- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
26 May 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeThe first statement is not incompatible with the second. In fact, both are true. And if God is love, why wouldn’t He be concerned with the fate and actions of human beings.
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
Albert Einstein
Come on, Heartpence. Wake up.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeAlbert Einstien had a vested interest in thinking God didn't care about what people do. He probably preferred that any God not care that he, Einstien could not be faithful to his first wife.
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
Albert Einstein
27 May 18
Originally posted by @sonshipIf Einstien had been a Christian and therefore had a vested interest in a doctrine where he could perceive himself "forgiven" and "saved" and all set for "everlasting life", it wouldn't have mattered whether he was faithful to his first wife or not - thanks to Jesus Christ's death and supposed resurrection - according to your moral ideology - isn't that right?
Albert Einstien had a vested interest in thinking God didn't care about what people do. He probably preferred that any God not care that he, Einstien could not be faithful to his first wife.
27 May 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeWhere's Philokalia? He's gung-ho about IQ tests when it suits him so he can bang on about white people and black people. He seems to be a self-styled 'expert' on IQ tests. Why has he remained silent on this thread topic?
'Religious people are less intelligent on average than atheists because faith is an instinct and clever people are better at rising above their instincts, researchers have claimed.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28791
27 May 18
Originally posted by @sonshipTo clarify, are you implying that all theists are faithful to their wives?
Albert Einstien had a vested interest in thinking God didn't care about what people do. He probably preferred that any God not care that he, Einstien could not be faithful to his first wife.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
27 May 18
Originally posted by @fmfGod looks on the heart, not outward behavior. The heart is the source - outward behavior is just a manifestation of what condition someone’s heart is in.
If Einstien had been a Christian and therefore had a vested interest in a doctrine where he could perceive himself "forgiven" and "saved" and all set for "everlasting life", it wouldn't have mattered whether he was faithful to his first wife or not - thanks to Jesus Christ's death and supposed resurrection - according to your moral ideology - isn't that right?
If someone is committing adultery without remorse or guilt or repentance, then I’d certainly question whether that person was saved (i.e. a Christian) to begin with.
But if somebody is struggling and in great conflict and shame over their sinning and is sincerely remorseful and trying to stop by going to God for help, that’s a much different story.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
27 May 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeI don’t think all theists or even all Christians are faithful to their wives. We’re all sinners. Even you.
To clarify, are you implying that all theists are faithful to their wives?
27 May 18
Originally posted by @eladarA large-scale analysis of the religious allegiance and measured IQ of a representative sample of 3,742 American adolescents found a clear trend: the more fundamentalist denominations had the more stupid believers, so that the bottom four places were occupied, from the bottom, by Pentecostalists, Baptists, Holiness churches and "Personal Philosophy", which I presume means a new-age-ish syncretism, while the top four places, again in ascending order, were taken by agnostics, atheists, Jews, and Episcopalians (Anglicans). So, atheists are smarter than agnostics, Jews are smarter than atheists, and Anglicans the smartest of the lot ...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2008/dec/19/religion-iq-atheism
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28791
27 May 18
Originally posted by @sonshipNudge for sonship.
Albert Einstien had a vested interest in thinking God didn't care about what people do. He probably preferred that any God not care that he, Einstien could not be faithful to his first wife.
Are you implying that all theists are faithful to their wives? - Or just taking a weak pot shot at Einstein?!
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
27 May 18
Originally posted by @eladar“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
A large-scale analysis of the religious allegiance and measured IQ of a representative sample of 3,742 American adolescents found a clear trend: the more fundamentalist denominations had the more stupid believers, so that the bottom four places were occupied, from the bottom, by Pentecostalists, Baptists, Holiness churches and "Personal Philosophy", which I ...[text shortened]... marter than agnostics, Jews are smarter than atheists, and Anglicans the smartest of the lot ...
For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
That no flesh should glory in his presence.
But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.”
(1 Corinthians 1:18-31)
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28791
28 May 18
"If this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?"
Albert Einstein
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
28 May 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeEinstein sounds like another genius in one field, dunce in another. Should we listen to Einstein discuss how to play chess? Or how to fix a car?
"If this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passin ...[text shortened]... can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?"
Albert Einstein
<<If this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being?>>
How does that follow? God is omnipotent so He must be in control of human beings and every aspect of them? If a professional football player is capable of beating up everyone in a pub, does that mean he must do it?