Quantum Contemplations: Dialog Echoing In Eternity

I have decided to post some of the e-mails from the volumoinous, dusty archives of the ongoing conversation between D.S. Martin and myself. Here is the next installment.

From: Scott Starr To: D.S. Martin Date: Fri, 26
May 2006 08:23:06 -0500

Well, I have gone fishing about every night this week. I have found some prime locations all right in or real close to the city. I had great luck yesterday in a dirty flood control pond off of Meridian and I-40- back behind the Waffle house. I am going camping this weekend out at an awesome lake I found near Geary an hour to the west. We need to get together and catch some....and finish figuring out the cosmos.

Here it is, if your interested in the relative age of the universe.

A quick approximation for the age of the Universe can be approximated by the inverse of the Hubble constant. The calculated age turns out to be

Current best estimates of h₀ are

so the Universe is most likely somewhere between 12 and 16 billion years old, at least according to this method of estimation.
But recall that according to relativity, time is relative. We can guess the amount of time likely to have elapsed since the time when time was a meaningful quantity that could be measured. But we can't say anything about any processes that might have occurred before the notion of time made sense. In some sense, quantum gravity could be an eternal stage of the Universe, and the Big Bang could be regarded as the end of eternity and the beginning of time itself.

I like the end of eternity analysis.

But, it seems to me, it would only be the end of eternity for those of us who, may happen to be stuck in this quaint little space/time universe.

However, for the rest of us who exist, only temporarily in this temporally composed training facility, i.e. the Universe, we see eternity as still existing outside the bounds of this tiny, but ever increasing sphere.

Which leads to the question, can space eventually exceed or overtake eternity?

How much eternity exists beyond the bounds of space?

Is there a limited eternity, (maybe only 25 miles of eternity, that would certainly affect the effect of the title of the movie classic "From Here to Eternity", kind of like "From here to Shawnee" or to keep it in tropical paridise "From Peral Harbor to Waimea Bay)?

Or is eternity always just beyond the reaches of space/time, (and well, we might say eternal and infinite)?

Scientists, often naively limit reality to only what is thought to be knowable, or at least may be tested by empirical (carnal) tests.

DSM

Is it possible to be an Texan and a Christian?

(3rd Excerpt from original posting on Theology of Nuance on October 15, 2006 and a precursor for Diversity Around the Table of the Last Supper)

I encourage anyone interested in this subject to download and listen to this sermon from Dr. Thomas Robinson of the Manhattan New York Church of Christ. Just click on this paragraph and you will directed to the MP3 of the lesson. Pay particular attention to the sermon at 11:15 through 15:00 minutes into the sermon. If you are from a CoC background you will be challenged greatly by Dr. Robinson's sermon. However, I have studied the passages that he references, and I am confident that his context for the passages are correct. In other words I do agree with his interpretation of the scriptures.

There are many possibilities for who we might be, by carnal standards.
We may even wear these labels with pride.

I could be:
1) A Disciple of Jesus (Christian)
2) A Democrat
3) An Arab
4) A Woman
5) A Parent
6) A Man
7) An American
8) A Hunter
9) A Texan
10) Pro-labor (Union)
11) Pro-business
12) An environmentalist
13) Caucasian (White)
14) Animal Rights Activists
15) Progressive
16) A Seminole (Tribe)
17) A Warrior
18) Conservative
19) A Sooner (OU)
20) A Cowboy (OSU)
Are any of these sinful? If you answered "yes" you are correct. If you answered "no" you, too, are correct.
In fact, none of these are sinful, when correctly placed in priority. But, all of these, except the first, may be sinful, if they supplant the first by even one place.

The world, i.e. the carnal conventions outside the Church, "must" make judgments in order to know who is accepted and who is rejected.

It is a "natural selection" thing. This is a Charles Darwin phrase, please don't reject it just because it was described by Darwin. It is valid to the carnal/natural.

If labels are not applied, any and all are, by default, accepted into the tribe or camp. The tribe and clan is threatened if there are no physically discernable ways to keep out of the camp, those who have no kinship, and vested interest in protecting the members of the camp.

Jesus however, changed the rules for all time. As a means of exclusion, the labels began to disolve, even while Christ taught only to the descendants of Israel. Look at this exchange between Jesus and a "gentile" woman. This may be a very harsh answer to her, or it could be a very harsh example of faith to the descendants of Abraham. Which is it? Let me say this, God/Jesus doesn't need to know if the poor woman had great faith. The creator knows her heart. However, those disciples with Jesus did not know her heart. Did they? The teachers of the Law did not know her heart either. In point of fact, she may not have fully known her own heart, until God provided her with the opportunity (a.k.a. "test") to exercise her faith.

• 25 Right away a woman came to him whose little girl was possessed by an evil spirit. She had heard about Jesus, and now she came and fell at his feet.


• 26 She begged him to release her child from the demon’s control.
  Since she was a Gentile, born in Syrian Phoenicia,


• 27 Jesus told her, “First I should help my own family, the Jews.* It isn’t right to take food from the children and throw it to the dogs.”


• 28 She replied, “That’s true, Lord, but even the dogs under the table are given some crumbs from the children’s plates.”


• 29 “Good answer!” he said. “And because you have answered so well, I have healed your daughter.”


• 30 And when she arrived home, her little girl was lying quietly in bed, and the demon was gone.

By the original plan of God, it was His purpose to have Israel as a light to the nations. It was Jesus who finally fulfilled the ultimate plan for the nation of Israel. Read Isaiah 49 and see for yourself. The exclusionary rule, which comes from the the carnal law of natural selection, was being banished by the Holy One, long before the resurrection of Christ.

• 5 And now the Lord speaks—he who formed me in my mother’s womb to be his servant, who commissioned me to bring his people of Israel back to him. The Lord has honored me, and my God has given me strength.


• 6 He says, “You will do more than restore the people of Israel to me. I will make you a light to the Gentiles, and you will bring my salvation to the ends of the earth.”


• 7 The Lord, the Redeemer and Holy One of Israel, says to the one who is despised and rejected by a nation, to the one who is the servant of rulers: “Kings will stand at attention when you pass by. Princes will bow low because the Lord has chosen you. He, the faithful Lord, the Holy One of Israel, chooses you.”

The labels that we live under, by our own choosing, are not bad, unless we allow those labels to push Jesus' plan of bringing "light to the nations", into second or third place.

• Each "thing" that I am, that I perceive in my own mind, affects how I act and respond to others.


• Each "thing" that I am to others, that they perceive in their minds, affects how they respond to me.

Matthew 10:37 "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;…"

• Is it really possible that being "Pro-life" can be a sin?


• If so, how?


• And if so, how can we keep from walking or even running into our adversary’s trap?
  The questions are valid.

If Jesus was being honest in Mt. 10:37, that loving your parents & kids is bad (evil/sinful) when placed in the wrong order of priority, then Satan’s potential armaments are as varied as there are things & ideologies in the universe. Because we can see that anything and everything in this world has the potential to be a weapon wielded by the evil one, against the Way of Jesus (The Church.)

So, let us be clear.

1. Being "Republican" can be evil. If or When it pushes people away from "God"
2. Being an "English Speaker" can be evil. If or When it pushes people away from "Jesus"

3. Being a "member of a specific church" can be evil. If or When it pushes people away from "the Father" (THIS ONE SHOULD RAISE QUESTIONS, PLEASE ASK IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION.)

4. Being "American" can be evil. If or When it pushes people away from "the Holy Spirit"

5. Being an "Environmentalist" can be evil. If or When it pushes people away from "the Lamb of God"
6. Being "Pro-life" can be evil. If or When it pushes people away from "the Holy One"

7. Being "Democrat" can be evil. If or When it pushes people away from "I AM"

When any of these detract from Christ, they are Satan’s weapons against "the Bride of Christ," which is the Church

Our historical context hides the carnal biases and fools us into giving our hearts to these benign or even noble clubs and causes. Even when we recognize the potential for harm, we often have trouble tempering our desire (lust) for the thing or ideal with which we’ve identified.
Sports fanaticism may become "religion" for which we may spiritually harm our fellow man.

Governmental Political zeal may become "religion" as well, as we condemn those with whom we disagree, and thus harm our ability to reveal Jesus’ love, hope, and healing to these souls still held captive by our Lord’s adversary.

A single issue may become our "religion" and overtake our "faith", as priority and focus.

(To Be Continued)

God bless,

DSM

p.s. Did you notice that I was intentionally provocative with the title for this post. We need to guard against following the apostle, Nathaniel's, example, which is found in John 1:46;

“Texas!” exclaimed Nathanael. “Can anything good come from there?”.

Nathaniel didn't really say Texas, I think it was more localized and specific. Maybe it was Austin.