The Anglican bishops meeting for the Lambeth Conference are following a consultative process called Indaba. This is reminiscent of Benedictine and other styles of meeting.
July 25 1968 Pope Paul VI published his Encyclical letter Humanae Vitae. His commissions, set up in response to the development of oral contraceptives in…
Lambeth Bible Study with Joanna Clegg A famous poet representing the other party (Alexander Pope), once said ‘know thyself, presume not God to scan; the…
I’ve seen the video elsewhere, and heard the same story on more than one occasion with an anonymous schoolchild or student rather than Einstein in the starring role and a major scientific figure (I forget who) as the atheist teacher/professor. I feel uncomfortable about it being attributed to Einstein if he didn’t actually say it.
Very, sometimes. Or to be more precise I feel uncomfortable about how some people make use of it.
I’m quite willing to accept that ascribing writings to famous figures in the past was acceptable in the cultures in which the Bible was written. But in our culture I think it’s asking for trouble, that there will be people who rather than consider the point of the story will ask how Christians can be trusted about events of 2000 years ago if they misrepresent people who lived within the lifetime of many people still alive today.
There are some fascinating points from your comment, Robert.
I had not paid much attention to the Einstein reference when this video clip was pointed out to me. After your first comment I discovered the Einstein association does not appear to go back beyond 2004.
Without the Einstein attribution, I would still have found the clip equally of interest, just as a poor piece of logic would not have gained my interest even with an Einstein attribution.
What interests me in this your second comment is that on the one hand you acknowledge that within the Bible words and texts are attributed to individuals when you know those attributions are not authentic, and yet you are concerned that non-Christians will “ask how Christians can be trusted about events of 2000 years ago” knowing that, following your standard of contemporary criteria, they cannot be.
Sorry for the delay in replying. It’s been a hectic weekend.
It seems to me that something did happen on the first Easter morning and that the Resurrection makes more sense than deliberate fraud or self-delusion on the part of Jesus’s followers, and therefore what we are told Jesus said about himself and what he did deserves our full attention. However, the letters and gospel stories that were collected in the Bible are not straightforward historical accounts and I think we do need to be cautious about saying “this happened exactly as written and this is what it meant”.
If Christians earn themselves a reputation for playing fast and loose with people’s reputations and misrepresenting their ideas (I’m no expert on Einstein but from what I gather, he was agnostic about the existence of God), how can we be relied upon when we claim that having looked at the evidence that has come down to us and done our best to interpret it in light of what we know about the cultures then, we have reached these conclusions?
“how can we be relied upon when we claim that having looked at the evidence that has come down to us and done our best to interpret it in light of what we know about the cultures then, we have reached these conclusions?” We cannot and we should not, Robert, be so “relied upon” IMO. My hope is that my enthusiasm (meaning “God in me”) is such that others might embark on a similar journey of looking at the evidence that has come down to us and do their best to interpret it in light of what we know about the cultures then, and reach their own conclusions.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at. But if someone who I suspect doesn’t have a very high regard for the truth says to me “Come and see”, why should I bother?
Another spin on that is that Love/God is only an absence of Evil. It’s all relative, all based on perspective.
Alternatively, space trumps light as we know it. Sure the dots of light (which we call galaxies) are huge to us, but in the immensely dark and possibly infinite universe they’re just little dots that space hasn’t fully touched yet.
I’ve seen the video elsewhere, and heard the same story on more than one occasion with an anonymous schoolchild or student rather than Einstein in the starring role and a major scientific figure (I forget who) as the atheist teacher/professor. I feel uncomfortable about it being attributed to Einstein if he didn’t actually say it.
Then, Robert, how uncomfortable do you feel about the Bible? 😉
Very, sometimes. Or to be more precise I feel uncomfortable about how some people make use of it.
I’m quite willing to accept that ascribing writings to famous figures in the past was acceptable in the cultures in which the Bible was written. But in our culture I think it’s asking for trouble, that there will be people who rather than consider the point of the story will ask how Christians can be trusted about events of 2000 years ago if they misrepresent people who lived within the lifetime of many people still alive today.
There are some fascinating points from your comment, Robert.
I had not paid much attention to the Einstein reference when this video clip was pointed out to me. After your first comment I discovered the Einstein association does not appear to go back beyond 2004.
Without the Einstein attribution, I would still have found the clip equally of interest, just as a poor piece of logic would not have gained my interest even with an Einstein attribution.
What interests me in this your second comment is that on the one hand you acknowledge that within the Bible words and texts are attributed to individuals when you know those attributions are not authentic, and yet you are concerned that non-Christians will “ask how Christians can be trusted about events of 2000 years ago” knowing that, following your standard of contemporary criteria, they cannot be.
Blessings
Sorry for the delay in replying. It’s been a hectic weekend.
It seems to me that something did happen on the first Easter morning and that the Resurrection makes more sense than deliberate fraud or self-delusion on the part of Jesus’s followers, and therefore what we are told Jesus said about himself and what he did deserves our full attention. However, the letters and gospel stories that were collected in the Bible are not straightforward historical accounts and I think we do need to be cautious about saying “this happened exactly as written and this is what it meant”.
If Christians earn themselves a reputation for playing fast and loose with people’s reputations and misrepresenting their ideas (I’m no expert on Einstein but from what I gather, he was agnostic about the existence of God), how can we be relied upon when we claim that having looked at the evidence that has come down to us and done our best to interpret it in light of what we know about the cultures then, we have reached these conclusions?
“how can we be relied upon when we claim that having looked at the evidence that has come down to us and done our best to interpret it in light of what we know about the cultures then, we have reached these conclusions?” We cannot and we should not, Robert, be so “relied upon” IMO. My hope is that my enthusiasm (meaning “God in me”) is such that others might embark on a similar journey of looking at the evidence that has come down to us and do their best to interpret it in light of what we know about the cultures then, and reach their own conclusions.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at. But if someone who I suspect doesn’t have a very high regard for the truth says to me “Come and see”, why should I bother?
Robert, I think the video is true whether Einstein said it or not.
Oh, I would agree that the content of the argument is true, yes. I just don’t like it being ascribed to Einstein 😉
I’ve just seen that you’ve been having more earthquakes. Thanks for taking the time out to talk during all that.
I’ve appreciated the conversation.
Another spin on that is that Love/God is only an absence of Evil. It’s all relative, all based on perspective.
Alternatively, space trumps light as we know it. Sure the dots of light (which we call galaxies) are huge to us, but in the immensely dark and possibly infinite universe they’re just little dots that space hasn’t fully touched yet.
So evil is God’s fault for not loving us enough?
Or it’s God’s fault for not giving us love in our hearts?