The Universe, Revelation, Words and Sore Throats

Submitted by Michael S (United States), Jul 30, 2015 at 22:46

Hi, Waz

I was away for several days, and now am under the weather, so forgive my delay in responding. You said,

'matter' I like to think of as sort of congealed energy.

I am not up on the latest physics about this subject. The "standard model" certainly treats both "stuff?" (quarks and leptons) and "forces" (bosons) as both consisting of particles peculiar to their class; and I have never come across the term "congealed" in this regard. Add to these the recently-discovered "Higgs Boson", which may have a special place. The interplay of these particles is described thus:

At present, matter and energy are best understood in terms of the kinematics and interactions of elementary particles. To date, physics has reduced the laws governing the behavior and interaction of all known forms of matter and energy to a small set of fundamental laws and theories. A major goal of physics is to find the "common ground" that would unite all of these theories into one integrated theory of everything, of which all the other known laws would be special cases, and from which the behavior of all matter and energy could be derived (at least in principle).
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

"Matter" is not described here as "congealed" energy, nor as any other form of energy. As a chemist, I am accustomed as viewing "matter", of the kind familiar to most people, as consisting of electrons (a type of lepton) and "protons & neutrons", made up of subatomic "quarks". I also dealt with photons, or "light particles", because energy is transferred from/to photons to/from electrons, causing electrons to occupy specific energy levels, orientations, etc. "Light", in turn, is is the manifestation of "energy" that we are most familiar with.

The underlying reality cited above is the "Theory of Everything", a sought-after theory among scientists which would explain completely the interplay between matter and energy, as well as the roles of the particles of the "Standard Model". That is why I don't look at "energy", whether "congealed" or otherwise, as a fundamental reality of the known world. Instead, I look at the "Theory of Everything" as describing that part of the "Word of God" dealing with, for want of a better word, "things".

The Word of God obviously covers more than the "things" we sense in the world we live in (including our own bodies): It also includes intangibles such as justice, purity, moral instruction and that all-important but hard-to-define entity called "love". According to John 1, these things, along with other attributes I am too ignorant to list, collectively not only describe the divine nature but actually are the divine nature. You went on,

We're actually in (eternity) right now.

One might say that. On the other hand, the "part" of eternity we can wrap our understanding around is miniscule to the point of being practically insignificant. The world we understand, including time-space, is limited; but the world of our ignorance, which includes the person of God (whom no man has seen, and lived) is endless in every conceivable dimension. You went on,

If you calm the mind, experience life right exactly at this moment and allow presuppostions to drop away - you'll glimpse (the world beyond our ken). Keep glimpsing it and the insight will grow.

That smacks of "bootstrap" exercises like Yoga. or the use of psychedelic drugs. People have claimed to receive great "insights" or, as you say, "glimpses" through these means; but I have never seen any convincing evidence. At best, Yoga practitioners are more limber than the average person and drug-users live in a world of blissful unreality. I do not believe one can "generate" knowledge of the unknowable world; it can only be revealed to us by an agency in that world (such as God). You went on to say,

I'm not the words my hands are typing on the screen - nor the points being converyed. Communication is from mind to mind.

From what I understand the Greek "logos" ("word") included the original thought, the received thought and the medium of transmission. I suppose what I "am", or you "are", is a matter of definition. John says,

John 1:
[14] And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
[15] John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
[16] And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
[17] For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

The vast majority of Christians take this to mean that "the word" was a separate "person" of the "Godhead", a concept that engenders division and strife. I take what seems like a more reasonable route, looking at "The" word as simply a unique "word" -- a thing or concept, not a person. Either that word "was made flesh" in a purely allegorical sense, or Jesus "became" that word by incorporating it in the core of his life. This would amount to an extension of "being", from God to Jesus; and as you say, the communication was from "mind to mind". In that sense, you are correct: we are not the binary information bundles travelling between us according to the seven layers of the OSI model; we are the entities at "Level 8" or, more correctly, "Level 9".

I have a terrible sore throat, which seems to be affecting even my ability to type. God bless and keep you and yours.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".