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 ...
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”
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.”
I would have more respect for god if he followed his own rules.
Maybe you could give us another link, here, while you're at it?
I blew it..sorry..had too many other windows open..
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.
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.
btt
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.
read later
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.
How about thou shalt not kill and though shall not commit adultery, or thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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.)
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.