>There are many things like this. Doctrines are fairly stable. Explanations come 
>and go. Doctrines need not be understood to be believed. Doctrines are believed 
>on the basis that their source is God, not depending on whether they are 
>understood. Mkmcconn — 

That's a very a-historical point of view. The church was coming out with doctrinal statements about the trinity, and the Arians were twisting them and believing them. So the church went back and clarified what they meant. That's why some of the creeds are quite amazingly pedantic.

It's also a non-sensical point of view. You can't believe a bunch of words devoid of underlying meaning. You either believe them as they were meant, you mis-interpret them and thus mis-believe them, or you pretend to believe them. But there is no such thing as believing them without having a modicum of understanding. Sure you can believe some words are "from God" but not know what they mean, but then you don't believe the doctrine you believe that there are some words that are true.

>If you read a few dozen explanations on the begottenness of the Son from a 
>spectrum of historical and contemporary sources, including Augustine, you will 
>not find that this doctrine is connected to theories of time, despite what the 
>deleted section claims about these theories being the "root" of the doctrine.

Apparently you didn't read what Augustine wrote. Let me refresh your memory...
"Your today yields not with tomorrow, for neither does it follow yesterday. Your today is eternity; therefore You begat the Co-eternal, to whom You said, 'This day have I begotten Thee.' Thou hast made all time; and before all times You are, nor in any time was there not time."

Augustine directly links God being external to time with the begetting of the Son. Now if you have a  different point of view, prove it! Otherwise it is just hand-waving and show.

> Don't understand the sentence above. Pfortuny 

People are interested in the relationship between biblical doctrine and science. What is the problem with a ONE LINE reference?

>Now my question is, have any published theologians linked Einstein's theories 
>about time with the eternity of God?

There's plenty of people thinking about this issue. Lewis is a published theologian is he not? Here is a paper from a college dealing with it....
http://www.behindthegrove.org.uk/resources/essays/God_Time.rtf

>Probably (but this is my oppinion) very little more (if more) than the 
>tautology "not created, not made, and without a beginning". Pfortuny 17:46, 5 
>May 2004 (UTC)

Instead of opinions, let's have have evidence from church fathers.

>No, it is not that the filioque is fact or oppinion what matters here. What 
>matters here is what the doctrine of the Church is, not what it means, what it 
>refers to or whatever.  Pfortuny

The doctrine of the church is important, but what it means is irrelevant? Come on!! Why look up Wik if not to find out what something means? You don't need Wik to read the Athanasian creed. You need Wik to *understand* it in its historical context.

> To answer your first question, the Church defines which beliefs are dogma

Then point me to where I can buy a book or books which is the final word on Christian dogma. Then I can verify for myself what parts of this article are dogma and which are opinion. Don't say the bible because it doesn't mention eternal generation.

>For Orthodox at least, it's a "theological opinion" that Mary lived a sinless 
>life

Ah huh! But for Catholics it is DOGMA. Thus what is and isn't dogma the OPINION of different churches and persons.

At the end of the day folks, I have taken a quote from a church father that directly addresses the issue of "eternally begotten" to explain to the reader the meaning. To take it down you would have to show either

a) Augustine was out of step with the rest of the church at this point.
b) The church was so confused, there are too many theories to discuss.

But to just say "let it be a mystery! Don't tell them what it means!", sorry that doesn't wash.