Posted on 01/03/2008 8:33:44 AM PST by Mr. Silverback
It would be easier to understand if you actually looked into the subject of Einsteins beliefs. He was a classic rationalist agnostic. He did not believe in any supernatural intervention on Earth or an afterlife or prayer. He didn't accept the existance of any gods not even a creator, he just couldn't rule it out (because it is impossible to prove a negative). If you want to say he believed in a god fine. But he never said he did. He used the word god on a few ocasions to make a point. Just because Barbara Streisand sings Christmas caroles, doesn't make her a Christian.
Very interesting, but I am not sure I understand this passage.
Is Jesus saying we should obey Him because He wants us to obey Him?
Is He saying He won't accept our love unless it is coupled with obedience to His law?
Does the passage preclude showing love through other forms, such as through faith?
Einstein did not have a belief in God (capital G) but left open the posibility of a creator because it couldn’t be proven one way or the other. He absolutely DID NOT believe in anything you would recognize as the God of Moses or Jesus.
This is interesting. Are you really saying that you think that most people, when reading the phrase "believe in God" take that as meaning "is not a follower of Jesus Christ or Moses"? Do you think that someone reading "Einstein didn't believe in God" could reasonably wonder after reading it "Was he perhaps a Zoroastrian or an animist?"
While none of these men understood God like a Christian would each of them, excepting Confucious because I'm not sure, had a very clear sense of the devine.
You confuse the culture they lived in with their beliefs. Both believed in an afterlife, but neither believed in gods as the source of morals or moral laws. Later confucians let the idea of “heaven” creep in, but it was completely extraneous to their moral beliefs.
No, he's saying that if we love what he is, we will obey Him. Since a major point of Christianity is being like Christ, this is a measure of devotion.
Does the passage preclude showing love through other forms, such as through faith?
Let me put this in a different context: when I married my lovely bride, I promised to honor and cherish her, in sickness and in health, forsaking all others until we were parted by death. Now, if I show derision toward her every time I speak, cheat on her constantly and ditch her when she gets cancer, am i her loving husband? Am I showing her love because I have a piece of paper that says I'm her husband?
Works won't buy your way into Heaven, but as Rich Mullins once said, "Faith without works is like a screen door on a submarine." See the book of james for further clarification.
That's been disproved in this thread several times.
Sure, Einstein was no religionist. But you have put your foot in your mouth, and it's been fun watching you jump through hoops.
BTW...are you willing to answer these questions directly?
Are you really saying that you think that most people, when reading the phrase "believe in God" take that as meaning "is not a follower of Jesus Christ or Moses"? Do you think that someone reading "Einstein didn't believe in God" could reasonably wonder after reading it "Was he perhaps a Zoroastrian or an animist?"
Of course, there is nothing stopping anyone from constructing any hypothesis.
The beauty of attributing all good behavior to an invisible all powerful being is that it requires no testing, research or analysis, - just faith.
Bad behavior, otoh, is a tad more problematic.. ;)
Au contraire, mon ami. There are many animal spcies which will sacrifice themselves and fight to the death to protect other members of their tribe.
I missed your point again. No two people have the exact same concept of what a god is. "God" (again capital g)is a proper name for Yaweh/ Jehova/ I AM. This God of Moses has a pretty big biography that describes Him in detail. Einstein has made it crystal clear that he did not believe in that god. It can be said that he believed in a god if you define his god as "universe". That is how he used the word and that's how he explained it himself. To a Catholic, Mary is not a god. To a Hindu, the way that Catholics view Mary would be as a god. (Eternal, Human body in heaven, performs miracles, intercedes on behalf of petitioners, is wife of chief god, makes lovely statues). If you insist in saying someone believes in god, it behoves you to define which god for the statement to have any meaning. My definition of sin is Bill Belicheck getting named coach of the year.
Then, with all due respect, it is an unbelievably silly waste of time for you to try to correct all we poor, deluded (happily, willingly deluded) religionists from the fantasies we must have to survive.
If you only have 70 years or so to enjoy before you're worm food, one would have to wonder why you bother.
It does? Well, why isn't the reverse true? You said Einstein didn't believe in God, and you were talking about one partuicular being worshipped by just two of the world's many religions, but you didn't specify that.
Tghe beauty of attributing all behavior, good and bad, to an evolutionary process is that it requires no testing, research or analysis, just faith that there is no Creator.
That's what I was doing. Here is Einstein's own statement: "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it". (Albert Einstein, 1954)
Could he make it any clearer?
Obviously yes, given the observed fact that people of all religions, and of no religion, do so.
Which of the following statements do you believe, given that one of them must be true if your assertion is correct:
1. The Code of Hammurabi is a forgery.
2. The Code of Hammurabi does not contain any moral assertions.
3. The ancient Babylonian gods actually existed.
Okay, I think I may understand. I guess the confusion comes in because I am not seeing the "SHOULD" part as it relates to obeying God's rules. To me, it reads more like a prediction or a description than it does a justification. It also doesn't seem very universal.
Let's say that someone, maybe a Buddhist or an atheist, chooses not to love Jesus. Are they then justified in being indifferent to God's laws?
Actually, it is the "no true Scotsman" fallacy (rejection of refuting evidence through ad hoc definition), which is not quite the same thing.
Ultimately, ethics is always based on one's own personal interpretation of the truth or right and wrong.
If somebody tells you that God wants you to love your neighbors and somebody else tells you that God wants you to kill the infidels, how do you decide which one to listen to? Do you flip a coin? Do you try to reconcile the two with each other? Do you just stop listening to anybody?
Or do you form a judgment based on your own personal interpretation and follow that?
No. I think it (the evolutionary process) does require study and analysis. Just as the history and evolution of religions requires further study and analysis.
For tens of thousands of years we know that virtually all societies worshiped some form of "god" (from rocks,to golden calves, to invisible dieties) to explain the unexplainable and form societal norms & behaviours.
This post started with the notion that religious people are more moral than atheists because of religion.
To the extent that that is true, it could be because the God of modern religion (i.e. Christianity & Islam) believe in an invisible Deity who can see everything and can read your thoughts and will ultimately judge you - that God is like a super compassionate and loving Father/King of the time that religion developed (evolved) who wants you to worship him, obey his commandments and if do all he wants, you will be rewarded, - if you don't he will not kill you but will torture you in a fiery hell for all eternity.
So to the extent that religious people are more virtuous in their behavior, it could be argued that they do so more out of fear than out of love. N'est pas?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.