Posted on 07/28/2007 6:00:30 PM PDT by blam
If that is your belief, hosepipe, then ... as you wish! : )
I'll reflect on it, then perhaps reply if I think I can add anything of value. I meditate; and have done so in a variety of ways. Also, the "movement" of the mind is a fascinating topic for me. You might say I've made a study of it in my own case.
Thank you oh so much!
I've suspected for a while that really bugs you, js1138 -- that I don't contradict people whose sense of the Holy Scriptures differs from my own, and in particular YECs.
The fact is, I don't have a quarrel with anybody who takes spirituality seriously, and follows whatever spiritual leading they may have in the matter according to their best lights. I also don't quarrel with Jews or Buddhists: I respect their spiritual traditions. As to whether they shall be saved, I simply leave that up to God. (Saying that will probably draw fire, for the Holy Book says no one comes to the Father but through His Son, Jesus Christ. And I believe that, heart and soul. Yet the Good Shepherd Himself tells us that He has many sheep and many [sheep]folds. So I humbly leave the issue to Him: God knows His own, and He will call to them in His own good time....)
Plus there is the "small matter" of the Logos of the Beginning: It is one and the same Logos for the entire universe, and one and the same Logos for each and every human person, whether he recognizes it or not, accepts it, or rejects it. God the Father is father to all human beings, regardless of whether they accept or reject the patrimony.
My quarrel is with people who deny God and their own spirituality, people who think such things are illusions, or fictions, or hallucinations that "the brights" (i.e., people affiliated with the progressive intelligentsia in some fashion or other) have "evolved out of" and therefore are ever so much more "fit" and intelligent than "the dims" (i.e., religious believers). My quarrel is with proselytizers of atheism, the "God is dead" crowd. You've known me a long, long time now, js; so I won't recite the list of my particular betes noir in this regard, because you probably already know it by heart by now. :^)
As for the Great Flood: We do not and cannot know the future. That being the case, I don't think the book is closed on anything. The Creation is not yet fully revealed....
I haven't studied the issue for a long time, but I seem to recollect that many cultural traditions have a flood myth, not just Christians, telling of an event that occurred in primaeval times. The universality of the myth is puzzling to me; you either have to think early man was subject to a global, contemporaneous mass hallucination, or there just might be something to the story.
Plus there is the "small matter" that God put the Flood in the Old Testament. You have to wonder why a God Who is Truth, and therefore cannot lie, would do that, unless it were true in some fashion.
Anyhoot, I hope this explanation helps.
Thank you so much for writing, js!
Thanks again!
p.s.: Er, I just went over to the link you provided — that movie hasn’t been released yet. How do you know it’s about a Tibetan monk dodging a German bad guy?
That's pretty close to the way I see you.
Scientists can examine other peoples brains but only you can examine your mind. If meditation can be called the science of the mind then it's a science where the meditator is the sole investigator and the sole interpreter and recipient of the results. At least directly. If you become a nicer or smarter person then others will probably benefit too. If not, well, meditation wasn't supposed to be for others anyway.
Oh, I will see Fearless. Jet Li is great. I think GSC’s link must go to an old website introducing it. My guess, I didn’t look at his link. But I saw the movie on satellite TV so it has definitely been released.
That movie came out in 2003.
9/9 is when the Special Edition DVD comes out.
You were calling my assertion great? Why would you comment on my assertion when it was made before she corrected it? I smell something fishy here.
I made an assumption that because of her defense of the Global Flood she was a Biblical literalist. I was wrong. I stated so in my post answering hers.
However I do note that nowhere in this post do you mention the other aspect of my post, where I mentioned that bettyboop claimed to have knowledge that Einstein believed in a personal God and her 'musing' that the God Einstein referred to as 'The Old One' was Jehovah.
Considering that the entire discourse between BB and me was based on that particular point, not the ~6000yr age of the Earth, I have to wonder why you ignored it in this response to me.
"And the second sentence was her delightfully amusing opinion ("I gather") mocking the implication of mental weakness with eloquence per se. Q.E.D.
"betty boop: Plus I never said that I believe in a "~6,000 to ~10,000 age for the Universe and the Earth." I gather you think that since I'm a Christian and therefore so benighted, dumb, and inarticulate, that you have every right (even a duty perhaps), not only to complete my sentences for me, but to make them up in the first place.
Indeed this is the remark my response to your original comment was aimed at. BB made the incredible leap that I was disagreeing with her because she is a Christian, based on her erroneous idea that I believe all Christians are in some way mentally deficient. This is complete nonsense, I was disagreeing with her because she was wrong and would not admit such.
Her comment was a seat of the pants, emotional reaction rather than a reasoned examination of my motives. It was also the rather arrogant assumption that she typifies and represents all Christians so that any correction I make to her unfounded claims translates to an attack on all Christians.
Had you bothered to read my post rather than just giving BB a high five and a slap on the back you would have noticed that I already debunked her nonsense that I am anti-Christian.
BB made a claim that she could not back up and I called her on it. I argued against no one else, nor did I make any anti-Christian statements. If you want to call what I did an attack rather than a rebuttal then I simply and exclusively attacked BB's claim that Einstein believed in a personal God. If you like I can even quote from the post where she made that claim.
It was not until after her attack on me that I made any kind of remark about her personal beliefs, and even then I did not attack her religiosity.
BB made those comments in an effort to swing the focus from her error in claiming Einstein believed in a personal God to me. It is a rather overused and poor debating tactic.
"BTW, if you have any evidence at all that betty boop has ever claimed that she believes God created the Earth in 7 days, 6000 years ago then by all means present it here. Otherwise, you owe her an apology."
Apparently you didn't bother to read my posts or you would have seen that I did indeed apologize to her for this mis-characterization. Perhaps you now own me an apology?
And how about apologizing to me for omitting that portion of my post that was the primary focus of BB's and my discussion and the point where I am correct.
For your further amusement I will reproduce a portion of BB's and my conversation.
BB's initial response to me:
"As you know, I already stated that Einstein had a habit of "poking fun" at other people's religious commitments and expressions. On the basis of such statements, you seem to conclude that he was an atheist. That you do so seems quite naive to me. Or is it simply the case that an atheist Einstein gives you comfort in some way? If so, I wonder why.... "
Emphasis mine
As you can see she was implying that I am in some way dishonest in my reasons for correcting her. She said outright that I am naive. She also put words in my mouth. You will note that in this single bit of eloquence she managed to communicate towards me every derogatory remark and biased opinion she later claims I am guilty of towards Christians.
Here is my response:
Where did I even suggest that Einstein was an Atheist? Where did I suggest that I cared that he was an Atheist? Do not put words in my mouth.
You can see that I was already upset with her attempt to, as she says, "complete my sentences for me".
So do you now understand, BB first tried to put words into my mouth, not the other way around?
Einstein very pointedly stated that he is atheistic towards a personal God and always has been. His definition of 'atheist' is the correct one, that atheism is the lack of belief rather than the belief in an alternate religion. That he is an atheist towards a personal God does not mean he does not believe in a God, nor that he is not spiritual. His spirituality and belief in an impersonal God figure, which I suspect is closer to that of Spinoza than of yours, who started the universe then sat back and watched it unfold, is hardly the same as your belief in a God who created the Earth in 7 days ~6,000 years ago. You persist in dragging in any person of fame who could be said to believe in some form of a higher power, someone who is not a classical Atheist, to validate your belief system. I wonder why...?
Emphasis added
If you read the portion of my statement that I marked in bold you will see it is but a small part of the whole and inconsequential to my argument, yet BB instead of addressing the comments of substance chose rather to complain bitterly about a comment made in the spirit of discourse she had already initiated. You will note I ended that paragraph exactly as she had ended hers as a pointed reference to her tactics.
Now, is it your habit to ignore specific tactics when used by one of your cohort and jump on those same tactics when used by outsiders even if they are used in response?
Perhaps, and this is just a suggestion, you should slap BB on the wrist for initiating such an exchange?
Your call.
Hey, you were the one who used quotes with references to Quantum physics in your attempt to school me on the meaning of Positivism. Those quotes made a big deal about 'positivists' not accepting the 'big picture' about the quantum world. I only point out that by that definition, Einstein, who did not accept the 'big picture' was a positivist.
Now if those quotes did not provide all that accurate of a definition for Positivism (and they don't) then why use them exclusively? Should you have not added more accurate definitions, or was there some obscure message in there for me?
I take it you did not read my response.
Here is part of this post:
I apologize. I did make an unwarranted assumption based on your vocal defense of the Noachian flood. I was wrong."368 posted on 08/01/2007 10:05:01 PM CDT by b_sharp"
"What I think we had going on here is this: b-sharp and I both generally agree on what constitutes relevant evidence; we just disagree about how it is to be interpreted.
Certainly it's all about interpretation.
There are so many, many ways to interpret the following two quotes and their relationship:
And Einstein recognized a personal God, and even had a name for it: He called Him "the Old One." (Who didn't play dice with the universe, among other things.)138 posted on 07/29/2007 11:10:10 PM CDT by betty boop
And from Einstein:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. 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." (The Human Side, 1954)
Emphasis in both quotes mine.
Please betty boop, just admit your error and let's go on to something else.
WOW. I actually agree with you.
How do you know I know nothing of Homeopathy?
" I'm not a big fan of chiropractics but it works. Homeopathy works very well and has no potential for side effects.
Of course it has no side effects, it's just water.
All of the meta studies done that I am aware of, 4 in total, on Homeopathic studies have concluded that all but one of those studies have errors in their methodology and/or conclusions. That one that was done correctly and shows a positive correlation has not been replicated.
Using Homeopathic remedies is not significantly different than using a placebo.
"What more could you want?
Something that actually works, is not a waste of money and entices people to dangerously ignore potentially deadly symptoms.
Thank you for the update, GSC!
Is it an "error" to disagree with you, b_sharp?
Look, Einstein -- as TigersEye pointed out -- is difficult to "put in a box." To characterize. But when he rejects quantum theory -- as he did until his dying day -- on the supposition that God wouldn't do it that way ("God does not play dice"), then what am I supposed to think?
I strongly doubt that Einstein was a positivist. A physicalist, maybe (actually, even that is doubtful); certainly not a materialist. A positivist could never utter such statements as:
The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is.Are there any statements that we could call "factual" there? Plus this was a man who said his lifelong dream was to "transmute the base wood of matter to the pure marble of geometry." He was aiming for the explication of the totality, not marshalling "facts." I recognize in such statements a profoundly religious consciousness.
Plus there is this:
There is, fortunately, a minority composed of those who recognize early in their lives that the most beautiful and satisfying experiences open to humankind are not derived from the outside, but are bound up with the development of the individual’s own feeling, thinking, and acting. The genuine artists, investigators, and thinkers have always been persons of this kind. However inconspicuously the life of these individuals runs its course, nonetheless the fruits of their endeavors are the most valuable contributions which one generation can make to its successors.No positivist would be caught dead saying such things.
Look, the man's a puzzle, especially if you accept that he was influenced by Spinoza -- a hyperrationalist -- and Schopenhauer, who propounded the notion of a fundamentally irrational universe. How he reconciled these two in his own mind -- if he ever did -- is beyond my comprehension.
At the end of the day, I'll just say that I have reason to believe that Einstein was a realist -- doubly, in both the Newtonian and the Platonic senses of that word. And like Plato (and Newton for that matter), he felt the "pulls" of the divine in his consciousness, and responded thereto.
Perhaps the difficulty we're having is that you conflate "religiosity" with specific creeds and denominations. I do not. In any case, Einstein wasn't "denominational" at all. He was simply open to God, and he did call Him "The Old One." Looking at his Jewish heritage and culture, and his lifelong identification with "The Tribe," my speculation that The Old One was his fanciful name for the God of the Old Testament is hardly a great stretch, or an irrational one on my part.
Interestingly enough, his admiration for Baruch (Benedict) Spinoza probably stems at least in part from the similarity of the two men. Spinoza was a member of the Hassidic community of Amsterdam. Spinoza was a brilliant student, so much so that his teachers had him marked out for a life as a Rabbi. But then Spinoza started saying all these radical things; and he ended up being excommunicated.
Einstein, too, separated himself from the orthodox Jewish observance; but he never saw himself as other than a Jew, and he never turned his back on his people: he was active in the Zionist movement, among other things. It doesn't matter to me at all whether he was "churched" or "unchurched": His religious temperament and spirit shines through, and I believe it influenced his life and his works as long as he lived.
FWIW, b_sharp. As I said before, we don't disagree on the "evidence." We just disagree about what it all means. I have given you my opinion, based on my understanding, which is partial -- just as yours is. It's a fun speculation. But in the end, Einstein defies ready classification.
Thank you so much for writing!
Indeed, TigersEye; indeed. :^)
Of course not.
However you clearly stated that Einstein believed in a personal God and Einstein clearly stated that he did not. You are in error, by Einstein's own words. No interpretation necessary.
"No positivist would be caught dead saying such things."
OK, you have convinced me he is not a positivist.
"At the end of the day, I'll just say that I have reason to believe that Einstein was a realist -- doubly, in both the Newtonian and the Platonic senses of that word. And like Plato (and Newton for that matter), he felt the "pulls" of the divine in his consciousness, and responded thereto.
Do you have any links to his writing where he expresses that 'pull' of the divine?
"Perhaps the difficulty we're having is that you conflate "religiosity" with specific creeds and denominations. I do not.
No, actually I do not. And I do understand Einstein's religiosity. I have no problem with religiosity without a formal religion. But that is not what our argument is about. It was not me that attempted to pigeonhole Einstein's religious beliefs, it was you by asserting with no uncertainty that Einstein believed in a personal God. This by definition, leaves out many other spiritual possibilities including Paganism, Dharmism, Deism and Naturalistic Pantheism. The last two are likely the closest to a description of his belief system.
"In any case, Einstein wasn't "denominational" at all. He was simply open to God, and he did call Him "The Old One."
I never argued otherwise.
"Looking at his Jewish heritage and culture, and his lifelong identification with "The Tribe," my speculation that The Old One was his fanciful name for the God of the Old Testament is hardly a great stretch, or an irrational one on my part.
Except he declared quite clearly and in many places he did not believe in the God of the Bible, including the OT.
I have a strong affinity with my people and was raised with a strict creationist background yet I am an atheist. I have a younger brother raised in the same household as I was who is an OEC. Affinity to a group and upbringing do not guarantee belief system.
You are firmly entrenched in your own interpretation of his belief system, based not on his words but on what you perceive as his life.
I would prefer to take him at his word.
If Einstein were still alive and you asked him point blank if he believed in a personal God, specifically Jehovah of the OT and he unequivocally stated no, would you believe him?
"Einstein was very unhappy about this apparent randomness in nature. His views were summed up in his famous phrase, 'God does not play dice'. He seemed to have felt that the uncertainty was only provisional: but that there was an underlying reality, in which particles would have well defined positions and speeds, and would evolve according to deterministic laws, in the spirit of Laplace. This reality might be known to God, but the quantum nature of light would prevent us seeing it, except through a glass darkly."
And a quote from here which describes Einstein's distrust of some of Quantum physics. He in fact did 'not' accept the 'bigger picture'.
"He said it because he found himself in profound disagreement with many of the most outstanding and influential physicists of his time: physicists like Neils Bohr, Werner Heisenberg and Max Born who had adopted what came to be known as the "Copenhagen interpretation" of the then-new field of quantum mechanics.
His disagreements with them were philosophical. Just as he rejected their claim that experimental results in quantum mechanics implied that nothing exists unless it is being observed by a conscious human being, so also he disagreed with their claim that these results implied that the so-called "deterministic" philosophy of Newtonian mechanics was false."
I'm aware of all this, b_sharp. Would you like my "take" on it?
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.