Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Newton’s Third Law and the Death of Wisdom - Secularisms Sin is No Sin
Cross Action News ^ | 4-15-08 | Michael Bresciani

Posted on 04/15/2008 6:56:21 PM PDT by Victory111

It doesn’t take a team of scientist and a ten year study to understand the basics of cause and effect. Whether it’s a sociological explanation or a scriptural tenant the same rule along with its associative principles appear as the immutable law of reciprocation.

Some call it karma while others use the more folksy phrase “what goes around, comes around” but by any other name it is still best summarized by the words of the Apostle Paul who said “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. (Gal 6:7)

(Excerpt) Read more at crossactionnews.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: christianity; newton; secularism; youtube

1 posted on 04/15/2008 6:56:21 PM PDT by Victory111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Victory111

Newton’s 3rd law may be formally stated:

“Forces always occur in pairs. If object A exerts a force F on object B,
then object B exerts an equal and opposite force –F on object A”

or in slogan style:

“Every action has an equal and opposite reaction”


2 posted on 04/15/2008 7:06:13 PM PDT by tokenatheist (Can I play with madness?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Victory111

However, it should also be noted that an argument can be made that God neither rewards or punishes. Instead, He advises behavior that is in itself a reward, and warns against behavior that causes its own punishment.

“Thou shalt not touch that stove as it is hot.”


3 posted on 04/15/2008 7:14:43 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Victory111

I would have more respect for god if he followed his own rules.


4 posted on 04/15/2008 7:18:51 PM PDT by Soliton (McCain couldn't even win a McCain look-alike contest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Victory111
How's about the next time you link to an article found at "CrossAction News" you actually link to the article itself, instead of the whole site or webpage where it may or may not be listed, among only about FIVE HUNDRED OTHER articles?

Maybe you could give us another link, here, while you're at it?

5 posted on 04/15/2008 7:23:04 PM PDT by BlueDragon (here's the thing; do recognize the bell of truth when you here it ring, c'mon and sing it children)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon

I blew it..sorry..had too many other windows open..

http://www.crossactionnews.com/articles/view/newtons-third-law-and-the-death-of-wisdom-secularisms-sin-is-no-sin


6 posted on 04/15/2008 8:08:04 PM PDT by Victory111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tokenatheist
Newton stated it:

LEX III

Actioni contrariam semper & aequalem esse reactionem: sive corporum duorum actiones in se mutuo semper esse aequales & in partes contrarias dirigi.

That is:

LAW III

To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or, the mutual action of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.

He goes on to give the example of a horse dragging a stone tied to a rope: "... ( the rope ) will draw the horse as much towards the stone as it does the stone towards the horse ..."

I mention all this just because of your "slogan" comment.

7 posted on 04/15/2008 8:11:23 PM PDT by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Victory111

Thanks. That site crashes my computer, even after I found the “turn off” automatic update button. Whenever I go there, then try to navigate away, even opening tabs, sooner or later I can’t close the page, resulting in lock-up.


8 posted on 04/15/2008 8:22:56 PM PDT by BlueDragon (here's the thing; do recognize the bell of truth when you here it ring, c'mon and sing it children)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Victory111

btt


9 posted on 04/15/2008 8:28:36 PM PDT by Ciexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Victory111

And the Hindus call it karma. Same concept (basically.)

But as Emerson tells us, “There is no sin but an error, no punishment but a consequence.” And as Dr. Ernest Holmes tells us, “W are not punished for our sins, but by tehm.”

Sin means simply “missing the mark.” People miss the mark day by day, moment by moment. But that does not make them fundamentally sinners, nor unworthy. How could an infinite, perfect God create the unworthy? Remember that “in the beginning there was God.” Not God and, just God. So all is created out of the stuff of God. There is nothing else.

We have freedom of choice and at any moment we can choose again and set into motion a new chain of causation. But we live with the consequences of our choices.


10 posted on 04/15/2008 9:24:13 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Victory111

read later


11 posted on 04/15/2008 10:25:54 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soliton; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; unspun
I would have more respect for god if he followed his own rules.

I gather Soliton you are referring to miracles, which apparently violate the physical laws.

Why do you think God ought to follow His own rules? His rules, the natural laws -- which He created and willed into effect in the beginning -- pertain to the physical world. But God is not of this world; He utterly transcends it. The physical laws have no application to Him.

12 posted on 04/16/2008 6:42:06 AM PDT by betty boop (This country was founded on religious principles. Without God, there is no America. -- Ben Stein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
I gather Soliton you are referring to miracles, which apparently violate the physical laws.

How about thou shalt not kill and though shall not commit adultery, or thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife?

13 posted on 04/16/2008 6:55:30 AM PDT by Soliton (McCain couldn't even win a McCain look-alike contest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Soliton
I gather Soliton you are referring to miracles, which apparently violate the physical laws.

I didn't get that. The statement might have meant that, but it is not definitely stated.

I would amend your answer to clarify that what we call physical laws are actually models that codify what we see happening around us. Different sized ball bearings drop to the ground with the same acceleration, every time we try it. So we predict that the next time we try it, the same thing will happen. The law doesn't make it happen, though.

The reference might have been to moral laws, which you probably thought unlikely. After all, in these days people profess to believe that morality is purely personal preference, which is not binding upon others. De gustibus, and all that. But solition's statement contains an implied moral judgment upon God for inconsistency, which suggests that soliton believes in a transcendent moral order binding upon everyone (including God). In which case, your comment may have been addressed to the wrong point.

14 posted on 04/16/2008 7:11:27 AM PDT by thulldud (Insanity: Electing John McCain again and expecting a different result.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: thulldud
But solition's statement contains an implied moral judgment upon God for inconsistency, which suggests that soliton believes in a transcendent moral order binding upon everyone (including God).

A common failing of cults is the figure head creates rules that apply to everyone but himself. David Koresh told his followers that sex would harm their souls, so he had sex with their wives because his soul could handle it. Muhammad said that good muslim men could have up to 4 wives, but he could have 14. There was an Indian Guru out west that had his followers take a vow of poverty to help them reach perfection. He took the money and bought Rolls Royces. I understand the difference between God and prophets, but unless we are prophets ourselves, we can only know god through their words and deeds.

God the Father could have chosen any single woman on earth, or created one specifically for bearing Jesus. But, he chose a man's wife. God also is quoted as commanding the deaths of many. I am troubled by this.

15 posted on 04/16/2008 7:34:37 AM PDT by Soliton (McCain couldn't even win a McCain look-alike contest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Soliton; Alamo-Girl; metmom; hosepipe
How about thou shalt not kill and though shall not commit adultery, or thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife?

God is author of both the physical and moral laws: Those you mention are all divine moral laws, or commandments, specifically directed to human beings. They do not apply to God.

16 posted on 04/16/2008 8:59:52 AM PDT by betty boop (This country was founded on religious principles. Without God, there is no America. -- Ben Stein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
God the Father could have chosen any single woman on earth, or created one specifically for bearing Jesus. But, he chose a man's wife. God also is quoted as commanding the deaths of many. I am troubled by this.

If I take money from the bank, that is wrong. Unless, of course, it is money that I put in there to begin with. Would you agree?

17 posted on 04/16/2008 9:06:19 AM PDT by thulldud (Insanity: Electing John McCain again and expecting a different result.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Victory111

We might be going somewhat beyond reason if we try to apply laws of physics to human behavior. The analogy should be the other direction to be proper. Or metaphor if anybody believes the metaphor is not yet dead.


18 posted on 04/16/2008 9:11:57 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the Law of the Excluded Middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thulldud; Soliton; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; metmom
The law doesn't make it happen, though.

The physical laws are descriptions of apparent regularities found by observers to hold in nature universally. So you're right, the physical laws don't make anything happen. They are descriptions of what God makes happen through and according to the structure and order of His creation -- the Logos, the foundation of universal law.

Einstein in 1905 suggested a theory regarding the laws of the universe. Even though different observers in different locations may make reports (descriptions) of their observations that may differ from what other observers are able to report from their own spatiotemporal frames of reference, Einstein said the laws of the universe are exactly the same for all observers regardless of their spatiotemporal positions.

Thus did Einstein maintain, in his theory of Special Relativity, that the laws of the universe are exactly the same for all observers, regardless of their space/time coordinates, and regardless of differences in their several accounts that accrue from being located in different observational positions.

Of course, Einstein (like Newton before him) held that the laws of the universe are discoveries of the nature of what exists, not human inventions. We make an observation from nature; we find in it "lawful" regularities; and then we can make a description of it. Which is just a tortured way of saying: Descriptions (i.e., the physical laws, which are accounts of the laws of the universe) are accounts of something that already preexists them.

Ultimately, Einstein believed that the universe was mathematical (geometrical) at its root, because that's the way "The Old One" wanted to make it.

You wrote: "But solition's statement contains an implied moral judgment upon God for inconsistency, which suggests that soliton believes in a transcendent moral order binding upon everyone (including God). In which case, your comment may have been addressed to the wrong point."

Perhaps my comment was misdirected, I don't really know; because I really don't know in what way Soliton finds God "inconsistent."

It seems you're driving at the legitimacy of relativism as a valid moral stance. Moral relativism is no more valid than the various reports of differently-located observers who deny that the universal laws are the same for all observers.

If Soliton believes that the transcendent moral order is binding on God, I'd have to say I disagree on purely logical grounds. How can the creature (i.e., the moral law) "bind" the one who created it? Does Michelangelo's David in any way "bind" Michelangelo?

The moral law is not a system of personal preferences. It is divinely founded for a reason: that the creature constituted by God with reason and free will has a guide to the fulfillment of his own true, divinely-constituted human nature.

Man is not a pure animal: He is body and spirit. Thus for him to follow animal behavior reduces him to the status of an animal; his own basic humanity created by a loving God is destroyed in this process. Better to follow the law.

Thank you so much for writing, thulldud!

19 posted on 04/16/2008 10:06:04 AM PDT by betty boop (This country was founded on religious principles. Without God, there is no America. -- Ben Stein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
How can the creature (i.e., the moral law) "bind" the one who created it?

It is not a case of being "bound" by anything. David Koresh and Muhammad made the rules and therefore they weren't bound by them. This is the way of dictators. It is a case of defining right and wrong and then not living by your own definition. It is the very "unboundness"..the free will to do right or wrong without consequences, that God posesses that makes chosing wrong unethical. Maybe the answer is that Jesus was atonement not just for man's sins, but for God's too. Jesus lived an ethical life leading by example. He followed his own rules. (As did Buddha, and to a great extent, Socrates.)

20 posted on 04/16/2008 10:23:38 AM PDT by Soliton (McCain couldn't even win a McCain look-alike contest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Soliton; thulldud; allmendream; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; metmom
It is a case of defining right and wrong and then not living by your own definition.

If you want to boil it all down, the moral law addressed to an intelligent, free man says: Nothing is forbidden; but not all things are fruitful. Eschew the unfruitful.

The Ten Commandments are a reliable guide to avoiding unfruitful acts. The Two Great Laws of the Christian Dispensation take a more positive direction: Love God and Love your neighbor. These two laws -- and especially the first -- are the source of everything fruitful in human life.

Where on earth did you ever get the idea that God legitimately could be compared to a human dictator? He leaves us so free that we are even free to destroy ourselves. And He will respect our free decision -- that's what the Judgment is all about.

21 posted on 04/16/2008 10:53:24 AM PDT by betty boop (This country was founded on religious principles. Without God, there is no America. -- Ben Stein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

First, God is a dictator by definition. Second, human dictators also do not interfere with free will except to punish those that disobey with torture and death. Dictators rule using behaviorist principles, reward and punishment..Heaven and Hell in God’s case.


22 posted on 04/16/2008 11:03:48 AM PDT by Soliton (McCain couldn't even win a McCain look-alike contest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
If Soliton believes that the transcendent moral order is binding on God, I'd have to say I disagree on purely logical grounds. How can the creature (i.e., the moral law) "bind" the one who created it? Does Michelangelo's David in any way "bind" Michelangelo?

Soliton followed up with a comment that indicates to me that his question was about morality, not physics.

In order to carry your point above, though, you'd have to claim that morality is a created thing, rather than an expression of the essence of God's character. Created things can be made this way and that, as the creator wishes, but some things are not subject to change. Even moral relativists believe that, otherwise they would not act so offended when somebody "imposes morality" on them, as if they thought they had just been morally wronged and everybody ought to understand it.

23 posted on 04/16/2008 11:52:43 AM PDT by thulldud (Insanity: Electing John McCain again and expecting a different result.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: thulldud; Soliton; allmendream; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; metmom
In order to carry your point above, though, you'd have to claim that morality is a created thing, rather than an expression of the essence of God's character.

I don't think moral law is a created thing, but as you say is an expression of the essence of God's character, or better, of His divine nature. (Perhaps we could say as much WRT the physical laws.)

But just as with the case of Michelangelo's creation David, God's creation cannot express His character in the fullest, but only as an "image" of Himself. If God were "in" the creation alongside of man -- i.e., equally bound by space and time as we are -- then you could say there should be a one-size-fits-all moral law binding God and man alike. But then God wouldn't be God. And if He weren't, neither could man be man.

An image is a reflection, not the original of which it is the reflection. Therefore, the reflection not only is not the original of which it is a reflection, but it cannot "bind" the original in any way. We have two different categorical orders (if you will) going on here; and IMHO it is a logical mistake to conflate them.

24 posted on 04/16/2008 12:16:51 PM PDT by betty boop (This country was founded on religious principles. Without God, there is no America. -- Ben Stein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
God the Father could have... created one specifically for bearing Jesus.

Apparently you're not familiar with the Immaculate Conception.

25 posted on 04/16/2008 3:29:36 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Soliton; betty boop

Those commandments were directed towards man for his benefit and protection. Man is prohibited from taking another man’s physical life.

God does not kill, as in putting an end to life. While the physical life may end, that’s only one aspect of life and not even the most important one. God is spirit so for Him to *kill* He would have to kill the spirit and soul, and HE doesn’t do that. They live on forever, once created. So God does not kill, because He does not end a person’s life for good.

And where do you get that God commits adultery and lusts after His neighbor’s wife?

If you want to discredit God, try picking something more plausible to argue against Him with. Choosing something like that only makes you look like a fool.


26 posted on 04/16/2008 8:41:15 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
God the Father could have chosen any single woman on earth, or created one specifically for bearing Jesus. But, he chose a man's wife.

That is presuming that God actually had sex with Mary.

That's pretty shaky ground.

Creating Jesus does not equate to adultery.

27 posted on 04/16/2008 8:44:17 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Soliton; betty boop
First, God is a dictator by definition.

Whose, besides yours?

Second, human dictators also do not interfere with free will ...

Not true. They most certainly do.

What kind of free will did people have over their lives in Stalin's collectivization and industrialization campaigns?

What kind of free will do people in China have to choose jobs and bear children?

What kind of free will did people have under Saddam? Pol Pot? Any other petty dictator?

28 posted on 04/16/2008 8:51:34 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Under earthly dictators you can flee or revolt, even kill the dictator. Human dictators die and things get better. They can only torture you for a while and kill you once.

God is a dictator because He appointed Himself, rules by fiat, is above the law and kills and tortures those who disobey Him. He tortures for all eternity.


29 posted on 04/17/2008 4:43:05 AM PDT by Soliton (McCain couldn't even win a McCain look-alike contest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

God is not a dictator. He is not capricious, nor does He torture people.

God is good, totally. The greater the capacity for good, the greater the capacity for evil. If God, being omnipotent, were not totally good, He would be totally evil. Being totally evil, He would not be capable of any good at all, nor could He create it, nor would He allow it. As a matter of fact, He would not allow anything that was not Himself. Evil beings like dictators tolerate no dissent or challenge to their authority. That being the case, if God became evil, it would result in the instant annihilation of anything not Himself.

God does not torture, as you like to imagine. Pain is the consequence of certain behavior, not inflicted on someone for perverted enjoyment. If you burn yourself on the stove, the stove is not torturing you for touching it.

If you’re going to label God a dictator because He punishes sin, you have effectively just labeled every parent on the planet a dictator, attributing to them also, evil motives, torturing their children for disobedience.

God has given us free will, something no dictator would ever do, because they cannot tolerate the challenge to their authority. Yes, there are consequences to actions. God does not inflict pain to punish, He warns us of the natural consequences of our actions. That is not torturing.

God knew that we could not meet His standards, so from the beginning, when Adam and Eve disobeyed, He promised a redeemer, someone who would reconcile mankind to Himself. God Himself, took on a body and came to earth and lived and died among us,(a horrible death at that) for the purpose of providing a way of being delivered from the consequences of our sin. He did for us, what we could not do for ourselves, hardly the actions of a dictator to provide a way to escape those consequences.

That, combined with free will, provides us an escape from the consequences of sin. The choice is ours. If someone ends up in hell, it’s their own doing. They rejected God’s plan; something so simple that a child and understand and do.

It isn’t like God hasn’t warned us. He has, over and over. One thing He will not do, however, is override someone’s free will and force the decision on them. So people end up where they want. They may not like it very much, but they got their choice and knew of the consequences.


30 posted on 04/17/2008 7:41:35 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: metmom
If someone ends up in hell, it's their own doing. They rejected God's plan; something so simple that a child and understand and do.

Are Jewish Holocaust victims who kept their faith doomed to Hell?

Is it right and just that they suffer forever in Hell?

31 posted on 04/17/2008 8:21:49 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
But just as with the case of Michelangelo's creation David, God's creation cannot express His character in the fullest, but only as an "image" of Himself. If God were "in" the creation alongside of man -- i.e., equally bound by space and time as we are -- then you could say there should be a one-size-fits-all moral law binding God and man alike. But then God wouldn't be God. And if He weren't, neither could man be man.

Precisely so. Excellent point!

An image is a reflection, not the original of which it is the reflection. Therefore, the reflection not only is not the original of which it is a reflection, but it cannot "bind" the original in any way.

Amazing how many trip over "analogical knowledge!"

Thank you so very much for all of your outstanding posts!

32 posted on 04/18/2008 9:30:38 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson