U.S. Episcopal Church Shrinking Over Same-Sex Marriage

[tango]

One of the comments from the article. Quite long, so I gave it its very own post. Maybe judging the evidence really does point towards God rather than towards a cosmic fluke.

Science and the Bible: Cosmos and Creator

By Mark Eastman, M.D.

They have been called the two greatest questions that face mankind: Does God exist, and if He does, what is His nature? Since the time of the ancient Greek philosophers, the answer to these questions have been sought by examining the nature of the universe and its life forms.

The Cosmos

When Albert Einstein published the first of his relativity theories in 1905, he shocked the physics community with a staggering new view of space, time, matter and energy. Though he did not know it at the time, his theories provide dramatic insights into the attributes of the Creator of the cosmos.

Among other things, what Einstein’s theories revealed was that the flow of time and the structure of space were relative to the velocity, mass and acceleration of the observers. That is, their observed values were not fixed: they were relative.

For thousands of years, scientists and philosophers believed that time was nothing more than an abstract notion, conceived in the minds of men, and used to describe the change seen in the physical world. Time, it was believed, was not a thing, it was a mental contrivance. Einstein showed that this was wrong. Time, Einstein showed, was “plastic.” That is, it is a physical property of the universe, and that the observed rate that time flows depends on the physical conditions present at the measuring device.

Several years after Einstein’s theories were published, astronomer Willem de Sitter found a mathematical error in Einstein’s equations. When corrected, he found a startling mathematical prediction buried within his equations: The universe was finite! Space-time, matter, and energy had a beginning.

In his book, It’s About Time, popular author and physicist Paul Davies remarks on this incredible discovery.

Modern scientific cosmology in the most ambitious enterprise of all to
emerge from Einstein’s work. When scientists began to explore the
implications of Einstein’s time for the universe as a whole, they made
one of the most important discoveries in the history of human thought:
that time, and hence all physical reality, must have had a definite origin
in the past. If time is flexible and mutable, as Einstein demonstrated, then
tt is possible for time to come into existence, and also to pass away again;
there can be a beginning and an end of time. (Paul Davies, It’s About Time,
Touchstone Books/Simon and Schuster, 1995, pg. 17.)

The Skeptic

I recently had an opportunity to speak on the origin of life at a major public university in Southern California. In attendance were a number of professors who are self-described agnostics. During the question period, one of the professors admitted that the evidence is compelling that the universe was indeed finite. He said that while he could not believe in God (because he couldn’t see Him, or study Him scientifically) he said he did believe that someday scientists would discover a law that would explain the origin and order of the universe and its life forms.

After pointing out that he had just expressed faith, the belief in things unseen, but hoped for, I asked him if he believed that the laws of physics, which work in our space-time domain, also had a beginning. He was forced to concede that they did because they would have no place to act before the space-time domain existed.

The final blow came when I asked him if he then believed that some “law” of physics could explain the origin of the laws of physics! He saw the point: The laws of physics cannot be the cause of the laws of physics! The cause of the universe and its laws must be independent of the space-time domain, exactly as the Bible claimed 3,500 years earlier!

Apostle Paul’s statement regarding the attributes of God being discerned by an examination of the nature of the universe is quite staggering, considering the state of scientific knowledge in the first century A.D. At that time it was commonly believed that the universe was eternal. In the face of that commonly held bias, the Bible clearly taught that the universe was finite, and the Creator is independent of time and space, exactly as 20th century cosmology suggests.

In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth… Genesis 1:1
…God, (v.9) who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not
according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace
which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began.
2 Timothy 1:8-9

…in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before
time began. Titus 1:2

The finiteness of space-time not only points to a Creator who is independent of the cosmos, but it also gives us insight into the minimum resume of such a Being.

The Uncaused Cause

In my discussion with the agnostic professors, I asked them to give me the caveat, for the sake of my next argument, that God did indeed exist. They agreed. I then asked them what would be the minimum “resume” of such a Being. Remarkably, they were quite insightful in their deductions. They quickly recognized that such a Being would not only have to be independent of space-time, but must also be incredibly powerful, incredibly intelligent and able to act unencumbered, simultaneously inside and outside the time domain. Remarkably, without recognizing it, they had described the resume of the Creator as revealed in the Biblical text!

Among other things, the law of cause and effect asserts that a cause is always greater than its effect. Applied to the cosmos it means that the Creator must be more powerful than all the energy stored in all the stars in all the galaxies in the entire universe. Physicists believe that there are at least 10 exp80 particles in the universe. Einstein’s famous equation, E=mc2 indicates that the energy stored in the mass of the universe is equal to the mass times the speed of light squared! From this perspective, the Creator must be an all-powerful, omnipotent Being. This very attribute is credited to God throughout the Bible’s text.

Ah Lord GOD! Behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy
great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for
thee. Jeremiah 32:17

Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there anything too hard
for me? Jeremiah 32:27

In my discussion with the professors even they admitted that all the chemists, molecular biologists and physicists in the world combined have been unable to create a DNA molecule from raw elements: hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, phosphorus, etc. Moreover, molecular biologists admit that living cells are metabolic machines which are vastly more complicated than any machine made by mankind. They agreed in principle that the nature of these cellular “machines” would require a Being possessing unfathomable intelligence. Such a Being would be, from our limited perspective, an all-knowing, omniscient Creator. Throughout the Bible’s text God is described in such terms. For example, in Jeremiah 1:5, God’s omniscience is illustrated in his foreknowledge of the prophet even before he was born:

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I
sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations. Jeremiah 1:5

The infinite knowledge of God is proclaimed in 1 John 3:20 and in Psalm 147:5:

For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knows
all things 1 John 3:20

Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; his understanding is infinite.
Psalm 147:5

Finally, if our space-time domain is the direct creation of God, then once he created the cosmos, in order to organize and uphold the galaxies, solar systems and its life forms, the Creator must be able to act simultaneously, inside and outside the space time domain. This attribute we call omnipresence. This too is an attribute that is ascribed to God throughout the Bible’s text.

Am I a God near at hand,” says the LORD,”And not a God afar off? Can
anyone hide himself in secret places, So I shall not see him?” says the
LORD; “Do I not fill heaven and earth?” says the LORD. Jeremiah 23:23-24

For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in
the midst of them. Matthew 18:20

 

[hedrick]

Just an aside here, apparently there are a number of theoretical physicists out there who aren't convinced about the big bang.

https://undark.org/article/physicists-rewrite-origin-universe-inflation/

No, that's about inflation. That's a theory about what happened during the very earliest part of the big bang. The amount of time involved is less than a trillionth of a second. I'm not aware of any serious alternative to the big bang. What we don't know is how it started, nor what happened during the smallest fraction of a second at the beginning. That determines whether the big bang was in fact a singular event, part of a cycle, whether we're in a "bubble" in an eternally inflating system, etc. But those differ only in what happened during that initial very, very brief time. So they all are variations of the big bang. It's also not certain where the universe is heading.

I should note that almost no one thought that the universe actually started with a singularity. If you take the course of the big bang and go backwards, that's what you'd end up with, but pretty much everyone believed that the first very small fraction of a second involved new physics that we don't currently understand.

 

[tango]

No, that's about inflation. That's a theory about what happened during the very earliest part of the big bang. The amount of time involved is less than a trillionth of a second. I'm not aware of any serious alternative to the big bang. What we don't know is how it started, nor what happened during the smallest fraction of a second at the beginning. That determines whether the big bang was in fact a singular event, part of a cycle, whether we're in a "bubble" in an eternally inflating system, etc. But those differ only in what happened during that initial very, very brief time. So they all are variations of the big bang. It's also not certain where the universe is heading.

I should note that almost no one thought that the universe actually started with a singularity. If you take the course of the big bang and go backwards, that's what you'd end up with, but pretty much everyone believed that the first very small fraction of a second involved new physics that we don't currently understand.

Yes, the article is about the theory of inflation although one key difference between the regular theory of inflation and the alternative proposition of conformal cyclic cosmology is that inflation talks of a single Big Bang moment while CCC talks of a succession of aeons, each initiated by its own "big bang". My interpretation of the linked article on CCC was that although each aeon was initiated by its own "big bang" each one of those bangs was a lesser event than the theory of the singular Big Bang that was a "one-and-done" event. It may be I misunderstood something in the article.

Whether scientists have an alternative theory to the currently generally accepted Big Bang doesn't have any bearing on whether it is true, it merely indicates that it's the best supposition based on what we currently know. There was a time when the scientific consensus was that the sun rotated around the earth but no matter how widely accepted the theory was it subsequently proved to be false. As you say, the first tiny fraction of a second (arguably the point at which time came into being) involves things we don't understand. I think it was the comment I posted above that noted how the laws of physics couldn't even define the fleetingly brief moment at which the laws of physics came into being.

For those who understand physics at that level (a group that doesn't include me!) critical thinking involves looking at evidence and trying to draw hypotheses that can be tested. For those of us who don't understand cosmology at anything like that level accepting current scientific theory without question is as much of a statement of faith as accepting the Biblical story of a creation process lasting seven days - it doesn't really demonstrate critical thinking to accept a theory presented by someone else. It's just that blindly accepting what a scientist says doesn't draw the same kind of ridicule as blindly accepting what a preacher says.

 

[hedrick]

Yes, the article is about the theory of inflation although one key difference between the regular theory of inflation and the alternative proposition of conformal cyclic cosmology is that inflation talks of a single Big Bang moment while CCC talks of a succession of aeons, each initiated by its own "big bang". My interpretation of the linked article on CCC was that although each aeon was initiated by its own "big bang" each one of those bangs was a lesser event than the theory of the singular Big Bang that was a "one-and-done" event. It may be I misunderstood something in the article.

Whether scientists have an alternative theory to the currently generally accepted Big Bang doesn't have any bearing on whether it is true, it merely indicates that it's the best supposition based on what we currently know. There was a time when the scientific consensus was that the sun rotated around the earth but no matter how widely accepted the theory was it subsequently proved to be false. As you say, the first tiny fraction of a second (arguably the point at which time came into being) involves things we don't understand. I think it was the comment I posted above that noted how the laws of physics couldn't even define the fleetingly brief moment at which the laws of physics came into being.

For those who understand physics at that level (a group that doesn't include me!) critical thinking involves looking at evidence and trying to draw hypotheses that can be tested. For those of us who don't understand cosmology at anything like that level accepting current scientific theory without question is as much of a statement of faith as accepting the Biblical story of a creation process lasting seven days - it doesn't really demonstrate critical thinking to accept a theory presented by someone else. It's just that blindly accepting what a scientist says doesn't draw the same kind of ridicule as blindly accepting what a preacher says.

The term "big bang" is unfortunate, because we're not all that sure about the "bang" itself, and it wasn't really an explosion in the sense most people mean it. The development of the universe since the first second or so is pretty well known. There are uncertainties about what happened at the beginning, and even about some of the mechanisms involved in expansion. But the basic framework of expansion is unlikely to change. There's currently some discussion about how long it took, which could change the time involved by 10% or so. But it's not going to change to 6000 years.

From the point of view of the Bible, it's the basic expansion from (almost) a point to current size of several billion years hat matters, not specifics of the mechanism.

Yes, I agree that there could be an infinite series of bangs and collapses, but again, that doesn't much affect the basic scenario that's well supported, which in that case would apply only to this cycle. I think most scientists have a gut feeling that there's something beyond the current universe that has been around forever, whether it's a cycle, eternal inflation, or even just a vacuum with laws that permit the universe to be created as a random fluctuation.

 

[Arsenios]

SADLY, it's a factor in nearly all Protestant faith communities (and to a lesser degree in Catholicism)..... It's FAR from just an Episcopal problem.


There is a growing rift between conservative/historic wings....and more liberal/relativistic wings. What divides Christians has less and less to do with issues that created their faith communities (perhaps 500 years ago) and more to do with conservative vs. liberal. A new alignment has been developing for the past 150 years or so. It is what has lead to the "Evangelical" movement, etc.


It's true in my faith community, too. On the conservative/historic side (we tend to call this "Confessional") there is the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, and the Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Together we are about one-third of American Lutherans. On the liberal side, there is The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America which represents about 2/3's of US Lutherans. The ELCA is gushing members faster, but like most of Christianity in the US, Lutheranism is shrinking (at least in terms of percentage of the US population). As LCMS, I praise much in the ELCA in terms of being clear on justification, on being liturgical and sacramental.... but in some ways, I align more with other conservative/historic Christians even more, such as in the Anglican or Reformed traditions (EVEN at times with Catholicism). The same rift" can be seen in Reformed churches, Episcopal/Anglican churches, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist faith communities.


Some years ago, I "met" a man on the net who was a member of an Episcopal parish very close to where I lived. I knew him as his parish split... when through legal suits and counter suits .... and finally resulted in most of the members leaving and starting an Anglican church affiliated with a different, non USA Bishop (I think from South American but I'm not sure anymore). They "lost" all the property in the deal (which the remaining people had to sell since they could not support them) but they found a very conservative, historic, "Thirty-Nine Articles" Anglican pastor - very prolife, pro-family, traditional values, "male only" clergy person. I have no idea if this parish is growing.
.

That is an inspiring story, [MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION]...

In the EOC Communion, we are still by God's Grace not endorsing, nor are we performing, same-sex marriages... We had a story out of Russia where a very busy Church scheduled a marriage without the Priest seeing the couple... And the Church filled up with lots of very formally attired folks, all smiling warmly and open and welcoming... And only when the couple entered the Sanctuary did he see that they were both males... So he said to himself, "I will not cause a scene..." and went ahead and did the Service of Holy Matrimony with them...

And word got back to the Bishop...

And the next Sunday, the Church and all its contents was already bulldozed into a pile of rubble...

Where it sits to this day...

A fence around it...

To protect children...

There are always liberal pressures within the Church to change it and make it more "welcoming"...

And conservative pressures to make it more structured and legalistic in its praxis...

The Serpent is still pursuing the Woman...

By hook and by crook...


Arsenios

 

[Albion]

That is an inspiring story, [MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION]...

In the EOC Communion, we are still by God's Grace not endorsing, nor are we performing, same-sex marriages... We had a story out of Russia where a very busy Church scheduled a marriage without the Priest seeing the couple... And the Church filled up with lots of very formally attired folks, all smiling warmly and open and welcoming... And only when the couple entered the Sanctuary did he see that they were both males... So he said to himself, "I will not cause a scene..." and went ahead and did the Service of Holy Matrimony with them...

And word got back to the Bishop...

And the next Sunday, the Church and all its contents was already bulldozed into a pile of rubble...

Chances are, the rubble part of that story wouldn't occur with an American Protestant congregation, but we have to be fair enough to say that many Protestant denominations, clergy, and congregations/parishes are equally opposed to s-s weddings.

 

[Arsenios]

Chances are, the rubble part of that story wouldn't occur with an American Protestant congregation,

Agreed - They would just start another denomination down the street...

Honoring their Bible-based theological tradition...

but we have to be fair enough to say that many Protestant denominations, clergy, and congregations/parishes are equally opposed to s-s weddings.

No question - And seeing the crumbling of the shifting sands around them, they are waking up and looking about!

Arsenios

 

[hedrick]

That is an inspiring story, [MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION]...

In the EOC Communion, we are still by God's Grace not endorsing, nor are we performing, same-sex marriages... We had a story out of Russia where a very busy Church scheduled a marriage without the Priest seeing the couple... And the Church filled up with lots of very formally attired folks, all smiling warmly and open and welcoming... And only when the couple entered the Sanctuary did he see that they were both males... So he said to himself, "I will not cause a scene..." and went ahead and did the Service of Holy Matrimony with them...

And word got back to the Bishop...

And the next Sunday, the Church and all its contents was already bulldozed into a pile of rubble...

Where it sits to this day...

A fence around it...

To protect children...

There are always liberal pressures within the Church to change it and make it more "welcoming"...

And conservative pressures to make it more structured and legalistic in its praxis...

The Serpent is still pursuing the Woman...

By hook and by crook...


Arsenios

I've heard that story before. It makes it clear that this was not an objection based on Scripture or even Tradition, but simply irrational hatred. That's not to say that no one has objections based on Scripture or Tradition. I trust that's the case with most people who post here. But this particular event makes it clear that homophobia is in fact a real phenomenon.

 

[Andrew]

That is an inspiring story, [MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION]...

In the EOC Communion, we are still by God's Grace not endorsing, nor are we performing, same-sex marriages... We had a story out of Russia where a very busy Church scheduled a marriage without the Priest seeing the couple... And the Church filled up with lots of very formally attired folks, all smiling warmly and open and welcoming... And only when the couple entered the Sanctuary did he see that they were both males... So he said to himself, "I will not cause a scene..." and went ahead and did the Service of Holy Matrimony with them...

And word got back to the Bishop...

And the next Sunday, the Church and all its contents was already bulldozed into a pile of rubble...

Where it sits to this day...

A fence around it...

To protect children...

There are always liberal pressures within the Church to change it and make it more "welcoming"...

And conservative pressures to make it more structured and legalistic in its praxis...

The Serpent is still pursuing the Woman...

By hook and by crook...


Arsenios

What a sticky situation, but to be fair, a pile of rubble is much better than the priest being burned at the stake like how it used to be!
Gay marriage seems to benefit their income rather than be defined by God, two outlets or inputs produce nothing, that's not being homophobic its just simple logic, it defies nature

 

[Arsenios]

I've heard that story before. It makes it clear that this was not an objection based on Scripture or even Tradition, but simply irrational hatred. That's not to say that no one has objections based on Scripture or Tradition. I trust that's the case with most people who post here. But this particular event makes it clear that homophobia is in fact a real phenomenon.

The reason was that the Church had been defiled, because there is no Sacramental Marriage for other than a man and a woman... Had the Priest married a woman and her dog, the same result would have ensued... Had two men entered the Church during a Service and declared their vows to each other, interrupting the Service, the Church could have been restored... Isis fighters broke into a Church and defiled the Altar, urinating and defecating on it and sleeping in it, and other things, and when they departed, the monks cleaned it all up, and it was then purified and restored... But because it was a Priest who had done the Sacrament of Marriage for the same-sex couple, it was a bridge too far, and the Bishop wanted to make a point, as did his Metropolitan, and possibly the Patriarch... Same sex marriage has no place in this Faith, and the Clergy is expected to die before doing it in the Church...

It was not a matter of homophobia at all - Some of our most famous saints were same sex attracted, and rather than marry went to a Monastery to live unto God... Others have married and had children and lived fairly celibate lives loving their spouses and raising their children piously... Staying single outside a Monastery is harder and seldom recommended...

The point is that the Church is not oriented to this world, but to the next, and lives that way...

Marriage according to sexual attraction is not a good basis for marriage...

It is shallow and meaningless after a very short period of time...

And was shallow and meaningless prior to that time...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

What a sticky situation, but to be fair, a pile of rubble is much better than the priest being burned at the stake like how it used to be!
Gay marriage seems to benefit their income rather than be defined by God, two outlets or inputs produce nothing, that's not being homophobic its just simple logic, it defies nature

Orthodoxy has never burned a Priest at the stake that I know of...

2nd Millennial Rome was rather fond of it, I think...

If only in the Spanish Inquisition...

As was pre-Christian Rome...

As is ISIS to this day...


Arsenios

 

[Albion]

Agreed - They would just start another denomination down the street...

Sort of like being Eastern Orthodox in Ukraine. Or the USA.

 

[MennoSota]

Orthodoxy has never burned a Priest at the stake that I know of...

2nd Millennial Rome was rather fond of it, I think...

If only in the Spanish Inquisition...

As was pre-Christian Rome...

As is ISIS to this day...


Arsenios

Orthodoxy used the Russian State to do its dirty work. Many stains of blood are upon the Orthodox Church.

 

[Arsenios]

Orthodoxy used the Russian State to do its dirty work.
Many stains of blood are upon the Orthodox Church.

Oh, you will find the stains of blood on Orthodox Christians -

You simply will not find them justified by Orthodox Counciliar Rulings...

Rome, you see, justified the Inquisition...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Sort of like being Eastern Orthodox in Ukraine. Or the USA.

You got that right!

What a mess...


Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

Oh, you will find the stains of blood on Orthodox Christians -

You simply will not find them justified by Orthodox Counciliar Rulings...

Rome, you see, justified the Inquisition...


Arsenios

The council and the state are wed. When the state executes, the council executes.

 

[Arsenios]

The council and the state are wed. When the state executes, the council executes.

The problem with that is that the Councils are world councils from many states...
Unlike the RCC in the West post-Schism, where Church and State were united...
So Egypt and Rome and Jerusalem and Antioch and Constantinople were 5 States...
At least pre-Schism they were...
So that while locally the union of Church and State were concordant...
This is, after all, the thousand year binding of Satan...
Bound in the power of worldly power...
As he now is in Russia again...
Where earthly rule is blessed by the Patriarch...
Even with this, Egypt could not rule Constantinople, for instance...
So in this manner, Ecumenical Councils transcended local miscarriage...
Both ecclesiological and worldly...

So Ecumenical Council is not married to the State...

It was at Florence, and its Papal Coercion was repudiated by Constantinople...

And Constantinople fell to the Turks...

Preferring the Turkish Yoke to that of Papal Rome...


Arsenios