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 really like the “end of eternity” analysis in this dissertation. So, eternity is only temporary? Who would’ve known?

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 (Disciples of Christ) 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 or “Brane” to the superstingers.

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” (For Okies) or those 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 may be tested by empirical (carnal) tests.

DSM

The underlying issues of Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged start well before the terrorist actions of Roark & Galt.
These destructive actions are the actions of gods.
In Rand’s stories the individual becomes his own god and he assumes the authority of God, to destroy what he, himself has created.

Did God have the authority to destroy the world by flood in the days of Noah?
Did God have the authority to destroy the kingdom of Israel with the Assyrian army?
Did he have the authority use Rome to destroy Jerusalem in 70ad?

I think God does have this authority.
God created the earth for his own purposes, and therefore, he has authority to destroy it.

However, even though I say God has the authority to wipe us away, I do not believe that individuals, have unilateral authority to wipe away “our own creation”, as Rand implies…, regardless of how others may attempt to steal or distort our personal work.

The message of Roark and Galt is that an individual holds all authority over his creative works. But, I disagree with the objectivist philosophy.

You may think that I am being hypocritical on this matter, but, there is theological reason from the dichotomy.
Simply, an individual’s creation does not belong to the individual…, our creation remains the property of the uncreated Creator.
My resources are all the possession of God, the talents are God’s and the raw materials of my creation are God’s.

My creation has only one ultimate and legitimate purpose, i.e. it is to glorify Christ.
It is not mine to possess and selfishly hold for my personal glory.
If I destroy the creation of my hands, with the goal of hurting or denying others the value of the thing, as Ayn Rand depicts in her protagonists, then, I am dishonoring Christ and defying my Raison d’être.

Recently, my professional creation has been unethically and immorally looted or mooched by local business competitors on three separate projects. I was tempted to retaliate with an Ayn Rand technique.
Yet, this is not my goal, because, I am a disciple of Jesus, and being His disciple means that my perfect example is not Ayn Rand, John Galt, Dagny Taggart, or Howard Roark, but rather, my model is Jesus Christ.

If you want to discuss the specifics of looters and moochers and how these are the sins which precede the temptations of Howard Roark’s blowing up “his” development and John Galt absconding to the mountains of Colorado, I will be glad to have a cup of coffee with you; we can discuss morals or ethos, and maybe we can find out for ourselves; Who is John Galt?

I finally did it! Today was the day to change my political party affiliation.

I am not particularly proud of the change, but, neither was I too proud of my, formerly, persistent stasis.

DS Martin is no longer associated with that political party. He has become a member the other political party.

My personality has not been significantly altered by the metamorphosis…, nevertheless, I am having a swimmy feeling and my head hurts slightly.

Maybe this is normal for the members of this political party? Well, that could explain a lot!

I had been living in a vivid lucidity for more than a decade, with the resultant arrogance and fatalistic cynicism.

What shall be the result of my most recent transmutation?

Have I evolved?

Have I devolved?

Or did I just become a Dinosaur?

David Martin is patient, David is kind. He does not envy, he does not boast, he is not proud. He is not rude, he isn’t self-seeking, he is not easily angered, he won’t keep record of wrongs. David does not take delight in evil, but, he rejoices with the truth. He always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. David never fails.

This is my goal. I am following my master who matches, perfectly, the statements above.
Our Lord is love and He never fails.

My Lord tells me; ²⁷ “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. ²⁸ I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. ²⁹ My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. ³⁰ I and the Father are one.”

^{1 Corinthians 13:4-8: 4} Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. ⁵ It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. ⁶ Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. ⁷ It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. ⁸ Love never fails.

The following is a challenge by Brother Patrick Mead; he gave the challenge to the members of the Rochester Church of Christ on Palm Sunday April 17, 2011.

Until Easter Sunday, write down the verses of 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 each day, except instead of the word “Love” or the pronoun used for love, substitute your own name. He led this example by showing how it works when we substitute “God” for the word “Love”. I am emphasizing with my own paraphrase.

4 God is patient, the Father is kind. The Holy Spirit does not envy, and the Son does not boast, Jesus is not proud. 5 The Christ does not dishonor others, our Lord is not self-seeking, He is not easily angered, our heavenly Father keeps no record of wrongs. 6 the Messiah does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 The Holy Spirit, our heavenly Father, and Jesus the Christ always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.  8 He never fails!

I think that Dr. Mead gave a very meaningful challenge.

What do you think? Does this alter the meaning of love in your own mind?

I have been listening to this lesson by Patrick Mead and was impressed by his teachings.

continue reading "A lesson on Love; by Patrick Mead"