Well Patrick like any good scientist he never succumbed to Dogma, I find it curious you would want to quote someone who refers to your Bible and your version (one of thousands) of God in the following fashion
“The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”
Even more curious you draw upon Einstein as he actually states to people like you as having “frail and feeble minds”
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble minds harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
Essentially while never having the arrogance to know all the answers, Einstein consistently and repeatedly rejected the concept of a “Higher Being” that cared or even noticed human beings. His was in fact very much opposed to Church (and in particular Catholic) Doctrine ludicrous.
Now back to the old Testament..What about Exodus 22:20 Are we supposed be out utterly destroying those Muslims or Chinese? It is a simple question.
@Oigal – You do realize that your adding nothing new here to the discussion about Einstein? All these things have been said before in the past. I guess my confusion about the matter stems from your observation that even though Einstein comes to realize from his scientific endeavors that there is some kind of higher power in the Universe, you are, trying to disclaim his support because his beliefs in this Supreme being are different than mine. Mmmmm….?
Indeed Patrick as a scientist he left the option open as .000000000000001 chance however he repudiated everything you attribute to an interventionist God as the product of a feeble mind,
Now about the old testament….
All the sacred bullshit things are alliens’ experiments in the past.
Hi Oigal – Interesting the quotes that you attribute to Einstein in support of your atheistic theories. I gathered a few more Einstein quotes and I believe that these are not a rehash ofany earlier posts and, in my humble opinion, they do define atheists groups very well
“If the facts don’t fit a theory change the facts”
“Only 2 things are infinite, the Universe and Human stupidity, and I am not sure about the former”
“Before God we are equally wise and equally foolish”
And my personal favorite Einstein quote, dedicated, especially to you Oigal
“In view of such harmony in the Cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views”
I think that ends all discussion on the matter and better luck next time Oigal
Ok Oigal – what do you want me to explain about the Old Testament? The section of the bible explains creation and how the earth and man was formed. It tells us how man fell from Grace and it demonstrates God’s mercy to those who follow in His ways and His wrath against those who defy him and turn away from His goodness. It is particularly about a covenant He makes with His servant and friend Abraham and his descendents which is a plan for mankind’s’ salvation. This is the story of the Jewish people and their trials and tribulations as God transforms them into a Holy Nation worthy of His presence among them. What exactly offends you about the Old Testament?
Dearie me Patrick, let’s disagree but keep it honest at least. You and I both know that Einstein, as I pointed out earlier dismissed the notion of your personal interventionist God and the dogmatic rituals that accompany such beliefs as the product of a frail mind. Indeed, as a scientist he did not believe in absolutes (again at odds with people like yourself and even atheists like myself) he left the option open that there was more to be known about the universe again as I pointed out previously. However, he thoughly rejected time and again your concepts of the great protector and to suggest otherwise is just not true.
Nothing about the old testament offends me, at best it’s amusing at worst poorly written, often contradictory nonsense. However, let’s establish some ground rules, do we take it literally or just bits literally? Or is it open to whoever reads it. I have to ask because my neighbour is on swing shift and working Sunday and I need to know if I have to get a mob together to stone him for working the Sabbath (oh and what about my Muslim neighbours can they work the Sabbath?).
As for God’s wrath, the three kids who died in a landslide here two weeks ago, how exactly did they defy him and turn away from his goodness? Was it because their parents called them Muslim or is it God was just busy or something?
Seriously before I have too much fun literal or no?
@Oigal – Interesting how you have completely abandoned your position that Einstein supported Atheisim and now you are presenting him as neutral on the issue, neither favoring one over the other. Did you not remember that Einstein was brought into the discussion because I stated that he had come to realize that the Universe was too orderly for it to have developed by chance and therefore he (Einstein) concluded that there must be a higher intelligence (God) responsible for creating it and maintaining it? This realization alone makes Einstein a theist and therefore your rather presumptuous suggestion that he is somehow between the two camps must be rejected!
therefore he (Einstein) concluded that there must be a higher intelligence (God) responsible for creating it and maintaining it?
Tsk Tsk Patrick, Lets make this fun and it can’t be if you are going to tell fibs. Hold your position by all means but keep it honest. Einstein never said there was a higher intelligence, what he did was not absolutely rule out even the most unlikely. He did however passionately object to people like you or atheists twisting his words to suit their absolute positions.
Now back to Old Testament, Still not answer on the Sabbath thing? Oh well,
The section of the bible explains creation and how the earth and man was formed
Perhaps you can help out with Genesis then..
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air
Now was it out of the water or out of the ground these fowl are springing forth? …too easy, how about
the simple fact that In Genesis 1 the entire creation takes 6 days, but the universe is at least 12 billion years old, with new stars constantly being formed. 1:31
Which brings us to the next point, on the seventh day he rested. God gets tired? I though she was omnipotent. Of course, I can understand getting tired even here he gets yelled at five times a day at least.
How did Adam manage to get through naming all the creatures on the planet in one day?
Seriously tho, lets get back to Exodus, the more I read it, I see no loop holes for the Muslims working on the Sabbath. Its very clear they have to be stoned but I am sure you can clear things up.
OK Oigal – I suppose Einstein position on God is never very clear during his life except when he says he believes in Spinosa’s god. Perhaps he purposely kept all camps in a state of confusion as he may have been amused by so many people trying to nail down his answer once and for all. But what is clear is that he understood that the Universe was too vast and complex to have occurred by chance. Einstein was one of the world’s finest minds in history and he tried to understand God through his intellectual prowess but was unable to do so because as he stated it was an impossibility given his frail human brain. What Einstein failed to recognize was that God has been revealing himself to man since man was created. He does so through sacred scripture and oral tradition as well as in our hearts and minds when we open them to Him. These things that Einstein saw as childish are exactly how God wishes to make Himself known to us as we are but children to Him.
Mmm, Well speaking of the sacred scriptures, are we supposed to take them literally or do we just jumble around until we can make them fit. Can we clarify which sacred texts by the way and how did Adam name every creature in a day?
Oh I think you will find Einstein said people who believe in some bizarre personal vindictive interventionist god had the frail brains.
“Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.” (Judges 19:24-25)
I must say Patrick, you christians sure know how to party.
But at least you guys have “morals”. Here is the penalty for the -property crime- of rape. Note the key points are that the wronged party is not the women and she must marry her rapist.
“If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives” (Deuteronomy 22:28–29).
Other useful stuff is contained in the good book; if it turns out your wife is not a virgin, you simply stone her to death on her fathers doorstep. That will teach em, a Patrick?
These are not debateable points. Anyone can pick up a bible and see for themselves, along with much worse. The old trick of distancing yourself from the old testament is dishonest, at best. These are the clear words of your god.
The reality is that your morals are formed -in spite of- the clear words of the bible. I will assume your a decent person, so clearly the bible is NOT the source of your moral code.
@ Oigal – I would suggest that you not take them too literally as the bible is not always easy to understand, as you and your friend Stevo, prove time and again. Indeed in Acts of the Apostles 8: 30-35 we see an Ethiopian convert who has great difficulty understanding Isaiah from the old testament. He says he cannot comprehend the passage unless someone instructs him. Peter, the first pope of the Church warns Christians against private interpretation of prophecy found in the bible. (see 2 Peter 1:20 and 2 Peter 3:16) “…in them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.”
If it comes down to obscure interpretations, that contradict the clear meaning of the text, then I suggest it is a very unreliable source to base your beliefs on.
You advise that Pete the Pope warned against private interpretation altogether. The implication is that the ruling elite (of the Church) will instruct the masses how to think. History records the results. Ignorance and instability are fairly mild compared to the horrors visited on humanity by various Popes. This resulted not in “their own destruction” but the destruction of thousands of other people.
How are we to know that we are getting Gods word and not the word of a fallible human?
you and your friend Stevo
Careful Patrick, you might summons up Azazel, or some other critter, with that kind of crazy talk
@ Stevo – do you really think Azazel is scarier than Oigal? They say even the devil himself tips his hat to Oigal out of respect… Lol!!!!
@ Stevo – You know, I am so amazed how easily you dismiss the bible as if it was some type of obscure book that you found at a garage sale on a Saturday morning. The fact is Stevo it is the greatest book ever written and it’s pages have been read by more people than any other book in history. The bible has also been a source of great inspiration upon Western Literature and it’s impact cannot be denied. Dante’s Inferno, Milton’s ParaDise Lost, Joyce’s Ulysses, all owe the Bilbe for its influence. Also, let us not forget how writers such as T.S. Elliot, Virginia Wolfe, F. Scot Fitzgerald, Hemingway have all benefited either directly or indirectly from the bible with its rich history of symbolism, allegory passages, metaphor, prose and poetry.
I do not deny the Bibles impact. It is the nature of that impact that concerns me. Its not just the Bible either. I regard all spiritual belief in the same way. It is belief based on faith rather than rational thought and evidence, that bothers me.
I must say that the most irratating people are the new-age types and their pseudo religion. In day to day life I rarely challenge anyones spirtual beliefs, be they Christian, Muslim or whatever. Most of my friends think very differently to me on this issue and it causes no problems. They are good people. This does not change the fact that faith based thinking has caused, and does cause today, a great deal of harm in the real world.
” When I’m watchin’ my T.V.
And that man comes on to tell me
How white my shirts can be
But he can’t be a man ’cause he doesn’t smoke
The same cigarettes as me ”
Keith Richards & Mick Jagger
@ Stevo, did you ever stop to think that one man’s intolerance of another goes way beyond religion? If we examine the football brawl between Persija and Persib, I believe, religion had nothing at all to do with it. Yet there was enough anger and passion to leave three young men dead and sadly we see this same scenario played out in various places throughout the world. Why do you think religion is always to blame?
Sorry Mate, been a bit busy but thought I would drop in a clarify a few points. Sorry, I cannot accept the Devil’s hat tip as he is as imaginary as the other bloke. Although even for an imaginary figure he gets a bum wrap.
So am I correct then, you are advising the old testament is not to be taken literally? That’s a relief as I was haaving trouble finding enough rocks to stone the neighbours working on the Sabbath. Curious tho, what is the metaphor for inviting a bunch of hooligans to pack rape your daughters.
You know who I miss here on this thread? Dandy Andy that’s who…..at least you could have a sensible discussion with him about his atheistic views. Someone told me he married a local girl who does tv news in Jakarta named Marisa Bonita or something similar. Likely, another spoiled brat living in Kunnigan and has the maid doing all the housework while she toils away the day typing. I hope she hasn’t cut, symbolically or (yikes) literally, your balls off old man? Cheers Andy and for God’s sake have some pride and be a man again!
Hi Oigal – didn’t we already have a discussion concerning rape in the bible awhile back? One of the real problems that people have who live in our time have, when dealing with the past, is not understanding that people, who lived many years ago, did not necessarily act and think exactly the way we would like them to do. A woman who would been a rape victim would have had a dismal future indeed as she would have likely had no suitors for marriage. Marriage was extremely important for a woman’s survival in the time period and it is only in recent times that women do not need a man to provide life’s comforts. Scholars of the bible also note that the real meaning of the Hebrew word translated to rape actually means to seize and what was translated to mean forcible may have actually meant consensual premarital sex that was discovered. In any case later passages of Deuteronomy actually deal with rapists harshly calling for them to be killed.
Thanks for the history lesson Patrick. I am sure most people are aware that things have moved on. (I am not sure the same can be said for those who grasp onto the myths of time, well into the present day.)
So the obvious question; how do these ancient stories inform your morality today?
If things are so different it sort of makes the bible redundant.
@ Stevo – read the new testament and learn about the “Good News” of Jesus Christ.
Ok Patrick, consider it done.
Firstly Jesus makes it clear we should not ignore the Old Testament.
Jesus criticized the Jews for not killing their disobedient children (according to Old Testament law)
He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.”
God had a dim view of adultery. Jesus thought God was too laid back about this and suggested you gouge your eye out if you -even- looked at a women with lust. He promised enternal torture in hell for those who did not do as he said.
And this is the GOOD NEWS folks !!!
I could go on and on… But you did not arrive at your faith by logic and reason, so I will not change it by those means. I do however respect your right to believe, so long as it does not harm others. I remain puzzled how you can extract any coherent moral code from all that death, torture and misery.
Matthew 10:34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
So this is the ‘true” religion of peace and love…
I have to say Patrick, if I was to become a Theist, I would not be joining up with you lot
@ Stevo – you somehow forgot to explain what context did Jesus criticize the Jews for not killing their disobedient children? If you read the whole passage it was the Pharisees who critiqued Jesus first about the apostles not washing their hands prior to taking their meal. Jesus’s replied why they had not followed God’s commandment to kill their disobedient children was meant to address religious hypocrisy. You will recall another famous incident when he stops the crowd from stoning to death a woman by saying “he who is without sin should cast the first stone” . Good thing you and Oigal weren’t present at the time..ha ha ha! Anyway, Christ preached that the “Spirit of the Law” was much more important than the actual law. It all goes back to what Peter said in his letter concerning the proper interpretation of the bible.
Yes, Jesus said that lust was equivalent to adultry because when we lust for another person we degrade them. You don’t like to degrade women do you Stevo?
Thanks for clearing that up for me Patrick, but there is still work to be done…
You don’t like to degrade women do you Stevo?
If you define “degrade” as finding them physically attractive, then yes I do.
However, if you define degrade as regarding women a mans “property” and a chattel that can be brought and sold (as in the Bible) then no.
In the christian world I am deserving of enternal torture for finding women beautiful. Yet I can sell my daughter into slavery etc, with no such fear. Sure the bible gives a few rules around such “property” transactions, but nothing too onerous.
@ Stevo – After reading that last reply I really had to laugh as I imagined that you could out-twist Chubby Checkers on his best day ha ha ha! Yes, there is a world of difference between finding a member of the opposite sex attractive than lusting for them. The bible contains some of the most beautiful love poems ever written. See Song of Solomon