Yes, Penny, that is a very astute observation. You have done as Paul had encouraged the Bereans to do in the Book of Acts. You have gone back and read the context in Scripture for yourself, as you should have. Jesus was in fact referring to rocks in general, not specifically to rocks of the Temple. In contrast, He was referring to the rocks of the Temple when He said "See these stones? Not one will be left on top of the other." So the rocks that WOULD cry out are rocks in general. Notice though that it is a conditional or hypothetical. If God felt there were not enough worshipers and more people were unwilling to cry out in worship of Him, then the rocks would themselves suddenly be given a voice to put Mankind to shame in his silence and neglect of the Holy God.

Actually, "meritorious" was the perfect word, since we have lost this very old usage of the term. It is metaphorical in this sense, not literal. Your usage of it did not imply at all that you thought there would be some specific accounting of merit. However, your question is definitely valid. No need to apologize. However, we would have to invert it for today's audience. The assumption now is that spending time in nature is more meritorious than in a cathedral. The answer is not in the merit (being better than something else) of the natural setting over the manmade. It is in the activation of the soul to reflect on the Holy God who made all things and offers salvation to all people. That is the question that when answered for each person at any certain moment (since our personal responses to our environmental settings changes with life and circumstances) will have its answer to your question.

Perhaps you would be interested to see the work I am doing on a new method of translating the Scriptures at The Rooted Word (therootedword.com). I am currently working on the Letter of Jacob (a.k.a. James - thanks to the anti-semitism at the time of King James and its renaming only in the English speaking world). I'll be looking for your email response. ~Ron Craig

Yep. The one on monasticism and the refrain of heresies I found are interesting in the context of these discussions.

There is a good early Middle Ages course online from Yale if you're interested. On you tube. In this the prof deals with the myth and reality of what we mean by Dark Ages.

If you're referring to the Paul Freedman videos, I don't think I've seen them all yet, but I have watched several.

Agreed. My point was that war does not seem to have sparked tech innovation historically. Perhaps the converse.

There is a good early Middle Ages course online from Yale if you're interested. On you tube. In this the prof deals with the myth and reality of what we mean by Dark Ages. I think they settled on something like it is clear that Western Europe underwent a widespread economic contraction.

Anyway, think we agree that of Christianity is to be considered a major factor in the scientific revolution, it has about 10 centuries of lag time to account for. I'd agree that it was a factor, particularly the world view that allows for nature to be modelled. (But we likely have a chicken and egg issue here.)

I'd say that the printing press and Protestantism would be much more significant factors.

I'm not sure this is the case in medieval times. It seems more like those with the advantage dominated and conquer those who have not innovated.

It was not like that only in Medieval times or only in Europe. The progress of technological innovation was glacial everywhere until around the 16th century. There was not a large enough body of established scientific knowledge on which to make any progress fast enough to affect the outcome of any particular conflict. But slow progress was occurring in the Greco-Roman world before the Roman empire collapsed. After the collapse, it came to a near standstill in Europe, and this happened a long time before the Norse began their raiding.

What were the pre-scientific Catholic scholars doing in Germany or Austria, or Italy during these centuries?

So far as I have been able to find out, they were doing almost nothing of any practical value. And I have checked sources friendly to religion, not just anti-Christian propaganda.

I'm not sure this is the case in medieval times. It seems more like those with the advantage dominated and conquer those who have not innovated. We see it by the massive success of the Norse with their longboats, and then by their descendants in Normandy with the stirrup in 1066. I think until the existence of the scientific method, we don't really see a threatened population overcome a foe by coming up with a scientific innovation in response to war.

Being charitable I can accept that the Norse raids and conquest would likely have put the brakes on any emerging science in the British Isles at least. But this is being quite charitable. By the time they settled England in they converted to Christianity.
What were the pre-scientific Catholic scholars doing in Germany or Austria, or Italy during these centuries?

And of course it is not as if the centuries of 1000 to 1500 were peaceful in Europe!

This time period also involved nordic raiding which would have been a wet blanket on scientific progress.

Military necessity usually promotes scientific progress rather than hindering it. Why was there an exception at this particular time?

Why don't other animals marvel in wonder at majestic buildings?

We don't know that they don't, actually. How could we tell if they were? However, I'm satisfied with the assumption that their feelings are unaffected by our architectural achievements.

I see nothing mysterious about that (assumed) fact. It seems very probable, if not practically certain, to me that a sense of wonder requires a certain degree and kind of complexity in the brain that experiences it -- the same degree and kind of complexity that enables us to work with abstract concepts in ways that animals cannot. In other words, roughly speaking, we can experience wonder when seeing a cathedral for the same reason we were able to build the cathedral in the first place.