[Akoue]

Akoue,
Thanks much for that even if it was for Joe, I benefited much.
Fred

Hello, Fred.

It wasn't meant for any one person more than any other. I'm really delighted to have a nice conversation about this with thoughtful people. I find I'm learning as we go. And if you got anything out of it, so much the better!

[jakester]

Akoue - I will respond before the end of the weekend... busy with my family now but I want to respond.

Cheers.

[jakester]

Thank you for your kind words, jakester. I enjoy discussions with you as well. I also find rational discussion preferrable to the alternatives. Back and forth quotations of biblical passages on its own isn't nearly so helpful as reasoned discourse about those passages. I have found your posts very helpful and a pleasure to read and think about.

I agree that God was at no time compelled to act one way or another. But I'm not so sure that I want to reject altogether the idea of a cosmic law or cosmic order. I think it would be helpful--for me at least, and perhaps for others as well--to pause over this a bit. God's providence is a cosmic law, one that holds not just for humanity but for the whole of his creation. With sin something was introduced into the creation that wasn't there before. But what was that something? Sin is not, after all, just a label that is given to things that are bad, and it isn't just a psychological condition. Sin is a reality. The wrongful exercise of free will--whether by Satan and the fallen angels or by Adam and Eve and their progeny--impacts the whole of creation. So, I guess, part of my initial question--from what does creation long for redemption--is utlimately getting at the nature of sin. (I have to thank you for helping me see this. I wasn't aware that this was part of what I was asking until thinking about your posts brought it to the surface.)

So I suppose I would like to talk a bit more about what you've called "the cosmic law principle", if you're okay with that. I do agree with you that there is no law by which God is himself compelled; it's just not clear to me that this means there isn't a cosmic law that is in play in Rom.8. That said, though, I'm not entirely sure what to make of it, and so I'm not sure what to say about it. Any thoughts?

I agree.

I was just thinking about all the other things that God made before he made man and woman. Mostly I'm thinking about animals, but I don't know that it needs to be limited to that. (Fred's interesting idea about the possibility of life on other planets comes to mind.)

Agreed. But I'm inclined to think that Rom.8 is pointing us to something beyond harmony. In Orthodoxy, for example, it is not uncommon to talk about a return to unity with the Trinity, a participation in the divinity. This strikes me as a very interesting, and not at all artificial, idea. On this way of thinking, Christ promises not just harmony with God and others but an even deeper unity with God, a unity that is to be enjoyed by the whole of creation (with the obvious exception of those who choose to reject God and so are damned). I'm not trying to defend this view, but I do think it may capture something deep.

That's an interesting idea. I'm really glad you mentioned it.

Thank you again for helping me think through this. I look forward to your next post.

Oh, and let's agree that we're working through this together. That way we can feel free to try out different ideas in order to see what works and what doesn't, without having to worry that we'll be forced into defending something we may only have presented as an idea we're trying out. I know I'm not ready to defend the ideas I've presented in this post. But I am trying them out to see whether they make sense. I'm always happy to get feedback on this.

Akoue – I realize the inherent challenge in trying to communicate particular thoughts and ideas when there is no immediate feedback and clarification of comments, etc. I will do my best to articulate my thoughts here.

First off, I will try to make a distinction between the idea of a cosmic law and God's sovereignty over his creation. Here's the difference as I see it. Adam sinned when he disobeyed God's command to abstain from eating from the tree. However, at that moment sin itself had not entered into the world for the first time; I see that Satan was already existing in rebellion towards God prior to Adam's transgression…Satan had already brought sin into existence and the scenario in the garden was a manifestation of the evil already present in the world, which we would call sin. But God had not already cursed creation even though sin was already present because of Satan. So sin as a phenomenon was in existence even as Adam was alive prior to his own transgression.

I think the cosmic law principle would say that because sin entered into existence, God “had” to deal with this something that “…was introduced into the creation that wasn't there before.” However, I argue that God's sovereignty would say that God's control over his creation, whether man or any other creature obeyed him or disobeyed him, is so absolute that he could have done any number of things with Satan and with Adam and with the rest of creation. It seems that once the scenario in the garden took place, God chose to act then (not when Satan fell) and he subsequently cursed his creation. But I think he could have cursed creation on account of Satan as well if, strictly speaking, sin brought into existence somehow changes the whole of the created reality. Ultimately, sin in of itself did not impact creation in any particular away, autonomously from God; God chose to punish the serpent, Adam and Eve because of their sin but God could have chosen to not to curse them... he could have simply destroyed them and made another human being in his place while leaving the rest of what he already created intact. Sin is transgression against God but it is not some inherently powerful force which brings about an effect in creation. The only effect that is really a reality in the garden scenario is God's choice to do something in reality: he cursed his creation.

Where any of my argument really matters is when we come back to your earlier post. The question was asked, was it Adam who subjected creation to futility or God who subjected it? The cosmic law principle would say that because sin was brought into existence, sin changed everything as if it were a kind of autonomous power (mystical force). Well, we know that Adam did sin and from Adam's standpoint, something was profoundly different for him and Eve: he now knew the personal experience of being a transgressor and an enemy of God…previous to this event, he and Eve enjoyed fellowship with God. But as I said, their sin was not the first sin to ever occur, Satan's sin of pride and his subsequent fall were sins in existence prior to Adam and Eve and yet the whole of creation was not subject to a curse. What I personally think will happen in heaven is people will be the sort of creatures who when presented with a garden scenario (eat or don't eat of the tree), they will only want to obey their God. Their hearts will be changed and they will be holy. The point you were making before was that believers in heaven will “…return to unity with the Trinity, a participation in the divinity.” Yes, I think this is the case as well, it is not merely harmony with other creatures, but more importantly, harmony with God is the most profound sense. 2 Peter 1 says the following:

“His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.”

To me, becoming a partaker of the divine nature is as I argued above…an existence in which holiness and automatic goodness are mine. Jesus Christ obeyed the Father in every circumstance; he endured temptations and yet he never failed to do the will of God. In heaven, this will be the experience of the child of God. Not only that, but an intimacy that people have never experienced before with God will also be a reality. The bible says that "God dwells in unapproachable light...and that no man has ever seen him." (1 Timothy 6) I believe that this reality will be no more because "when we see him we will be like him, for we shall see him as he is." (1 John) The curtain will be pulled back and man will enter into the presence of God whereas such was not possible before.

I know I have covered a lot of ground here and my aim was to have gotten to the heart of what you are asking. I may not have successfully done so but I sincerely tried. Please follow up with any comments or questions. As you said, I welcome thoughtful discourse and arguments from the biblical text, not just the biblical text. Yes, I welcome the idea of working through this together…I have spent considerable time reflecting on Romans 8 and Romans collectively, so I have garnered a comfortable position on much of what I have studied previously but I am not unwilling to consider alternative viewpoints if I find that they are compelling and rational.

Look forward to your thoughts.

[arcura]

jakester,
I like your thought on that.
They are though provoking.
But I must point out that it was before Jesus was born that man have never seen God's face.
"Jesus is the visible image of the invisible God"
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[jakester]

jakester,
I like your thought on that.
They are though provoking.
But I must point out that it was before Jesus was born that man have never seen God's face.
"Jesus is the visible image of the invisible God"
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred - yes, I agree with you that Jesus is the image of the invisible God... I've got no quibble with that. However, if you survey 1 Timothy 6, Paul says that the God who will reveal Jesus Christ "dwells in unapproachable light, who no man has ever seen or can see." My argument in my post was that no man has ever seen the invisible God nor can he see him... that is, that God cannot be seen while we are in our present form. Akoue was saying that perhaps in heaven we are reunited with the Trinity. In other words, will God in heaven always remain invisible and so will we only see Christ? Or will we be able to somehow engage with God and the Spirit of God in some tangible manner. The difficulty in this is perhaps trying to wrap our minds around the Trinity, I don't know.

Do you understand the distinction I was trying to make?

[gromitt82]

Fred - yes, I agree with you that Jesus is the image of the invisible God...I've got no quibble with that. However, if you survey 1 Timothy 6, Paul says that the God who will reveal Jesus Christ "dwells in unapproachable light, who no man has ever seen or can see." My argument in my post was that no man has ever seen the invisible God nor can he see him...that is, that God cannot be seen while we are in our present form. Akoue was saying that perhaps in heaven we are reunited with the Trinity. In other words, will God in heaven always remain invisible and so will we only see Christ? Or will we be able to somehow engage with God and the Spirit of God in some tangible manner. The difficulty in this is perhaps trying to wrap our minds around the Trinity, I don't know.

Do you understand the distinction I was trying to make?

I would say that Jesus (as GOD's son) was one image GOD let us see as much as the image Moses was allowed to see in Mount Sinai. Once again, our RCC claims that those who will be lucky enough to achieve Salvation will be able to submerge themselves in the wonderful contemplation of GOD.
Yet, nowhere I think it is said that this contemplation refers to something material - as we understand this word - resembling a person or anything we know.
It may just be, and I think it will likely be, some vision so splendid and awesome that our mere looking at will fill us with happiness forever.
However, as I said in my previous answer, all these considerations belong to the world of the unknown aspects of Divinity which we shall only be able to know for sure when we cease to exist down here.

[arcura]

jakester ,
Yes, I understand where you are coming from on that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Akoue]

Hello, again, jakester.

There's a lot in your post that I'm pondering, and I will offer a more substantial response quite soon. In the meantime, I'd like to try to get clear about one thing (the absence of clarity may be more my fault than yours): What, if anything, changed when sin entered the world? Prior to God's decision to curse his creation, in the space of time between the sin and the cursing. This is something I am myself trying to get clear about.

You rightly point out that the very first sin was not Adam's but Satan's. Here again: Did anything change, was anything different, once the sin was committed but before God cast Satan down? In other words, had God chosen not to punish Satan or Adam, would the creation have been other than as it was created on account of the sin that was committed?

I hope I've posed the question in a way that's clear. I plan to formulate a response to your post very soon, and hopefully that will lend clarity to my question (in the event clarity is lacking).

[arcura]

Akou
My answer to your questions is...
Only God knows.
Fred

[Akoue]

Akou
My answer to your questions is....
Only God knows.
Fred

Oh, gee, thanks Fred! That helps me out a lot.

(And yes, I am kidding.)

[arcura]

Akoue,
LOL

[JoeT777]

I will try to make a distinction between the idea of a cosmic law and God’s sovereignty over his creation…

I think the cosmic law principle would say that because sin entered into existence, God “had” to deal with this something that “…was introduced into the creation that wasn't there before.” However, I argue that God’s sovereignty would say that God’s control over his creation, whether man or any other creature obeyed him or disobeyed him, is so absolute that he could have done any number of things with Satan and with Adam and with the rest of creation.

I had a small about of paraskevidekatriaphobia Friday and I may not have been on top of my game – it’s taken a few days to get over it. But, don’t worry; I made it till midnight ALIVE. It was a light about compared past years. The only ill effects was spilled coffee (twice), a stubbed toe getting out of bed, and I crashed my computer when I got to work – and that was just in the am. I won’t bore you with the afternoon’s mayhem. No, I’m not superstitious (much).

As I understand it, a universal or cosmic law held by most states that the ultimate goal of the soul is to master its physical condition; the human intellect becomes one with the energies of the universe, as it were, to become the universe. This cosmic law seems to suggest that man can transcend his physical world. Taken as such, jakester’s comments, though wrong, begin to make a little sense. The problem with the Cosmic Law it contends that man is capable of transcending his own nature, transcending his own creator. Being a created creature, man cannot reason the intent of his Creator.

As I read jokester’s post, it seems to infer that sin is something I’m not familiar with. While sin does change things, it can’t change reality. Sin is not a material thing which can be held and dispensed; rather it is a moral evil, a privation of form, or a disorder created in God’s perfect creation. St. Thomas and Augustine both teach that sin is a voluntary act of the will. “… sin is nothing else than a bad human act. Now that an act is a human act is due to its being voluntary, whether it be voluntary, as being elicited by the will, e.g. to will or to choose, or as being commanded by the will, e.g. the exterior actions of speech or operation. Again, a human act is evil through lacking conformity with its due measure: and conformity of measure in a thing depends on a rule, from which if that thing depart, it is incommensurate. Now there are two rules of the human will: one is proximate and homogeneous, viz. the human reason; the other is the first rule, viz. the eternal law, which is God's reason, so to speak. Accordingly Augustine (Contra Faust. Xxii, 27) includes two things in the definition of sin; one, pertaining to the substance of a human act, and which is the matter, so to speak, of sin, when he says "word," "deed," or "desire"; the other, pertaining to the nature of evil, and which is the form, as it were, of sin, when he says, "contrary to the eternal law." The point is that it is man who transgresses against God, not sin.

A little research shows how central the themes of these verses are to Church doctrine. I found the verses 18-30 referenced by Chrysostom on Romans, Evangelium Vitae, Augustine, City of God Christian Doctrine, Augustine’s Harmony of Gospels, Lumen Gentium, Summa Theologica… ad infinitum. This set of verses is mentioned in nearly 70 different Catholic works (most with multiple citations), including 18 works in the Magisterium. I only mention this to show the importance of these verses in Catholic theology. It seems to me that the prominence of such verses demands a disciplined rigor for interpretation. Most Catholic works seem to pick up Chrysostom’s interpretation of Paul’s philosophy in these verses. That central philosophy seems to advance the theme of hope. First it should be recognized that the intended audience is the Christian - Jewish community in Rome. This audience would recognize exactly what’s being said. In Romans 8.

Verse 18

“For I reckon that the sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come that shall be revealed in us.”

It’s clear that Paul is calculating (or comparing) the sufferings of the mortal created creature with the promised glory. The re-birth of baptism delivers man from the ‘law’ of sin conferring the salvific graces of the Holy Spirit; “And if Christ be in you, the body indeed is dead, because of sin: but the spirit liveth, because of justification.” Man’s nature is vexingly driven to transcend his condition of bondage in sin through the Law. Unable to do so he becomes frustrated by a nature that “walks according to the flesh”. Paul is reminding us that it is in Christ that “we are saved by hope.” This is Salvation that carries man beyond a binding Law of indebtedness which the flesh cannot transcend. Thus we find our sufferings are of little worth. No penance will ever surmount the quantities owed for such a glorious gift. Hope is the theme here. “For what a man seeth, why doth he hope for? But if we hope for that which we see not, we wait for it with patience.”

Verses 19 and 20 (following St. Chrysostom)

For the expectation of the creature waiteth for the revelation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity: not willingly, but by reason of him that made it subject, in hope.

We have great hope (expectation) to remain exposed to the truth of the sons of God. “In the beginning, O Lord, thou foundedst the earth: and the heavens are the works of thy hands. They shall perish but thou remainest: and all of them shall grow old like a garment: And as vesture thou shalt change them, and they shall be changed.” (Psalm 101:26, 27) All that is man, not found in Christ, will perish. Those found in Christ will be made incorruptible. (1 Cor 15:53). It’s our hope in Christ that becomes the object of our reason, “ not willingly that it was made subject, it is not to show that it is possessed of judgment that he says so, but that you may learn that the whole is brought about by Christ's care, and this is no achievement of its own.”

St. Chrysostom answers his own question, “And now say in what hope?” with verse 21, “Because the creature also itself shall be delivered from the servitude of corruption, into the liberty of the glory of the children of God.” What’s delivered isn’t the corruptible, but the rather the soul is made incorruptible sons of God.

JoeT

[arcura]

Joe,
I'm sorry for you that you have paraskevidekatriaphobia, whatever that is. I'm completely unaware of what it is.
Your post has caused me to ponder more of what those verses intend to say to the layman such as I.
Again I am thankful of the presevered works of the saints and The Church fathers and people like you who can and do provide that information.
Thanks for the good post and I hope and pray that you will heal well.
Peace and kindness,
Fred.

[Akoue]

Satan had already brought sin into existence and the scenario in the garden was a manifestation of the evil already present in the world, which we would call sin. But God had not already cursed creation even though sin was already present because of Satan. So sin as a phenomenon was in existence even as Adam was alive prior to his own transgression.

This is a very interesting point. Many commentators (both historical and contemporary) tend to give Adam the "credit" for bringing sin into the world, even though the first sin had already been committed by Satan. I suppose one way of reading that would be to say that although sin existed, it did not exist "in the world". I don't find that interpretation terribly helpful, though. But something suggested by what you write here, with which I am particularly interested (and with which I have some sympathy, at least in a general way) is the idea that sin is a sort of spiritual disease which is communicable, which can be transmitted. It is a sort of cancer on the soul of the one who sins, as indeed on the created order itself (hence natural, as opposed to moral, evil). Augustine, along with a great many early Christians, thought of it this way (in part). Looked at in this light, sin has a kind of reality, although the nature of its reality is not easy to articulate. Here Augustine, along with many others including esp.Pseudo Dionysius, regarded sin or evil as nothingness: The committing of sinful acts is a deviation from the goodness and order God bestowed upon his creation. When we sin, we damage the fabric of that created reallity. (This doesn't imply a cosmic law compelling God; this may be part and parcel of what it means to say that God cursed his creation.)

I think the cosmic law principle would say that because sin entered into existence, God “had” to deal with this something that “…was introduced into the creation that wasn't there before.” However, I argue that God’s sovereignty would say that God’s control over his creation, whether man or any other creature obeyed him or disobeyed him, is so absolute that he could have done any number of things with Satan and with Adam and with the rest of creation.

Here I suspect, when it gets right down to it, you and I agree. My one real reservation concerns the notion of control. While I readily agree that God is omnipotent and can dispose of his creation as he sees fit, it isn't at all clear to me that God exercises his omnipotence equally at all places and all times. Here's where I have some sympathy with some version of a cosmic law: There is a divinely ordained order to creation, and that order includes the laws and principles which God has inscribed in rational beings for the guidance and constraint of free will. The misuse of free will can, it seems to me, disrupt the order of the creation, not because God is in any way compelled or limited himself, but because he ordained a creation in which free will has real causal power. The proper exercise of free will maintains harmony between the agent and creation (and God), and the misuse of free will breeds disharmony. I would argue that we can in fact see the effects of this disharmony, though I'll leave that for another occasion.

It seems that once the scenario in the garden took place, God chose to act then (not when Satan fell) and he subsequently cursed his creation. But I think he could have cursed creation on account of Satan as well if, strictly speaking, sin brought into existence somehow changes the whole of the created reality.

I agree.

Ultimately, sin in of itself did not impact creation in any particular away, autonomously from God; God chose to punish the serpent, Adam and Eve because of their sin but God could have chosen to not to curse them... he could have simply destroyed them and made another human being in his place while leaving the rest of what he already created intact. Sin is transgression against God but it is not some inherently powerful force which brings about an effect in creation. The only effect that is really a reality in the garden scenario is God’s choice to do something in reality: he cursed his creation.

I don't mean to suggest that sin is an inherently powerful force, although it probably sounds like I'm at least leaning in that direction. I do, however, think that sin or evil can be thought of as a virus that spreads and disrupts the harmonius order of creation. This isn't to suggest that God's hand is in any way forced. But it makes sense to me that part of the punishment for sin, part of the consequences with which the creature (us) must deal as a result of violating God's established moral order, is a creation which now includes a kind of friction that it did not at its inception. This is why Augustine, for instance, distinguished between the natural state and the preternatural state: The nature of reality after the introduction of sin is not that of its preternatural state, i.e. reality before there was evil. I am not suggesting that one is bound to accept Augustine's distinction, only that I find it to be quite deep and not at all silly. Sin, evil, changes things. This is true in the individual and it is true of creation as a whole. And this resonates powerfully with the claim that creation groans for redemption, that creation in a sense suffers under the weight of human sinfulness.

Where any of my argument really matters is when we come back to your earlier post. The question was asked, was it Adam who subjected creation to futility or God who subjected it? The cosmic law principle would say that because sin was brought into existence, sin changed everything as if it were a kind of autonomous power (mystical force).

I don't want to go all in on the cosmic law principle, but I think there's probably something right about it. Like you, I want to stear clear of the idea that this principle is independent of God's power to ordain. That said, if Satan can enter and possess an Apostle of the Lord, then evil does have palpable power to change reality from one state to another.

were sins in existence prior to Adam and Eve and yet the whole of creation was not subject to a curse.

Again, this is a very good point. It's not at all obvious to me what is to be made of this fact, though. (Maybe why I'm still here trying to probe this issue with you and others.)

The curtain will be pulled back and man will enter into the presence of God whereas such was not possible before.

I also wonder about the extent of the transformation that will be wrought by the face to face encounter with God. The way some people talk about heaven makes me think that they haven't nearly considered how utterly transformative it would be to be that intimate with God. I suspect the integration of individuals with one another and with God will far transcend the broadly sensuous descriptions one often hears.

I thought yours was a fascinating post and I hope I've done it some justice. As always, I very much lookk forward to hearing your thoughts.

[Akoue]

I had a small about of paraskevidekatriaphobia Friday and I may not have been on top of my game – it’s taken a few days to get over it.

The next time it rolls around just think of it as the day A LOT of Templars died. That should make it seem much less creepy!

As I understand it, a universal or cosmic law held by most states that the ultimate goal of the soul is to master its physical condition; the human intellect becomes one with the energies of the universe, as it were, to become the universe. This cosmic law seems to suggest that man can transcend his physical world. Taken as such, jakester’s comments, though wrong, begin to make a little sense. The problem with the Cosmic Law it contends that man is capable of transcending his own nature, transcending his own creator. Being a created creature, man cannot reason the intent of his Creator.

I'm not sure that there is some one thing that is typically meant by cosmic law. Of course, it may get a lot of play in some new age circles, but I wouldn't know since I avod them like the plague that they are. When I use it here, at least, I certainly don't have in mind anything like transcending of the physical or of God or anything like that. I don't think jakester does either, although I don't mean to be presumptuous. As my last post may help make more evident, I'm thinking of a Divinely established law governing creation. It would especially include moral laws. I don't see the moral order and the metaphysical order of creation as two independent realities: I see them as mutually interpenetrating. This is certainly how Augustine sees it in the middle books of the City of God, and very clearly in bks 19-22. I actually think that this is a very ancient, and authentically Christian view. It's all over the Church Fathers. In fact, I can't think of a single one who didn't believe this.

While sin does change things, it can’t change reality. Sin is not a material thing which can be held and dispensed; rather it is a moral evil, a privation of form, or a disorder created in God’s perfect creation.

Actually, my sense is that you and jakester are probably fairly close together on this point, with me as the odd one out. I do think that evil is a privation, but I think that that privation has, as it were, metaphysical force. The absence of good isn't, so to speak, a vacuum; it's the presence of evil (this is essentially how Augustine puts it in bks.13-14 of the City of God.) It is the presence of an absence. But since the highest good is God, it is the absence of God, a turning away from him, and it is violence against the goodness of his creation.

Again, a human act is evil through lacking conformity with its due measure: and conformity of measure in a thing depends on a rule, from which if that thing depart, it is incommensurate. Now there are two rules of the human will: one is proximate and homogeneous, viz. the human reason; the other is the first rule, viz. the eternal law, which is God's reason, so to speak. Accordingly Augustine (Contra Faust. Xxii, 27) includes two things in the definition of sin; one, pertaining to the substance of a human act, and which is the matter, so to speak, of sin, when he says "word," "deed," or "desire"; the other, pertaining to the nature of evil, and which is the form, as it were, of sin, when he says, "contrary to the eternal law." The point is that it is man who transgresses against God, not sin.

The business about "due measure" is Aquinas dutifully channeling Aristotle. He does way too much of that in my opinion. It is true, though, that the agency is ours, not sin's. It is we who sin, not sin that acts through us. At the same time, though, we have no trouble talking about, for instance, temptation as though it did have a weird sort of agency. And I'm not sure that's altogether wrong--although I do think it's easy to take it way too far.

A little research shows how central the themes of these verses are to Church doctrine. I found the verses 18-30 referenced by Chrysostom on Romans, Evangelium Vitae, Augustine, City of God Christian Doctrine, Augustine’s Harmony of Gospels, Lumen Gentium, Summa Theologica… ad infinitum. This set of verses is mentioned in nearly 70 different Catholic works (most with multiple citations), including 18 works in the Magisterium. I only mention this to show the importance of these verses in Catholic theology. It seems to me that the prominence of such verses demands a disciplined rigor for interpretation. Most Catholic works seem to pick up Chrysostom’s interpretation of Paul’s philosophy in these verses. That central philosophy seems to advance the theme of hope. First it should be recognized that the intended audience is the Christian - Jewish community in Rome. This audience would recognize exactly what’s being said. In Romans 8.

It is central, to be sure. The Church Fathers devoted an enormous amount of time and effort to Romans 7 and 8. Much of Augustine's theology can in fact be read as an extended meditation on these two chapters.

[Akoue]

Yet, nowhere I think it is said that this contemplation refers to something material - as we understand this word - resembling a person or anything we know.

Quite right. I think there is a tendency in some quarters to construe and to envisage the beatific vision in excessively materialistic and sensuous terms. To do so, I feel, underestimates that transformative power of such intimacy with God. But here, as you say, the answers are destined to elude us while we make our pilgrimage.

Thanks for the excellent post.

[JoeT777]

The next time it rolls around just think of it as the day A LOT of Templars died. That should make it seem much less creepy! .

Less creepy! Wanta bet?

It just occurred to me that this is the first time in ten years that I will have 3 bouts of illness. March is looming, and August will be here before you know it. OH! The HUMANITY! Did you know that a year with 3 months of such Fridays occurs only 4 times in a 28 year cycle? And, did you know that one need only whisper 'fire' in a crowded room to start panic. Think about it, wasn't last year's black August enough! Enough of superstitions - I'm not superstitious anyway.

As to the backhanded hex wished upon me - I'm not superstitious: but, just because King Philip had the Templars arrested on Friday, October 13, 1307, tried, executed, and burned at the stake, doesn't bother me one bit; hardly at all, not much. But did you know that in 2001 a document known as the Chinon Parchment was found in the Secret Archives of the Vatican which cleared the Templars and absolved them of all heresies?

When you think about it, doesn't this connect with our Verses in Romans 8; the corruptible creature knows not the magnitude of glory that belongs to the sons of God? “…delivered from the servitude of corruption, into the liberty of the glory of the children of God.” Honor, courage, commitment, the core values that define Soldiers of Christ: Sigillum Militum Χρisti (the Seal of the Soldiers of Christ)

A superstition started by a stupid ol' book, The Da Vinci Code doesn't bother me - too much, hardly at all, maybe a little. That is to say, “why take something which you could easily abolish as a superstition and carefully perpetuate it as a bore?” (Chesterton)

Semper Fidelis, JoeT

[arcura]

Joe,
Thanks for that.
I had not heard of that document on the Knights.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Akoue]

Less creepy! Wanta bet?

It just occurred to me that this is the first time in ten years that I will have 3 bouts of illness. March is looming, and August will be here before you know it. OH! The HUMANITY! Did you know that a year with 3 months of such Fridays occurs only 4 times in a 28 year cycle? And, did you know that one need only whisper 'fire' in a crowded room to start panic. Think about it, wasn’t last year’s black August enough!? Enough of superstitions - I'm not superstitious anyway.

As to the backhanded hex wished upon me - I’m not superstitious: but, just because King Philip had the Templars arrested on Friday, October 13, 1307, tried, executed, and burned at the stake, doesn’t bother me one bit; hardly at all, not much. But did you know that in 2001 a document known as the Chinon Parchment was found in the Secret Archives of the Vatican which cleared the Templars and absolved them of all heresies?

When you think about it, doesn’t this connect with our Verses in Romans 8; the corruptible creature knows not the magnitude of glory that belongs to the sons of God? “…delivered from the servitude of corruption, into the liberty of the glory of the children of God.” Honor, courage, commitment, the core values that define Soldiers of Christ: Sigillum Militum ??isti (the Seal of the Soldiers of Christ)

A superstition started by a stupid ol’ book, The Da Vinci Code doesn’t bother me - too much, hardly at all, maybe a little. That is to say, “why take something which you could easily abolish as a superstition and carefully perpetuate it as a bore?” (Chesterton)

Semper Fidelis, JoeT

As lousy and obnoxious as The Da Vinci Code is, the Friday the 13th superstition can't be pinned on it. Been around too long. (Besides, Dan Brown isn't long on actual creativity. That's why he being sued for plagiarism.)

And the Holy See had never held the Templars guilty. In fact, it had opposed the action taken by Philip all along.

I wish you well as you struggle with your phobia. Try to forget it's Friday the 13th. Maybe get really drunk on Thursday the 12th and just stay in bed and sleep right through it. That's the kind of thing sick days were created for, after all.

[arcura]

Akoue.
LOL
Fred