I was quoting you for reference. I can also type… obligadabierten. Is that a word? Just because you wrote a response stating your opinion doesn’t make it true. Something can be written out or verbally created, but this doesn’t make it valid without proper channeling and approval. If anything the word would read omni-benevolent. Wikipedia is the only popular source harboring this word. There are no credible reference to this being a word. Now I just googled the word and there are many acclaimed atheists sites stating this “word” to be used widely by Christians, but in fact this statement is completely false. One of the characters in the Bible consistently referred to as undeniably kind would have been Jesus, or John, or Elijah, Ezekiel, and so forth. But omnibenevolent is not in any translation of the Bible or dictionary I have read or presently own (and I have read over seven different translations, each about two or three times and cross-reference about eight others often). In addition to my views… If you had read the other posts I clearly state to believe in BOTH good and evil forces that act together in balance. This is just a partial vague explanation I feel describes God. Einstein was the one insinuating God’s being present in the absence of Evil.
Again if you can provide credible and established resources (standard editions of the Bible and anything translated by Thomas Nelson do not qualify). If it is not direct form the King James or New King James (again one not by Thomas Nelson) as well as webster or britannica or some dictionary, thesaurus or encylopædia with accredited educational value then its not credible.
Omnibenevolence (from Latin omni- meaning “all”, and benevolent, meaning “good”) is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “unlimited or infinite benevolence”.
Are you German? Just curious to ask…
If your implication is that he didn’t believe in any personal god, I can’t do anything but agree. But it seems to be the believers in a western God who distort his words. I’m not aware of Hindus or Taoists doing such. I wonder if he even thought about Eastern gods - such things were not as popular in the west in 1955 and before as they are now, except for a few people.
Deducting the truth? Words of one syllable department.
You got caught repeating an untruth about Einstein. Admit it. Did you ever hear the one about the janitor at NASA in Maryland who when the scientists were confused about some calculation of time in the past was incorrect, reminded them of Joshua asking God to make the sun stand still. That was fiction also.
I’ve seen the quote from Einstein about not believing in a personal god long before there was a Wikipedia.
Challenge accepted.
Someone had to have said it or written it. THE WORDS ARE THERE IN FRONT OF YOU. Someone said it or wrote it. Because its all over the internet. It originated somewhere… Care to explain almighty wise one?
Why is it so hard to believe anyone would do that?
I can conclude my argument now.
YES leftfield6, Christian values are under attack.
Take for example every single person who has refuted my posts. No one has reasoned as to why they even claimed my proof to be a lie. Nor did they provide any evidence to support THEIR claim. Regardless ,the conversation was Christian Values and the feeling that they are under attack. Well I again I would have to say yes by reiterating this…
if ONE attempt to exhort someone cannot be made without several people attacking one tiny detail (again having the same lack of proof they claim me to be missing). If ONE person cannot try to make another person see the good in life and try to make them feel good about life as well without all these bloggers (and thats not an insult Johnathan) interrupting with their negativity then it would be obvious that moral value is well under attack.
I have one thing to ask. If Einstein didn’t write it then who did? Seems pointless and spiteful to continually criticize someone for false information without any allusion as to the actual truth.
I was not “caught” doing anything. You still have yet to disprove my claim. NASA is in Houston (you are referring to a museum). Who says the sun isn’t still how do YOU know for sure that these explanations are not an opposition of the truth (due to some unknown force or energy).
WIKIPEDIA isn’t a credible source either. I had read through the entire britannica series before wikipedia was even conceived. And I am so glad you have seniority and have proven your presumption and prevention to be the only thing driving this argument. You have no more proof than I supposedly lack. If I would have known this was about who read what first I would have invited my professors to join the debate. Again If all this argument is over who said the stupid thing then drop it!
WHO CARES… Ive said several times that what was said is what matters and you still haven’t disproven those specifications. Your petulant and transgressive in your communication and seemingly provoking in nature. I am going to ask you to quit responding to my posts and leave it and myself alone. Neither one of us has any proof concerning the truth about this speech so we can leave it there. Have a good day Dr.
Seriously ? That’s your argument ? “Somebody wrote it, therefore it must be true” ? Boy, must the fiction section of the library be ever so strange and confusing to you…
That’s not how attribution works. If you can’t point to a book or article or interview or letter where Einstein specifically said or wrote so, then the default position is that someone made it up and attributed it to him in service of an agenda. “98% of quotes are made up” (Gandhi said that).
This is my point though. I have already accepted and admittedly considered my claims to be a possible misnomer. SO my only argument is that none of us know him and weren’t there to witness it. So why are all these people seemingly attacking me when all I was trying to do was give hope to a person dwelling on death. I wasn’t trying to insult you or anyone on this board, but my point is that positive engagement or kindness is a solution. Evil will be there as long as we allow it or acknowledge it as a power. Im sorry if I was out of line to any of you, but maybe consider the person I was speaking to and that maybe he needed to hear something good. Not all this “is so” arguing. Again sorry.
Agree with almost everything you said there except for the last part. I highly doubt Gandhi said that. That quote might be with the 98%.
“You just got whooshed but good.”-Abraham Lincoln
I have not read as far back as the post where you brought in the Einstein story so I do not have an opinion on it. More generally though the way this board works is that if you present something as fact that others find doubtful, you are likely to be asked to back up your assertion - something that is commonly done by presenting a credible source that supports it. You should not take that for a personal attack aimed at you, because it usually is not one. It is simply part of the culture of a board that has dedicated itself to “fighting ignorance” not to easily accept any unsupported claim.
“Silenus is the handsomest, wisest, most benevolent man in History. And a pretty snappy dresser as well.”
Thanks, 87 (I can call you 87 can’t I?). Your acknowledgement of my standing means a lot to not only me, but the world in general.
No, Christian values are NOT under attack.
Loving the Lord with all your heart and soul and mind and strength, that’s a Christian value.
Loving your neighbor as yourself, that’s a Christian value.
Loving people who don’t love you, that’s a Christian value.
Being generous, being compassionate, helping those in need, these are Christian values.
These values are not under attack.
Being assholes in the name of Christ - that gets a lot of flak these days. But that’s quite understandable, isn’t it?
Sure, Christianity comes with assorted rules of conduct and stuff like that. But Christianity is not about those rules, it’s about a God who loves us so much that he came down and lived among us, and was willing to die for us.
And furthermore, there’s no passage I’ve seen in the New Testament that says we’re supposed to make people who don’t believe what we do adhere to our rules of conduct. So insisting that other people follow those rules - that’s not a Christian value, is it? AFAIAC, it seems more like assholery in the name of Christ.
And AFAIAC, being critical of assholery in the name of Christ is a Christian value. But maybe that’s just me. 
It originated on the internet, circa 1999. It circulates with no factual attribution of any kind, 44 years after Einstein died, and in total contradiction with Einstein’s actual views on religion. You don’t find that suspicious? The mere fact that text exists with “Albert Einstein” typed on the bottom is proof enough for you?
I hope you’re pulling my leg, and aren’t actually that credulous.
Making up falsehoods isn’t a Christian value. Whoever first attributed this story to Einstein was doing exactly that.
The truth is moral. Falsehoods are not.
And if whether it ever actually happened, or happed to Einstein is a “tiny detail”, why are you clinging to it so stubbornly?
Some guy on the internet. That’s all we know.
“Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet.” - Abraham Lincoln
I never knew “The ends justify the means” is a Christian value.
No need to apologize to me. I disagreed with the warning you got. My impression is that you’re naive, not malicious. Your belief system is being challenged–not you, personally–and I didn’t take your post personally.
The human race has made such a habit of lying, even for Jesus, that certain standards have been developed for objectively assessing a statement for its truth whether it’s in a court of law or on a message board. Wikipedia, as a repository of factual information, has a small army of people making sure that the information on its pages is truthful. Sometimes mistakes seep through the cracks, but overall it can be depended on as a reliable source, and always provides links to back up the information in its articles if you have doubts about it. Same goes for Snopes. It has a reputation for being truthful because it uses the same general standards for separating fact from fiction.
That’s why we don’t have to have known Einstein personally to determine the truthfulness of the story. There are multiple ways and means to verify it, and apparently there is absolutely nothing to support it. No one today knew Lincoln personally, but we know from a myriad of historical sources that he was President and delivered the Gettysburg Address.
I don’t doubt that you had good intentions in posting a story you believed to be true, but if it isn’t true, it ultimately won’t help anyone when they find out they were deceived by it, just as it isn’t helping you now. That’s the thing about lying. It’s a quick, feel-good fix, but in the end, it does more damage than good when the truth comes out. That’s why the truth matters. It doesn’t deceive anyone. You’re not being attacked personally. We’re simply calling you out on presenting a story as fact that isn’t because the truth matters.
I think pretty much most any average Joe off of the street will not only recognize omnibenevolent as a word, but also know what they are referring too, especially if they are religious, since most use it often to describe their God. Now use the word you made up, and see what kind of response you get.
Do you ever open any links? Why isn’t the Oxford Dictionary (as do other dictionaries), I cited in post #194 a credible source in your eyes that does recognize it as a word? Nor did they use the hyphen, although it can be used.
Could you point out the scriptures where Jesus is saying any kind words towards his mother? And did the writers quote him accurately with Luke 14:26? Also explain the kindness of someone wanting you to burn for eternity if you didn’t follow him when the OT god, well, at least he just had you dead once.
Apparently you do or you wouldn’t have used it, nor continued to knowingly spread a falsehood, or perhaps you’re just innocent and out of ignorance spread it for the that sliver of hope that someone as smart as Einstein would offer some proof of God. If one needs this anecdote that bad, I doubt their faith is working for them at all.
Snopes had already done the homework for us, as have many cites by doing a search engine, simply type in professor and Einstein, and it lights up, with many corroborating the facts of why Einstein didn’t write it, and also why the arguments used have got stupid written all over it. Just a small sampling just off the first page:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/culeins.htm
And if you can manage to set Einstein aside as the author, and want a thread on any of the arguments used in that piece, start one if you want to defend them as facts and as brilliant as you perceive them to be. But a heads up if you do, you’re not in Kansas, anymore.
And don’t play the I’ve been offended card when you haven’t been. It won’t work around here, and people recognize it mostly for someone that didn’t bring enough ammo to begin with, and immediately starts trying to find an exit. It’s a level playground in these parts.
I care, and I’ll tell you why. I’m an atheist. There aren’t a whole lot of us out there in the world. There’s even fewer really famous, respected figures who were openly atheist. Einstein is one of them: one of the biggest, really. Seeing him co-opted to spread a religious message which he never endorsed bothers me, because it’s effectively trying to make the existence of atheists invisible. Plus, it’s not like history isn’t littered with admirable theists. Why do you need to poach Einstein from the atheists to make your point?
I also think that, if you have any respect for Einstein as a person, it should bother you that people are lying about him and what he thought. Even if you think the lie ultimately is to his benefit, he wouldn’t have agreed, and would not have liked being used to prop up a belief system he did not support. Respecting his wishes in this way is part and parcel of respecting him as a human being.
Lastly, the reason why you should care, in particular: if you base your argument, even partially, on a falsehood, when people find out it’s false, they’re going to be suspicious of the rest of your argument. When someone points out that you got something wrong, and you respond, “Who cares?” you signal that you don’t really care about any other errors in your argument. And if you can’t be bothered to make an argument that’s based on truth, why should anyone waste their time listening to you?