==================== SmilingS; I am titling this little bit of news- Al Einstein,,T Jefferson & Word of the Living God. ================================== Most founding fathers believed [meaning live by]the Bible. ========================================= But T Jefferson litteraly cut miracles out of his Bible, but when he[USA gov] voted/got Bibles for Indians/savages, he did not cut the miracles out of thier Bibles. Al Einstein was so brilliant if you study much of what he wrote[not that i have studied it all]; he figured [1a] time is not a constant [1z] Human can travel so fast-time changes into eternity Al Einstein certainly was brilliant in many ways, but he died in 1955;& i just heard Rabbi Ralf on TBN today [Trinity Broadcasting Network -Mrs.Paula White-DISH TV]. Rabbi Ralf took an old fashioned Torah scroll, called the Hebrew columns ''leaves'' & noted the NT book of Revelation said ''the leaves are for healing of nations. Actually Al Einstein didn't study/write concerning the Torah/ Bible as much as many who live today, why should he know much about that??? Certainly Al Einstein was brilliant, he figured out[ 1a]Time is not a constant.[1z] a Human can travel can get so fast, time changes into eternity. Like what Joab said. And i got saved as a 7 year old kid; asked the Lord to'' save me'' When i asked Lord Jesus to save me he did & it felt like a [painless] blood transfusion of peace & joy. Romans 15;verse 13,hope this helps ,time does change into eternity,Einstein got that part right.
If Einstein believed in a supernatural God as you do, then why the vociferous dissent from the theist community:
It would appear that this often referred to quote may, in fact, have been a misquote. Here is its supposed origin (heck, everyone is claiming Eistein as one of their own, eh?): http://einsteinandreligion.com/spinoza.html Source for the Spinoza Reference I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings. The quotation above may be Einstein's most familiar statement of his beliefs. These words are frequently quoted, but a citation is seldom given. The quotation can be found in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp (The Open Court Publishing Co., La Salle, Illinois, Third Edition, 1970) pp. 659 - 660. There the source is given as the New York Times, 25 April 1929, p. 60, col. 4. Ronald W. Clark (pp. 413-414) gives a detailed account of the origin of Einstein's statement: While the argument over his birthday present had been going on, the theory of relativity had been used to pull him into a religious controversy from which there emerged one of his much-quoted statements of faith. It began when Cardinal O'Connell of Boston, who had attacked Einstein's General Theory on previous occasions, told a group of Catholics that it "cloaked the ghastly apparition of atheism" and "befogged speculation, producing universal doubt about God and His Creation." Einstein, who had often reiterated his remark of 1921 to Archbishop Davidson-"It makes no difference. It is purely abstract science"-was at first uninterested. Then, on April 24, Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York, faced Einstein with the simple five-word cablegram: "Do you believe in God?" "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists," he replied, "not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." Years later he expanded this in a letter â¦. "I can understand your aversion to the use of the term 'religion' to describe an emotional and psychological attitude which shows itself most clearly in Spinoza," he wrote. "[But] I have not found a better expression than 'religious' for the trust in the rational nature of reality that is, at least to a certain extent, accessible to human reason." A further quotation on the subject of Spinoza's god follows. This material comes from G. S. Viereck, Glimpses of the Great (Macauley, New York, 1930), quoted by Brian, p. 186. You might want to take this quotation with a grain of salt. According to Brian, the Americanized German Viereck became known as a "big-name hunter" after "capturing" Kaiser Wilhelm II; Premier Georges Clemenceau of France; Henry Ford; Sigmund Freud, the inventor of psychoanalysis; and the playwright George Bernard Shaw. Because of his desire to interview the great and because of his inordinate egotism, Freud accused him of having a "superman complex." Upton Sinclear referred to him as "a pompous liar and hypocrite," and George Bernard Shaw questioned his accuracy. Is the quotation authentic? For what it's worth, here it is. When asked whether he believes in the God of Spinoza, Einstein is supposed to have replied as follows: I can't answer with a simple yes or no. I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things. Did Einstein actually say this? The nonsense phrase "mysterious force that moves the constellations" troubles me. This seems much more likely to have been inserted by the scientifically ignorant Viereck than it does something that Einstein would say. The Viereck interview with Einstein appeared first in the Saturday Evening Post (Oct. 26, 1929, p.17) under the title "What Life Means to Einstein."It is curious that Einstein's statement about Spinoza does not appear in that article. Did Viereck choose not include it? Did Einstein object to its inclusion in the article? Or was the Spinoza material removed by the editors? I have chosen to enter the quotation on this page, because it is found in several places on the net. Perhaps someone who has seen it elsewhere, can learn here that there is some question about the accuracy of the statement. The quotation may not be completely inauthentic. It seems improbable that Viereck could have recorded Einstein's answer verbatim during an interview. Surely Viereck would have taken brief abbreviated notes that he expanded later. Or perhaps he jotted down the conversation at some time afterwards, putting down Einstein's answers from memory. In neither case would you expect 100% accuracy. I don't think that Viereck would have made up the statement out of whole cloth. What would be the point? The quotation is not particularly striking. There's nothing that Viereck could regard as a coup in obtaining. The quotation is merely a statement of views that Einstein was not shy about expressing and would later express again at many other times and in many other ways. The simile of the child in a library seems like the quintessential Einstein. It is not something that Viereck would or could make up. Einstein's praise of Spinoza for treating body and soul as a single unit seems genuine too, and unlikely to be a creation of Viereck. Material from the Viereck interview is reproduced in Brian and also in Jammer. Both books are based on extensive research, but neither book reports that Einstein ever disavowed anything attributed to him by George Viereck. In fact Brian reports that Einstein confirmed part of the interview. See Brian pp. 277 - 278. Is the quotation something that Einstein really said? Maybe not â at least not exactly in the words that Viereck attributes to him. Nevertheless, the quotation seems to be consistent with Einstein's views. Certain elements of the quotation could come from no one but Einstein. While the statement may not be exactly verbatim, it cannot differ very greatly from what Einstein actually said. Edited by Arnold V. Lesikar, Professor Emeritus Dept. of Physics, Astronomy, and Engineering Science, St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, MN 56301-4498
Joab: >I now have a close friend that is a Minister at a hospital >and she tells me that on the death bed even the most >cynical convert and accept God. Does she go to hell for lying? Only the completely delusional believe that everyone "accepts god" on their death bed. That statement is factually proven wrong every day. Also a question ... In her lying world, do the people on their death beds in India and Burma also accept her god just before they die? >The old saying "there are no atheists in the foxholes" >is a very valid one. Do you go to hell for lying? http://ffrf.org/foxholes/ I personally know of many. >So there is no need to argue with these folks, >state your testament for their encouragement >and show them GOD exists through example >rather then words, ... By lying to them of course ... pretty typical. JB
Perish the thought. God is merciful and all forgiving. (He turned over a new leaf since the Old Testament.) Therefore, you can engage in the most heinous of activities just so long as you don't forget to say to God, "Oh yeah, sorry about that." And you shall be forgiven. It's quite simple, really. And it has proven to be quite practical. For example, which would be harder: to earn enough money to buy something expensive, or to just steal it and ask God for forgiveness (and possibly even return it after you're finished using it just to show your sincerity)? Or cause others pain and suffering for years and then exhibit sincere contrition for a few moments on your deathbed, and voilà ?
I don't think that is a very constructive approach. .You concede to an illogical belief because you say it puts you on the same level as something else you consider illogical . Can you explain exactly where there is any integrity in that . That's all well and good, it's personal. Though many people it seems, who are unsure of themselves, have a certain low esteem, are not prepared to deal with particular situations as reality presents them, will insert a fantasy for comfort and reassurance. I have to say the acceptance of illogical makebelieve in that way, doesn't really appeal.. Or rather what can 'he' do that any invisible friend can't do better.
Looks to me he took the only position reason supports: Little child. I child can be taught. A child can learn. A child can change his mind. A child can open his mind. A child can dream of fantasies, can understand that he dreams, and a child can put them away in favor of reality. Jesus
Pantheism recognizes that there isn't anything but God that exists, even if the form is rather strange. Yet even in it's distorted strangeness, one can find a spark of beauty, for it is impossible that what the Son of God makes of himself can be completely devoid of reflections of reality. However, form is a delusion of consciousness which imprisons what is really free in reality. "Man" is a form of the Son's belief that his little evaluation of himself is more real than his Father's evaluation. The world is a grandiose self-evaluation, while reality recognizes the grandeur of the Son. Thus, the world is a delusion of self which hides the reality of a Self of infinitely greater magnitude. Thus, all forms of separation which pantheism reveals must be forgiven for the delusion they are. Jesus
Here, Einstein shows that he began to find understanding: "A human being is a part of a whole" ~ Albert Einstein This seed, if nurtured, can bloom to true wholeness. By its nature, wholeness is inclusive. Its a step in the right direction. If followed further, they would lead to sameness, oneness, holiness and...drumroll please...Atonement. This might explain why Einstein would be opposed by groups heavy on exclusivity and guilt. Atonement leads to the realization of innocence. Not only would innocence end such groups, it would also end time by making past and future obsolete because time only exists to serve the delusion of guilt. The body is a kind of delusion of consciousness which imprisons a fragment of a whole in the illusion of time (itself a fragmentation of a single instant). The body, and all it stands for, is released by Atonement. Here then, is a salute to Albert Einstein, who discovered wholeness. Cooincidently, he also discovered power. "Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." ~ Albert Einstein Jesus