patrick.net

curious2 says

Actually it is a well-known abuse of his words, drastically exaggerated beyond anything that he could recognize as his own, to enlist his name for a cause he did not support personally.

Just read what this guy writes. He uses a textual analysis to claim these were not Einsteins words. At the same time he says it could mean lots of different things.
The whole argument sounds just like: "First I never took this pot from you, second, when I took it already had a crack in it, and third, I returned it intact."
He completely ignores the fact that Einstein himself never denied this statement, which IMO means that even if the words were not exact the meaning was correct.

curious2 says

Bap33 says

it got the ordering of creation correct, including life on this planet

LOL - how did they forget the giant ice dome?

Well ... the details are not there for many things, like the gravity and energy that has made every atom, ever, keep "alive" with it's moving parts, all going light speed, missing each other, since day one. The Bible in not too into that stuff. lol

The ice, may be part of that "water were seperated from the waters" stuff, and the creation of the firmement, or some such thing. But, before you get all crazy, please make sure you do understand that all of the anti-God, super smart science guys say the fresh water on earth came from space. I know, huh!! go check and see.

This issue is not an arguing point for me. I really enjoy ancient stuff. Like, you know, pyramids, Mayans, Nazca lines, stuff like that.

michaelsch says

He completely ignores the fact that Einstein himself never denied this statement

To the contrary, he writes that Einstein denied it and called it "drastically exaggerated beyond anything that he could recognize as his own." (The quote being from the author's translation of Einstein's denial.)

curious2 says

michaelsch says

He was an agnostic and declared it several times. he was very critical of atheism.

Fair enough, agnostic. He was very critical of religion, for example this: "For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people."

RE: Albert E. Smart enough to know somthing was there, and know he didn't know what it was, and know it is bigger than all mankind. And he was never, ever, stupid enough to make a case against creation due to the absolute order, that looks just like disorder to the unknowing, that he found all over the universe. Dude was very smart, and knew he did not have the God answer. And, as you know, the smart guys before him, you know Plato and Socrates, said the first step is knowing what you do not know.

curious2 says

michaelsch says

He completely ignores the fact that Einstein himself never denied this statement

To the contrary, he writes that Einstein denied it and called it "drastically exaggerated beyond anything that he could recognize as his own." (The quote being from the author's translation of Einstein's denial.)

lol .. but if 'ol Albert had wrote, "there is an absolute God responsible for this universe." .. then THAT would remove your doubt?? If so, explain. If not, explain.

Bap33 says

Albert E. Smart enough to know....

...yet he, too, never mentioned that giant floating ice dome in the sky. But of course you must be right Bap, because you put it there, then removed it with your hammer.

curious2 says

Bap33 says

Albert E. Smart enough to know

...yet he, too, never mentioned that giant floating ice dome in the sky. But of course you must be right Bap, because you put it there, then removed it with your hammer.

put down the pipe and/or the pint. You're fading fast.

curious2 says

michaelsch says

He was an agnostic and declared it several times. he was very critical of atheism.

Fair enough, agnostic. He was very critical of religion, for example this: "For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people."

The whole post was about Dan's "Religion kills in mass."

I brought Einsteins veiws as an example of an intelectually honest man, who can see that there are other forces, especially non-religious forces that really kill "in mass" and often religous ones are the only ones that oppose them.

The fact that Einstein was against any organized religion and not a theist makes this even more valuable. Would he been an atheist his statement would be even more valuable, only he was not.

Bap33 says

curious2 says

michaelsch says

He completely ignores the fact that Einstein himself never denied this statement

To the contrary, he writes that Einstein denied it and called it "drastically exaggerated beyond anything that he could recognize as his own." (The quote being from the author's translation of Einstein's denial.)

lol .. but if 'ol Albert had wrote, "there is an absolute God responsible for this universe." .. then THAT would remove your doubt?? If so, explain. If not, explain.

cmon curious, answer this one. Thanks.

remeber, since you were not the one standing there listening to Albert, you will have to have FAITH that he really said what you have been told. So, what happens when he says, "oh ya, God is a for sure deal!"???

Bap33 says

answer this one.

Bap, I'm not interested in speculating about things people didn't say, nor your bizarre theology of a giant ice dome in the sky. You want everybody who doesn't conform to your absurd beliefs to be hanged. Therefore you have no respect for other people, and there is no reason why anyone should respect you enough to answer your questions. I have learned from both Dan and Michael, but you are for entertainment value only.

curious2 says

Bap, I'm not interested in speculating about things people didn't say

dude, you just made a big hubub about something Albert didn't say. my mistake. carry on.

curious2 says

You want everybody who doesn't conform to your absurd beliefs to be hanged

nope, what you wrote is untrue and pulled from your behind. What I want is for murderers, rapists, gangsters, and anyone else who now is placed on display in a human zoo for a long sentence/life, to not be tortured with confinement (that does no work to fix them or repay the debt), instead I want a conviction, an appeal, and a hanging (the green way), and each step should be modeled like the Tim McVey Express.

curious2 says

and there is no reason why anyone should respect you enough to answer your questions

what you dont respect is a non-conformist ... somthing the left used to stand for, you now hate. Irony,,,, still working like new.

curious2 says

michaelsch says

He completely ignores the fact that Einstein himself never denied this statement

To the contrary, he writes that Einstein denied it and called it "drastically exaggerated beyond anything that he could recognize as his own." (The quote being from the author's translation of Einstein's denial.)

Look, curious, I can give you a lot of reasons why this guys arguments are laughable. But for me just this: "And fourth, at least to another scientist like me..." is more than enough. LOL, the message of this guy is: "Albert Einstein and another scientist".

And finally he refers to an unpublished (sic) letter cited by (no indication he got a copy of this letter) Barbara Wolff at the Einstein Archives in Jerusalem (no explanation of the Wolffs position there). The letter was written in 1947, while it presumably refers to casual oral statements from the 30th. And after all it apparently states: "hardly any German intellectuals except a few churchmen were supporting individual rights and intellectual freedom"

So, what we have here is a very unreliable source working for an institution with clear anti-church ideology -- the Hebrew University in Jerusalem (believe me I've studied there), which gives a watered down version of the published statement.

If you know all the Biblical arguments that repeated states that no man that has sex with another one can enter the kingdom of God, and you've rejected it because you dont believe in God, or the Bible, or think that people that do are crazy, theres nothing further that can be done to help you understand.
The only thing that remains for you is Heb 10:27...But a certain fearful expectation of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

curious2 says

If you look at the statistics, a majority of people with HIV are women and children. The women tend to get it from their cheating husbands, and most of the children were born with it. If there is overlap between Biblical rules and disease (remembering that the germ theory of disease was not understood during Biblical times), then disease might be one reason for the repeated prohibitions against adultery.

Well, the Biblical meaning of adultery was a very clear one, it was a trespassing of a man's right over his wife. Cheating (what a stupid word) with another not maried women, for example with a prostitute was not considered adultery, neither is it considered such today in Orthodox Judaism. Even today Orthodox Jewish marriage is a one sided consecration of a mans usage of a woman.

The New Testament does condemn promiscuety using words like fornication but always mentions these two things separately.

At any rate Biblical rules would hardly limit the transmission of HIV the way you mention it.

Bap33 says

What I want is for murderers, rapists, gangsters, and anyone else...I want a conviction, an appeal, and a hanging

To sum up Bap's various posts, i.e. the Gospel according to Bap:
1) liberals and gay people are mentally defective;
2) mentally defective people cannot consent to sex, so sex with any of them is rape;
3) rapists (and all other threats to society) should be hanged. BTW, abortion is also murder, so anyone involved should be hanged.
Therefore, according to Bap, liberals and gays should all be hanged, along with anyone involved in abortion, and any other threats to society. BTW, "liberals" seems to mean "anyone Bap disagrees with," and spreading dangerous ideas might also be a threat to society, so basically everyone except Bap ends up hanged.

Enjoy!

michaelsch says

At any rate Biblical rules would hardly limit the transmission of HIV

I agree they aren't nearly as effective as evidence-based measures, for example condoms. That merely suggests the Biblical rules have become obsolete, at least with regard to preventing the spread of disease. They are also obsolete with regard to their endorsement of slavery and religious murder. You mentioned earlier the drownings at Nantes, but you omit the slaughter of thousands in Exodus for forgetting the sabbath, and what about worshiping the golden calf? I forget the exact numbers but IIRC they add up to more than Nantes, and besides the Terror was about counter-revolutionaries not religion per se; most on all sides were Catholic.

michaelsch says

And after all it apparently states: "hardly any German intellectuals except a few churchmen were supporting individual rights and intellectual freedom"

That is not an endorsement of religion and certainly not of the Catholic church. It is more likely a reference to pastors like Martin Niemöller, who said:

"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

"Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me."

This is often extended to include references to other target groups, e.g. Jews, homosexuals, etc. The courage of a few low-level pastors, what in the Catholic tradition might be called "fighting priests" who speak truth to power (see Fr. Bernard Lynch), stands in stark contrast to the Catholic church's complicity in the Holocaust.

curious2 says

liberals and gay people are mentally defective;

1) liberalism is a mental disorder that seems to be the RESULT of drug use and/or a fixation on deviant sex.
2) "gay people" do not exist. Perverts and those suffering from gland issues do exist. Both of these are curable birth defects.

curious2 says

2) mentally defective people cannot consent to sex, so sex with any of them is rape;

that is correct, moral, and the law. Do you disagree??

curious2 says

3) rapists should be hanged. BTW, abortion is also murder, so anyone involved should be hanged.

1) rapists should be hanged. abortion is murder. correct, correct.
2) "anyone involved" is open ended. The taxi driver was the one who drove the girl .... the Ford Mo Co built the car .... Ike built the road .... I would limit the charge of murder to anyone engaged in the act of abortion for wage or ransom. The mother will be harmed for life, no need to heap punishment.

curious2 says

That merely suggests the Biblical rules have become obsolete, at least with regard to preventing the spread of disease.

and that posts shows you have not read Leviticus

Bap33 says

that posts shows you have not read Leviticus

...in fact I have, including the parts that prohibit pork and shellfish and fowl ("abomination"), and handling pigskin (football), and wearing clothing of mixed fiber, and Jews dining with Gentiles. The list of abominations is quite long, and the reason for your fixation on one in particular is obvious to everyone but you.

curious2 says

most on all sides were Catholic.

Not really, mainly because of some stupid Catholic rules that completely separate lots of people from the Church.

In regards to the Biblical accounts I don't think I need to remind you that Old Testament was compiled much later from muliple sources, mainly from various Liturgical cycles originated in different cities in Canaan.

As you surely know even when they preserve some historic stories the numbers are wildly exaggerated in such chronicles.

For example Greek chronicles claim Xerxes brought in a force of three millions. Modern estimates talk about like 60,000 combatants, which even counting also all kind off additional logistics and support people means that they exaggerated it at least 20 times.

curious2 says

This is often extended to include references to other target groups, e.g. Jews, homosexuals, etc. The courage of a few low-level pastors, what in the Catholic tradition might be called "fighting priests" who speak truth to power (see Fr. Bernard Lynch), stands in stark contrast to the Catholic church's complicity in the Holocaust.

As I've mentioned, his source in extremely unreliable, BTW, I tried to search their archives and found nothing on the matter. Please remember Einstein's name is a very big token and both Jews and Atheists try to appropriate it, apparently as well as Catholics. Holosaust is another huge political token, and "Catholic church's complicity in the Holocaust." is another big one.

So, on the one hand we have a statement published many times, on another an obscure unpublished letter, in custody of a very interested party.

Quite frankly, I tend to believe that Einsteins statement was somehow exaggerated by journalists and even that there exists a letter, where he mentions this. However, apparently, it did not completely change the meaning of Einsteins statement, otherwise he would deny it openly. Also apparently it was not satisfactory for the ideological needs that archive supposed to serve, so we probably won't see it published in near future.

Regarding Martin Niemöller's verses, I do not think it was related. In any version Einstein speaks about few churchmen, he would mention Niemöller in his letter, rather than few churchmen, especially because Einstein was aware of the very bad colaborion of Lutheran church with Nazis and Niemöller was a Lutheran pastor. Also Einstein's statement was very likely earlier than Niemöller's, or at least earlier than Einstein could learn about Niemöller's.

michaelsch says

Also Einstein's statement was very likely earlier than Niemöller's, or at least earlier than Einstein could learn about Niemöller's.

Yes, you're right about that, and while we were both apparently reading further I had corrected my original post to say "pastors like" him rather than Niemöller specifically. I agree that interested parties have tried to appropriate these tokens or icons, so I do try to consult a diversity of sources.

michaelsch says

Dan8267 says

Yes, because it is only the religious who make the claim that gay sex is immoral. Naturally this forum is the place to question that assertion.

What a crap!

Homosexuality was iilegal and a criminal offence in Soviet Union, which was an atheist state. It was officially persecuted in Nazi Germany, that was practically an atheist state with very strong pagan sentiment.

The Soviet Union was an atheist state since Lennon and Stalin didn't want competition from the church. However, Nazi Germany was completely Christian, so no, you are wrong.

Homosexuality was also illegal and a criminal offense in both the United States and Great Britain throughout most of the 20th century, both predominately Christian. Homosexuality is still a felony on paper in many states, particularly the highly religious ones.

I will grant you that the Soviet Union was an evil empire though. Just goes to show that even atheists can be assholes. It's just that religion makes it much more probable.

michaelsch says

What you say here is that the natural empathy mechanism of human mind develops some hormons in your body, which makes you feeling bad about Mathew Shepard death. Is that what you call moral? Your hormons driven feelings? But there are endless examples of such feelings that You would consider immoral.

No, no, and no.

michaelsch says

The bottom line is:
1. your hormons, your feelings, and your prejustices have nothing to do with morality. Moral or immoral may be only your choice

If what you are saying is that a person's prejudices and emotions do not determine what is moral and what isn't, then correct. This is precisely why all of Bap's arguments that homosexual sex is immoral is nothing more than bigotry.

michaelsch says

2. Moral is sacrificing something of your own, while immoral is sacrificing others to your interests or whims.

Selfishness is certainly one aspect of immorality, and selflessness is certainly an aspect of morality. It is not, however, all that there is to morality.

Nor does any of this relate to homosexual sex being immoral.

michaelsch says

3. The differences between moral and immoral we all can perceive is totally meaningless without absolute Truth and absolute Goodness.

True, of course, is absolute. Whether or not "goodness" is absolute does not imply that morality is absolute.

Dan8267 says

Homosexuality is still a felony on paper in many states, particularly the highly religious ones.

Mental illness and birth defects should be treated whenever possible. Laws like these do not help the issue at all.

The law should NOT regulate morality.

michaelsch says

Dan8267 says

Religion kills in mass.

Dan, you keep repeating this absolutely false statement.

In fact, French Revolution, Russian Revolution, and Nazism were all atheist and each one broke records in mass murder.

False statement, my ass. The Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust, Bush's entry into the Iraq War. All caused by religion.

Nazism: totally Christian

And as for the Soviet Union,
http://patrick.net/?p=1219145

Dan8267 says

Bush's entry into the Iraq War.

While W did claim to have God on his side, his actions were also motivated by a personal vendetta, as predicted in The New Yorker in 2001:

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2001/01/22/2001_01_22_034_TNY_LIBRY_000022555

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2001/12/24/011224fa_FACT

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,235395,00.html

http://articles.cnn.com/2002-09-27/politics/bush.war.talk_1_homeland-security-senators-from-both-parties-republican-phil-gramm?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

Religion was a cause why W became POTUS, i.e. Christian fundamentalists supported him because they saw him as one of them. It was also a rationalization for the war, i.e. he called it a Crusade, and claimed God wanted him to bring Democracy to Iraq. It was also a theme in the occupation, e.g. damage to historic Babylon (enemy of Biblical Jerusalem) and other ancient artifacts. But, the war itself, taking Saddam out, was mostly a personal vendetta.

Dan8267 says

False statement, my ass. The Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust, Bush's entry into the Iraq War. All caused by religion.

Especially the Holocaust! Dan, you blind yourself.
Spanish Inquisition never used mass killing.

Nazism: totally Christian

Absolute nonsense. You shoot such things all the time. Either come back to something reasonable or let's stop this discussion.

Dan8267 says

And as for the Soviet Union,
http://patrick.net/?p=1219145

It's a totally ignorant BS. It was not a single dictator who killed people, it was an atheist revolution.
Red terror happened under Lenin and other atheist leaders when Stalin had absolutely no power.
Stalins most murderous policies were the implementation of Trotsky's plans. Also some very cruel persecution of the religion happened under Khrushhev after Stalin death.

As for the former USSR and current Russia, they both hate on the gays. Now it is the Russian Orthodox church, along with the former soviets, who have made even expressing the word gay illegal. So perhaps you may consider atheist USSR and Christian Orthodox Russia as being at opposite ends of the poles, but like most opposites, they are exactly the same. The energy that drives both comes from the same place.

Dan8267 says

The Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust, Bush's entry into the Iraq War. All caused by religion.

Without the Spanish Inquisition there might be no Jamón Serrano today.

Dan,
The extermination of the Jews by the Nazi was not about religion, it was about race/tribe. The Nazi murdered every Jew they could, not just those that went to temple and followed The Law.

The Nazi were not Christian. But, oddly enough, they were an atheistic sexual deviant group into male/male coupling. Weird, huh?

Nazi was not about religion. Nor was it about race and tribe. It was about the will to power of the leaders and the submissiveness of the general public.

Any form of fascism is impossible in a nation of strong individuals.

It is a mistakes to rely on strong leaders. We must have stronger individuals. The greatest good is in each and every of us.

I didn't mean it to sound like the Nazi were linked by religion or race/tribe, I meant that their target for extermination need only be Hebrew.

Do you think the Nazi (before going full strong-arm) used the nanny state mentality to foster the German public into supporting the forced wealth transfer from the Hebrews in Germany? From what I have read it seems like the Nazi got the public on their side by letting it be known that German's would be the shop owners, as soon as the cheating Jews were removed (for their own safety). I think that helps to explain how a public that was smart, and kind, and religious, and free, fell for the Nazi lie.

Bap33 says

I think that helps to explain how a public that was smart, and kind, and religious, and free, fell for the Nazi lie.

Germans are very smart but they are not individualists. People who believing in strict rules and "doing the right things" are prone to manipulation.

When democracy becomes tyranny by majority, we get demo-crazy, and bad things happen.

On the other hand, I believe the Calvinistic worldview served this country well.