers, brilliant people, academics who share faith...and felt so blessed by that. These are men and women who SEARCH, doubt, constantly read more and more about their faith and live such astonishingly good lives. They humble me. Their children are decent, well raised, loving kids....


Constitutional Insurgent said...

Z - "Imp, you are SO RIGHT about YOU having to defend something you believe in because another doesn't."

He didn't have to defend anything that he believed in, because he wasn't presented with an accost on his personal beliefs. You're free to answer the same, instead of being unduly accusatory.

Z said...

accusatory of WHAT or WHO?

This happens very frequently here...usually, it's people who have no thought to giving us links and information to back up their thoughts, but they'll sure demand the conservatives to pay up.

Imp's right....one needn't defend anything because another doesn't believe it. That's all he said. And he's so right.

Kid said...

Why Wouldn't God use nature to build things.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Z - You're right. Imp doesn't have to defend his personal beliefs? Nobody here brought that into question. As was quite clearly stated, more than once.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Kid - Agreed. Intelligent creation by an evolutionary track is more plausible in my opinion than the seven days theory.

Z said...

I'm sorry! I thought asking someone which of the commandments had VALUE might call for some defense.
Silly me :-)
Thanks for the clarification.
except, well........whatever.

I'd like to ask again which commandments are in the constitution and which are forced on anyone in the United States?

By the way, everybody; the 7 days theory is taken literally by some and not by others.
It's important to really delve into that to understand the significance.

Kid, doesn't God use nature to build things? I'm confused. I think that's the whole point..what's NATURE? Is it some miraculous cellular activity or...??

Robert Sinclair said...

I personally believe that the stories of our creation began long before there was a system of writing. In other words, the stories followed an oral tradition, as were Homer’s tales of the Iliad and Odyssey. The stories were also handed down from one generation to another before anyone understood basic math ... and so what should we expect the ancients to say? That God created the heavens and the earth in 13.4 billion years? Get real ... they recounted the creation of man in terms that they could understand. So if you are going to base your entire belief on the plausibility of 7-days, fine ... just understand how obtuse that is.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

"Thanks for the clarification. except, well........whatever."

Are you really interested in clarification? Because I didn't call into question the value of any of the Commandments. Their value lies in what believers or non-believers place in them. I referred to the ones which had a nexus with secular value and should be codified into law. This being a tangent of the previous introduction, of which Old/New Testament tenets should carry weight by which legislation is crafted.

"I'd like to ask again which commandments are in the constitution and which are forced on anyone in the United States?"

None of them are. This was also not my question to Imp. But the answer to your question, is specifically because the Constitution does not tackle the issue of criminality of the citizen. The 10th amendment guarantees the States the right to legislate in areas not reserved by the Federal government and they have the power to legislate in their "police powers", which includes health and safety. Of course, the Constitution has been subverted and skirted by our elected representatives since almost the time the ink was dry.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

"By the way, everybody; the 7 days theory is taken literally by some and not by others."

If I'm not mistaken, this has been referred to as the 'New Earth' v. 'Old Earth' theories. After the Nye-Ham debate, Pat Robertson took Ham to task over his defense of the 'Old Earth' theory.

Impertinent said...

@CI:

When I look around the planet and see which countries have so blatantly abandoned these tenets of faith and civility...I see nothing but 3rd world chaos, death, state sanctioned murder, theft and the destruction of families.

I see no law and respect for law. A free for all that hasn't allowed, in so many centuries, their rise from the mud of ignorance.

Z said...

Have a great day, everybody. It's unbelievably gorgeous here in Santa Monica and I'm going to enjoy it.

Oh, CI....Old Earth/New Earth is debated by some....most of us don't really care. And who cares what Pat Robertson says? ??

Robert Sinclair, you're exactly right.

"religious inspired legislation?" :-)
As I said before...there is no one who doesn't take their beliefs, secular or religious, into most of their decision making processes....whether this makes for RELIGIOUS INSPIRED legislation is questionable.
And, trust me, there's just as much secular inspired legislation and I find that sad and lacking.

Enjoy the day, everybody.

See you later!

Z said...

Imp, I think many Americans don't see how much Christianity has benefited America over the years, or how our country's slipping so badly in every way because people have turned away in their zeal to be 'academic and above it all' from 'anything God'...

The trouble is that void is large in our country today and something is filling that void; and it's Miley Cyrus and the Kardashian girls and voting for hipsters for president and trying our darndest to get that old fashioned God thing besmirched so we don't feel we need to live good healthy lives, dontchaknow!

BYEEEE!

Kid said...

Science without religion is blind
Religion without science is lame

Someone said that.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Z - "Oh, CI....Old Earth/New Earth is debated by some....most of us don't really care."

So sorry...thought you cared since you wrote: "By the way, everybody; the 7 days theory is taken literally by some and not by others. It's important to really delve into that to understand the significance."

Imp - "When I look around the planet and see which countries have so blatantly abandoned these tenets of faith and civility..."

Yet faith and civility aren't mutually inclusive, as atrocities similar to what you cite have been committed in the name of faith. This is why it is paramount to defend religious liberty but to also defend free will and individual liberty. It's not a zero sum game.

Kid said...

Regardless what anyone believes, there is a struggle between good and evil on this rock. Pick a side.

Much of the Creator in America's founding has led to the greatest society to date on our speck of dust.
Why sweat the tiny details.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Kid - The problem one runs into is defining good and evil.

Kid said...

CI, I have NO Problem recognizing evil. If you do, then there's a starting point for you.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

You have no problem recognizing evil based on your opinion/assessment.....as is the same with myself. You surely agree that not all personal assessments are valid in terms of codified law, no?

In other words, there are surely issues that even some of the faithful [much less the non] rail against, that you may not agree should be criminalized?

Kid said...

Z, Nature. Yes, maybe that's the cause of some people's consternation.

Did God dip his finger down and create the Grand Canyon or did He use the power of Nature to carve it out. You know what I think.

As an aside, it's like some people live in fear that government is going to make them go to church someday. How insane is that? Especially since we've been going in the other direction for 300 years, much accelerated the last 30 or so.

For example, There was a time when a bus driver wouldn't have to worry about 'consequences' if he were to stop some POS vermin from raping a young girl on the back of his bus. I don't think most people have any idea where we are presently at.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Kid - "As an aside, it's like some people live in fear that government is going to make them go to church someday."

I have yet to meet anyone who believe that. I have however, met many who live in fear that they're basic civil liberties could be restricted based on nothing more than a belief in the bible, as has been the case for many issues in the last 300 years.

Kid said...

CI, I don't know, and that doesn't bother me, since I think it's a waste of time to worry about it, but I don't believe in Macro-evolution. Not until they find some missing link skeletons and fossils. Putting a cranium with a jawbone found a mile away doesn't do it for me.

Again, I don't care though. Waste of time. I think the people who Really want to know if there is a God or Not, meaning Heaven and Hell, are the ones who are looking for the official Okey Dokey to go apeshit practicing evil in all it's forms, but gross abuse of others for sure.

Kid said...

CI, I guess the big one you're talking about is homosexuality. In my opinion it hasn't been restricted based on biblical influences, but by most people's feeling that it is unnatural and spread disease.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Kid - I'm confused on your last sentence. Could you clarify?

Kid said...

CI, I can only say again, I have no problem recognizing evil when I see it.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Kid - Look no further than the defenses in court. The 'unnatural' feeling is biblically based, since homosexuality occurs in nature outside of homosapiens.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

My question of clarification was in reference to your statement of determining the existence of a God. If questioning this issue instead of blind adherence to a faith is evil....then I'm not sure how the faithful can ascertain liberty versus theocracy.

Impertinent said...

@CI:

"since homosexuality occurs in nature outside of homosapiens..."

Right..so we should mimic or accept what lower animal species do cause they do it? And sodomy was illegal for some damn good reasons....but now we accept murdering infants because some species do it too?

Kid said...

CI, No, people just use that as a lever to take it to court. Remove the courts, Remove religion. Ask non-gay people what they think about it.

You'll get the same answer. I work with a gay guy, I wouldn't do anything to impact him negatively, but I want little to do with him outside of the work environment, and
nothing in his natural environment. I wish to have No impact on his or anyone else's desire to do what they want.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Sodomy was illegal [and includes more than the usual example of anal sex] because of biblical beliefs. Beliefs that came from Levitical Law....which ironically, very little of the rest is followed by the faithful.

Ed Bonderenka said...

I'm not implying that belief in God is an artificial construct that should be utilized for cultural purposes (having a "better" society).
But look at what Imp was saying, and then ask whether this country is better off after alienating the culture from biblical principles.
If you think better off is more abortion, more divorce, more socialism, increased drug use or the increased availability of these, then the answer is yes.
I think the answer is no.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

"I wish to have No impact on his or anyone else's desire to do what they want."

I'm gad to hear that you would not desire to restrict his exercise of the same civil liberties that you and i enjoy.

Kid said...

CI, "My question of clarification was in reference to your statement of determining the existence of a God. If questioning this issue instead of blind adherence to a faith is evil....then I'm not sure how the faithful can ascertain liberty versus theocracy.
"

I'm not sure what you mean. Looks like you're going after my definition of evil. Evil has nothing to with one's belief in a God or not. Evil is activity.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Ed - I stand with you on the effects of divorce, abortion and especially Socialism.....but I have no issue with drug use outside of it's criminalization.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Kid - I'm not passing judgement on your definition of evil, because I don't know what it is. You made reference to determining the existence of God....the way you wrote that made it seem to me that anyone who had doubts was pursuing evil.

Ed Bonderenka said...

@CI: "but I have no issue with drug use outside of it's criminalization."
I think I know what you mean, but I'm not sure.
You don't think a hallucinogenic society is a food thing, do you?

Ed Bonderenka said...

"food thing", scheesh.
edit.
"good thing".

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Ed - No, but no more than an alcoholic society. There are always people who will abuse their bodies with chemical or natural substances.....whether booze, prescriptions or illegal drugs. It's nonsensical to me to have one/some normalized in society, yet others criminalized.

Don't get me started on prostitution.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Speaking of 'food things'....it's time for me to dump some grub down my neck. It's nacho night.

Kid said...

Just want to say, I think a lot of people are too worried about what everyone else is doing, thinking, etc. To the point of being detrimental to our society.

Seems like 99% of the news is someone said something, someone got pissed about it and now someone is apologizing. While the government rapes and robs us. And the band played on.

Anonymous said...

Veterans have gotten their benefits drastically cut, and Moochie spends $8,300 a DAY in China. Isn’t that special!

TS/WS said...

Kid nailed it.
The liberals have long noses and are in every bodies business.
The Christians--errr the Self Righteous do the same, but it is the Liberals who pass laws to make the masses see it their way.
The Christian laws are from the Hebrew (Israel), set in stone from the Father himself, to make way for the longevity of mankind to live on this rock-That's whee Imp Nailed it also.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

"......but it is the Liberals who pass laws to make the masses see it their way. "

No argument there, but it's not only the liberals who pass these type of laws .

TS/WS said...

edit
That's Where Imp Nailed It Also.
Also the worshiping the Rock and Wooden Images thing is in the Constitution - where it says we have the right to freedom of religion.
The Wood and Rock worshiping people don't like it when the masses does not participates. That is what got the Apostles killed. And the early "Followers Of The Way" Killed.

Bob said...

In the beginning there was a great, big bang. All this stuff went flying outwards in a spherical path. This stuff became stars, galaxies, and the like.

With all the bright stars and stuff flying out, something had to take its place way back where the banging took place. The stuff that fills in where bright and light used to be is called, dark.

Dark is a problem because it will fill in all the universe and keep grass and trees from growing. Dark keeps on filling in behind the stars and lights as the universe is still expanding.

So, when dark stuff gets close to bright, light stuff, the dark stuff is sucked into the bright stuff to keep the universe in balance. The lights suck up dark stuff to keep us all alive.

That is why lights are really dark suckers. Dark is just dark.

TS/WS said...

Also:
Paul had to flee several Cities cause he would not worship the stone of their god(s).
He would not make images of Silver of the Star and Crescent Moon.
Sound familiar?
Today the Star and Crescent Moon worshipers are trying to force everyone to do the same. Worship their lord.
Hosea 2,16
shalt call me no more lord.
(Baali=lord, possessor)

TS/WS said...

Deuteronomy 17, 3
and hath gone and served other gods, and worshiped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded

Z said...

CI,no one has a talent to twist words to their advantage than you, you truly are the winner!

Yes, when you are discussing the Old Earth/New Earth situation, you should know more about it than quote Pat Robertson; that's all I clearly meant.
so sorry

Z said...

TS/WS...."Christians, err Self righteous?" Really? Christians are self righteous?

Kid, I have often said here on my blog, for about 8 years....that when we question what's good and what's evil we shouldn't wonder that our country is deteriorating.

Also, while many of the deterioration subjects have to do with the 10 commandments; adultery, murder, thievery, jealousy and greed, etc., it sure doesn't have to.
I'd have thought most people understand those are evil, but you never know.

I'm pretty sure that even in our own parents' time, people wouldn't debate what's good and what's sheer evil.

TS/WS said...

I said -err.
Unfortunately the Good Christians get lumped in to the same realm as the Self righteous

Constitutional Insurgent said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kid said...

Bob, Beautiful stuff there.

Personally I questions 'dark energy' 'pushing the galaxies further apart at an ever increasing rate'.

I put quote around both because I don't believe either is necessarily true.

But imagine a firework going off. When do the internal fragments sent off in all directions stop moving outward? In the air they do because friction with the air slows then stops them, gravity brings their trajectory toward the Earth. But in the vacuum of space?

I posit the initial explosion energy was enough to keep them suckers moving for eternity.

I understand the gravity of the galaxies should eventually cause them to attract to each other, but only7 after they stop moving outward. Again, what is to stop them from moving outward?
(con't)

Constitutional Insurgent said...

"no one has a talent to twist words to their advantage than you, you truly are the winner!"

There's no 'advantage' to civil discourse...unless one considers it a game.

Kid said...

pat2, Also this question of red shift. Yes, if a light source is moving away from you, redshift will indicate so as the wavelength of the gorgeous photons is different.

But we are looking at light that is 13.8 billion years old. How do we know those galaxies aren't headed back in towards us and the different wavelength blue light just hasn't been seen yet. Could be another billion years before it does.

All meaningless questions of course for a civilization that has to drink its own reprocessed urine and eat God Knows What for 500+ days just to go to Mars and back. The closest speck of dust to our own speck of dust.

Kid said...

Z, "no one has a talent to twist words to their advantage than you, you truly are the winner!"

CI, There's no 'advantage' to civil discourse...unless one considers it a game.

See there CI. You're doing it again!@ :) Are you married? You must not be married.

Z said...

CI, it's you who reduces the discourse by mischaracterizing everything many of us say...but that's FINE. Everyone here has a different sort of personality when blogging. No worries.

TS/WS...I was kind of surprised by that 'err'...I read it as 'er'...like 'ummm'..sorry about that! And yes, well meaning, good Christians DO get referred to as self righteous, particularly by those who don't really truly understand.
Also, there are many who DO come off that way.

For instance, here at my blog, all we do here is talk about the sadness that so many places in the American mainstream are suddenly so averse to anything Godly....that abortion is so readily accepted, unwed mothers have celebratory baby showers for children most of whom won't have fathers or any chance at financial security, homosexuality is championed and even celebrated, profanity on TV is getting more and more popular...
To say children deserve a dad, or gays have every right (and they already do) to living together and marriage itself is only for a man and woman, or profanity is cool and hip, etc., is suddenly self righteous....and some don't even know evil from good.
Where does America go from HERE?

Bob's comment about LIGHT is metaphorical for everything I said above, come to think of it???






Z said...

Kid, thanks.
That's exactly what I think....yikes!

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Kid - Married for the 2nd time as a matter of fact. The first was a practice wife, so I'm doing much better this time around!

My point was that I speak with others for the exchange of ideas. There's no score, no points, no winning in it for me. I don't treat it as a contest.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Z - "CI, it's you who reduces the discourse by mischaracterizing everything many of us say."

There's little doubt you actually think that.

Mirror, mirror on the wall.....

Z said...

CI..you win! Enjoy :-)
The sad thing is I believe you know exactly what you're doing. that's kind of icky.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Classy.

It wasn't MY mischaracterization when you failed to understand what I was asking Imp.....accusing me of forcing him to defend his beliefs, when that wasn't remotely what I was inquiring.

I only win, because you treat it as a game.

Kid said...

CI, OK, glad it's going well. And it was a little humor don't ya know.

Bob said...

@kid:

Blogger Kid said...

Bob, Beautiful stuff there.

Personally I questions 'dark energy' 'pushing the galaxies further apart at an ever increasing rate'.

Yikes! You thought process is pretty much like mine. When I read Z's blog, I really enjoyed it. When I started reading comments, I got a headache. I just wanted to think about other stuff. BTW, the dark sucker thing is from an old friend of mine who had been a NASA engineer back when NASA did engineering.

Continued...

Kid said...

CI, maybe people don't understand you.

You do seem to want to turn everything into a debate, and I must say I don't understand what you're saying sometimes. Read 3 times and just give up on occasion. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Just different

Z said...

I'm done, CI.
I pasted your statement exactly as you'd written it...if you don't think that's on the offense, that's FINE. We disagree..no biggie.

It's not about winning here at geeez so I am sorry I've responded so many times to your latest comments...it doesn't really matter to me if you see what I see.....
you could be entirely innocent of mischaracterization..FINE.

...it's about caring about the subject and listening and responding to the comments here at my blog...always has been, always will for all my longtime and new commenters.

Z said...

Bob, that's why I left earlier...I don't build my Sunday Faith blog for the kind of conversation that happened, but one never knows.
I'm glad you're here.
I'm glad everybody is.

Bob said...

Your analogy of a firecracker blowing up is a good start. If the universe is still accelerating, then the energy at the moment of the big bang had to be so powerful...

It also seems to me that if matter in the universe is going outward at an increasing velicity, but hot as fast as the speed of light, then we would not be seeing the microwave background radiation that does travel at the speed of light. It would have passed us by billions of years ago. Why are we just now seeing that radiation?

As you can see, I am not the sharpest cosmologist tool in the shed. It seems to me that there are answers to all these questions, but I will probably not understand that math.

Good comment on you, too.

Great blog, Z.

Z said...

thanks, Bob....Kid often has amazing stuff about the universe at his blog; check it out!

Kid said...

Bob, Interesting question on the background radiation.

I am neither a cosmologist and I never even took calculus.

It occurs to me, that since the laws of physics go out the window once you cross the even horizon of a black hole(so they say) how can math be used to describe all events in our universe, let alone the big one.

Fun to ponder.

Impertinent said...

@Z:

"t doesn't really matter to me if you see what I see....."

Thank God...it's so damn exhausting to play these never ending games. Some people exist for that only. You sit around the kitchen table long enough and someone is always asking "how come, why, nonsense, show me, elaborate and on and on....and you're finished. Never to invite them to the table again.

Ed Bonderenka said...

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
- Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio
Almost a 100 comments on a Sunday faith Post.
Wow.

Z said...

Imp...you're so right. Going in circles doesn't propel the discussion or make anybody feel very good.

Ed...do you know that during the Mormon thing with Jeffers and discussions about polygamy, I was getting about 600 comments for days on different posts...!

One time, I saw a few thousand hits on my sitemeter and REALLY wondered what was going on..!! I was getting the usual amount of comments for then (which was higher because I was more actively blogging in those days)...and finally it was going down to 900 hits a day, when I clicked on 'referrals' and found out some REALLY famous blogsite had linked to some article I'd found! THAT was what was causing the huge rise in hits :-)
I thought my sitemeter was broken!!
(good on Hamlet!)


BY THE WAY...the problem with discussing God is that those who are firm Christians see changes in their lives and the lives of those around them who are also believers and it's very hard to convey that somehow.
It's hard to explain that REALLY bad things happen even (and maybe because if you know what I mean) to very solid Christians..painful, horrid things!
It's hard to explain how people differ on interpretations.
It's hard to explain the feeling one gets when feeling pushed to read Scripture or call a friend..
so many things that are hard to define and hard to explain.

Most people just see evangelists they don't like and decide "That's not for me!" when reading and studying is so life changing.
And, brother, I remember the days when I felt JUST LIKE THEM! :-)

Sam Huntington said...

"My hand laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand forth together." Isaiah 48:13



I enjoyed this blog very much as it seems to reveal the fact that there are those of the scientific community who are able to meld religion and science. And the article tends to reinforce what I believe—what I choose to believe—and so I find the article very useful. Thank you Miss Z.

As for the lame detour about religion and legislation, my sense is that CI thinks that his notion of religion, pro or con, is superior to everyone else’s. He would be one of the Pharisees.... challenging everything said in a mocking way. I feel sorry that he finds a need to do that with almost every topic presented here.

TS/WS said...

You saw the video at my place?
Maybe it's a guy thing---but I laughed my but off.
Those poor guys were speachless; and the looks on their woman's face - priceless.

CnC said...

Love this stuff Z! Thanks

Impertinent said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Impertinent said...

@Z:


There have been several Faith Blogs that have really affected me....but this one R O C K E D.

What a day...what a great topic. It definitely brought out the fire breathers, hedonists and free for allers.

Impertinent said...

@Z:

A little secret. Back in my youth, I was accepted into a seminary. I'd been an altar boy for several years and there wasn't a priest that I didn't worship.

My uncle on my fathers side, Uncle Joe, was a Jesuit. And the smartest, coolest guy I ever knew. He drank...he smoked...he liked the Doors, the Stones and overall Rock. A regular guy. Played a great game of one on one too.

If I hadn't met "Mary W." I'd have gone into the priesthood. However....if the one canon of the Church had been put aside....allowing marriage...rather than the impossibility of celibacy...I'd have been one.

I'm certain that the Church will realize this one day. Ironically it wasn't until the 14th Century or so....that priests were prohibited from marriage.

Episcopals ( Catholic Lite ) have know this for some time.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Kid - "You do seem to want to turn everything into a debate, and I must say I don't understand what you're saying sometimes."

I apologize for any lack of clarity. I truly thought the apparent point in question was clear when I referred to 'legislation', and then reiterated that point for Z.

It bothers me that you think this, becuase it's not my intention. I consider 'debate' to be something far more involved than the dialogue today. I ask questions because context is so usually difficult to come by in short blog comments. Most people give a thin synopsis of their position. In return, I would certainly expect an appeal for clarity, rather than presumption of mischaracterization.

Z - Apologies for being me, on a Sunday blog. I should have known better.

Ed Bonderenka said...

@CI: I don't presume to talk for Z, but I have no problem with you being you any day.
You may me assertive, but not a boor.

Rita said...

I can't get last the vision of Imp being a priest. ;). Love ya Imp.

Impertinent said...

@Rita:

Ditto...LOL

I would have probably been booted and sent into a Vatican Dungeon never to be seen nor heard from again.

But...I came close. Wonder if I would have been a Chaplain? Hmmm.

Strange, huh?

Kid said...

CI, It was just an impression that I thought might have some value when I wrote it. I don't assign fault. It's more like that thing in the business world, when you go email tag about three times with no success, then it's time to pick up the phone. There is no phone here to pickup of course.