Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: "Biggest enemy the Church has ever faced"  (Read 238 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline klasG4e

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1926
  • Reputation: +1079/-157
  • Gender: Male
"Biggest enemy the Church has ever faced"
« on: March 14, 2019, 02:02:58 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • At 45:35 into this very informative and excellent hard hitting talk Robert Sungenis starts directly talking about Albert Einstein.  At 46:28 in he states in unequivocal terms: "He [Albert Einstein] was the biggest enemy of the Church the Church has ever faced ...and I do not say that lightly."



    Hopefully, most people reading this know who owns and controls Time Magazine.


    Offline Mr G

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 477
    • Reputation: +349/-39
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Biggest enemy the Church has ever faced"
    « Reply #1 on: March 14, 2019, 02:17:44 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • At 45:35 into this very informative and excellent hard hitting talk Robert Sungenis starts directly talking about Albert Einstein.  At 46:28 in he states in unequivocal terms: "He [Albert Einstein] was the biggest enemy of the Church the Church has ever faced ...and I do not say that lightly."



    Hopefully, most people reading this know who owns and controls Time Magazine.


    Does it rhyme with "few"?


    Offline cassini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1641
    • Reputation: +923/-99
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Biggest enemy the Church has ever faced"
    « Reply #2 on: March 15, 2019, 03:41:07 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

  • ‘The enemies of society are bent on persuading us that mankind is evolving and progressing and that the intellectual capacities of the human being are steadily increasing. This deification of the modern man, and what is being attempted is no less than that, is greatly assisted if the last century or so is shown to have produced intellectuals of unprecedented capacity, capable of opening the eyes of the world to truths which had remained hidden in all previous centuries of his history. The second generality is that it is much easier to impose false beliefs on the world if they are personalised. If a theory is put forward without reference to the person who originated it, there will be a tendency for it to be judged on its merits and then, if it clearly has no merits, for it to be rejected. This is far from being the case if a theory - however ludicrously opposed to common sense - is put forward by a man of universally acknowledged genius. Now the tendency will be for the theory to be examined with respect, if it cannot be understood this will be ascribed to the incapacity of the person examining the theory; if it appears manifestly illogical it will be assumed that the originator has grasped a logic that is beyond the reach of lesser mortals. In short it will gradually become accepted on no better grounds than the authority of the person who has advanced it.’[1]

    [1] N. Martin Gwynne: Einstein and Modern Physics, Briton’s Library, 1985, p.5. The structure of this chapter is based on Martin Gwynne’s essay.

    So, who was this man whose pickled smallish brain now languishes in a jar in Texas USA? Albert Einstein was born in 1879 to non-practising Jewish parents in Ulm, in southwest Germany. At the age of six he entered a Catholic primary school where he received a Catholic education. Meanwhile, Albert’s parents paid a relative to teach him the fundamentals of Judaism. According to Max Jammer, as a young boy, Albert Einstein extracted from Catholicism and Judaism elements common to both and that this excited in him a fervent religious sentiment including a desire to live a life pleasing to God. He spent several years living in what he later called ‘a religious paradise.’[1]

    Einstein’s brief encounter with the old Jewish-Christian line of thought however, ended at the age of twelve when he was introduced to popular books on science, mathematics and geometry. One of these, we are told, Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, had a profound affect on his thinking. As a programmed Copernican, uniformitarian and evolutionist, Einstein concluded that the Bible must be mythical, and like others around him at the time decided he too must get into this new cosmic-religion business. He then became a devoted fan of Benedict de Spinoza, the 17th century Jewish philosopher who advocated a ‘god’ of nature rather than a personal God. ‘Neither intellect nor will appertain to God’s nature,’ taught Spinoza, and that the appropriate object of religious devotion is the harmony of the universe. Thus emerged Einstein’s cosmic religiosity, and while he never propounded his beliefs up front, he was always delighted to respond to frequently asked questions by journalists etc., about his religious beliefs. While he declared that he believed in ‘the god of Spinoza,’ he never disputed the usefulness of conventional religion. 


    Because of innumerable books on Albert Einstein and his contribution to both faith and science, we are told many things about the man. One such publication, Einstein in Love: A Scientific Romance, [2] inspired such headlines as ‘Einstein: genius and dirty old man’ because it exposes the many human failings of Einstein, calling him ‘a philanderer [adulterer], a draft dodger and a hustler whose long-suffering wife Mileva Maric (a Serbian physics student who co-authored some of his scientific theories but got no recognition for them) mortgaged her happiness for his.’[3] According to Overbye; ‘by the time they divorced she was a paranoid wreck. To him, she began as one of his rechnenpferde (literally, “calculating horses” who did the mathematical proofs of his theories) and became “the employee I can’t fire.”’ Einstein’s use of people, we read, was not the thoughtless self-indulgence of a spoiled brat. His calculation was almost mathematical if you will pardon the pun. When he became engaged to Mileva he continued to send his laundry to an earlier girlfriend. An affair with his 42-year-old cousin – which prompted his divorce – turned into an infatuation with her 20-year-old daughter. By then, however, his attraction had deserted him and the girl turned him down. His personal habits, like his reluctance to bathe and telling dirty jokes accompanied by a “seal-like laugh” may have influenced her somewhat. Wilkes however, in keeping with Einstein’s popularity in the world, puts aside morals as secondary and ends his review with praise: ‘Overbye, who is a scientist himself, also offers a beautiful exposition of the achievements of Einstein the scientist and thinker.’ It seems that no matter what, homo consensus will always be led to believe that Albert Einstein’s relativist theories contributed something useful to human knowledge, and it is for this that even a ‘dirty old man’ can be revered among the greats of history. This man’s image is everywhere, on many world postage stamps, and more books about him continue to be published. Einstein’s most fanciful award however was posthumous, being named TIME magazine’s ‘Person of the Century.’ This distinction they award to the one they believe had the greatest influence in the 20th century, for good or evil. Now consider the impact Marx, Stalin, Hitler or Mao had on the last century and we will see just how important the powers that be place on modern cosmology. Consider this view in the light of his theories having been rubbished and falsified throughout the century and you should recognise propaganda personified.

     'The obstinate truth about Einstein is that in mathematics he was no more than competent and that among the so-called discoveries presented to the world under his name one can search in vain for one that was original. Had Einstein not been selected, for reasons that had nothing to do with intellectual ability, to act out a role which was deemed necessary for the furtherance of the war against God and civilisation, his claim to immortal fame would have been that of a talented and not-undistinguished physicist… If we allow the very utmost in his favour it is demonstrable that he would have been less well-known than Riemann, Minkowski, Thomson, Fitzgerald, Maxwell, Lorentz, Larmor, Planck, Poincare, Hilbert, Ricci, Levi-Civita, Bohr, Schrodinger and Heisenberg, all of whom were approximate contemporaries of Einstein’s, all of whom were more competent and original in the areas of science which have made Einstein’s name immortal, and none of whom will be known even as names to most readers who do not have a specialist knowledge of mathematics and physics.’[4]

    [1] Max Jammer; Einstein and Religion, Princeton University Press, 2000.
    [2] Denis Overbye: Einstein in Love, Bloomsbury, 2001.
    [3] Alan Wilks: Irish Independent, Sat. 26 May 2001.
    [4] N.M. Gwynne: Einstein and Modern Physics, p.5.

     

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16