What is "truth" - COULD Einstein Have Been Wrong?

by AGuest 197 Replies latest jw friends

  • AGuest

    Dear Glad... peace to you... and obviously, I hurt your feelings. I kind of meant to, I admit... because of what you posted. You were frustrated with me... and turned that into a stab at dear tec (peace to you, dear one!). Not in a PM, but on the public board. You cannot see that, now... because your frustration and hurt feelings are in the way. You also don't think I am "worthy" to call you on what you did. Okay, but someone should have... including others who [dis]believe as you do (whose comments you might have been more amenable to receiving).

    But they remained silent... as some tend to do: they may see/hear a wrong accusation but don't possess the requisite love... or loyalty... to speak up and address the wrong. Or let their displaced loyalty prevent them from doing so.

    I am not like that, dear one: if someone had said something similar as to you... and accused YOU falsely... which is, in essence, what you did... I would have done the exact same thing. I would have risked hurting their feelings and making them mad at ME... to set the matter straight as to the one they're attempting to accuse.

    I realize that you BELIEVE you're only "concerned" for dear tec. I have to ask you, though, how is your comments as to HER... ANY different from when JWs make the exact same comment as to ones like you, ones who no longer believe in God, let alone "Jehovah"... because of their research and inquiries into other options? Do THEY not express that they're DFing/marking/shunning you... because they're "concerned" for you... and "can see [others'] influence on YOU?"

    Do you truly BUY that, dear one... that they really ARE "concerned" for you? Or can you see the TRUTH that are they actually "concerned" that:

    1. You don't/no longer] believe as they do...

    2. Might actually attempt to influence THEM with YOUR thinking... and

    3. They might actually BE influenced?

    I saw absolutely NO difference in what they do... and what you did, dear one. And just like I would call one of them on it, I called you on it.

    Just because one has left the WTBTS... or religion... doesn't mean one has left the practices/tactics of the WTBTS... or religion.

    If I hurt your feelings, I apologize. If I frustrate you... well, I can't really do anything about that - only you can. But please, don't mistake me for a passive, mealy-mouthed psuedo-christian who lives as if love is not just kind and mild... but silent. It is not. Love does speak up, dear one... when it must.

    Again, I bid you peace... truly.

    YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,


  • AGuest
    I pains me when two people I care about can't find a common ground to get along by.

    Think Paul and Barnabas, dear PSacto (the greatest of love and peace to you, dear one!)... and know that "this, too, shall pass"... because, in spite of our differences here, dear Glad and I are both rational, reasonable, mature... and sane... adults. People can lack common ground... and it's okay. Contrary to what they may have learned while a JW... they can even can disagree... vehemently... and it's okay. Eventually, love will win out, I have no doubt.

    Because love... believes all things... hopes all things... and never fails. I absolutely do believe that... because I've seen it come to reality too many times to dismiss it.

    Again, peace to you!

    YOUR servant, sister, and fellow slave of Christ,


  • PSacramento

    I hope so Shel, truly.

    Speaking of Barnabs, I heard that he was the writer of Hebrews... thoughts?

  • tec

    I thank Gladiator for his concern for me (unnecessary as it might be in this case)!!

    I also thank Shelby for her defense, which came from concern for me!!

    Now please, no more arguing on my behalf (unless it leads you to find some common ground and mutual understanding, of course... then arguing and confrontation are a good thing). I care for you both.

    Love and peace,


  • AGuest

    Ah, Hebrews... my favorite "book" in the Bible, after the Psalms...

    The name I have heard associated with the writing of the letter to the Hebrews is "John'", dear one (peace to you!). But that is not definitive because, at the time I heard this I believed, like most, that [the Apostle] John wrote the gospel attributed to him. I've since learned that that account was written by Simon Eleazer... or Lazarus... aka "Simon the Leper/Kanean/Zealot". I have not heard since as to Hebrews, but my sense is that it, too, was written by Lazarus... especially given the detail as to our Lord, his kingship, the priesthood, sons, faith, etc. I base that on this:

    The letter to the Hebrews is one of THE most intimate accounts of these things... and that it was directed to the Hebrews (vs. the Greeks, Romans, etc.), means it was supposed to BE intimate... as well as written to a specific audience by someone with great affection for them. Although Barnabas was a Hebrew (a Levite)... it would seem that, as a missionary, more letters would exist from him. Since he spent a great deal with Paul, however, and the latter usually took the lead there, most came from Paul).

    The letter to the Hebrews, however, contains such intimate details... that the one penning it would, IMHO, also have had... an intimate relationship with my Lord... so as to know... and understand these things. Since Barnabas wasn't one of the 12... indeed, did not even come on the scene until after Pentecost, it makes sense to ME that it was at least penned by one of the Apostles... based on the detail given as to the features of the "kingdom", etc.

    Both Lazarus and John learned directly from our Lord... and both were leaders of the "covenant for a kingdom" entered into first, by the 12... which our Lord would have certainly explained to them. True, they may not have understood it all fully at the time, but that was the purpose of holy spirit later - to bring BACK to their minds "all the things" our Lord had "told" them. Barnabas was not a part of that initial revelation.

    So, I have to say that I don't know, for a certainty, whether it was written by the writer of "John" (Lazarus)... or John himself. I will certainly let you know if our Lord finds it in his heart to reveal this information.

    I hope that helps, dear one, and again, peace to you!

    YOUR servant, sister, and fellow slave of Christ,


  • PSacramento

    Helpful as always Shel :)

    I read Barnabs epistle and IF Barnabas wrote that, Hebrews doesn't mesh with his writing style, but you never know.

    That the writer mentions "our brother Timothy" is why some attribute it to Paul but it really isn't his writing style either.

    There are views that this last part was added later, hard to know for sure one way or another.

    Hebrews is your favorite NT letter?

    Learn something new everyday :)

  • JonathanH

    I'm not going to read through all of this, seeing as how it seems to have gone all over, but one thing needs to be pointed out (in case it hasn't). If a particle was detected moving faster than light, that doesn't prove einstein wrong. Einstein's equations and theories allow for things to move faster than light, it just doesn't allow for objects of mass to accelerate past the speed of light. Such particles have been hypothesized, and they are called tachyons, but never have they been observed. Even if the tests aren't in error (and they probably are), then that doesn't throw einstein into the fire, it just shows something we've never seen before.

  • unshackled

    Interesting JonH. Stumbled across this article from Scientific American: Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos? Physics Luminaries Voice Doubts It has a number of physicists reactions to the announcement.

    After reading your post, I thought of this comment from the article...

    Heinrich Päs, theoretical physicist of the Technical University Dortmund in Germany:

    "It seems that the experimentalists were very careful, but this is really BIG news....

    There are certain misunderstandings with people who are very cynical now: Even if true, this result neither proves Einstein wrong nor implies that causality has to be violated and time travel is possible. Things can move faster than the speed of light without violating Einstein if either the speed of light is not the limiting velocity as one can observe it for light propagation in media such as, for example, water. This can be modeled with background fields in the vacuum as has been proposed by [Indiana University physicist] Alan Kostelecky .

    Or spacetime could be warped in a way so that neutrinos can take a shortcut without really being faster than the speed of light. As our three space plus one time dimensions look pretty flat, this would require an extra dimension (as proposed by [University of Hawaii at Manoa physicist] Sandip Pakvasa, [Vanderbilt University physicist] Tom Weiler and myself).

    On the other hand, if something moves faster than the speed of light, causality violations—aka time travel—may be a possibility (for example, in models with two warped extra dimensions as proposed by [Vanderbilt physicist] James Dent, Pakvasa, Weiler and myself). And that, of course, would have really crazy and mind-boggling consequences, but even there can [there] be scenarios which are contradictory.

    So, in short, this is really exciting. But since it is so exciting, I'm not sure whether one should be too optimistic that it will survive the tests of other experiments."

  • AnneB
    spacetime could be warped in a way so that neutrinos can take a shortcut without really being faster than the speed of light.

    If this proves to be the case, should speed of light continue to be the measure?

  • AGuest
    that doesn't throw einstein into the fire, it just shows something we've never seen before.

    I am truly sorry that so many took the title of the thread so literally (peace to you all!). It really wasn't about Mr. Einstein... or his theory... or the speed of light. It was about what we believe to be "the truth"... at what point... what is it when it's "no longer" the "truth". What was it before? It was about whether truth was something that is constant... versus something that changes. In that light, it actually wasn't even about Mr. Einstein being right or wrong... rather than about the statement (which I've only heard from others, albeit based on Mr. Einstein's theory) "there is nothing faster [than the speed of light]."

    I am glad that a few (very few, unfortunately) got that. It just personally "bugs" me, though, that for man truth DOES seem to be subjective... and thus, subject to change... rather than it being our PERCEPTION... and UNDERSTANDING... of what is "true"... that changes. If that "truly" is the case, how can we say that ANYTHING is true/truth?

    It seems to me that change is the only true constant in the physical world (although some would include death and taxes, but I would say that the first is open to debate... and the latter really kind of depends on where you live... and when).

    But change... always occurs in this world. Regardless of what a person believes or does not believe. So, I would say change is [a] truth.

    It is a bit sad to me that some overstepped the question raised... in order to "defend" Mr. Einstein, his theory, even science... that they could not "see" past that to the actual question: what is "truth". Because that is really what I was trying to understand others' POV on. WHEN is something the truth... versus when is it merely what we want to BELIEVE is the truth... because we have nothing to refute it. Yet.

    Ah, well... should'a known it was gonna go the way it did... if for no other reason that because I was the one asking.

    Shaking head...


    A slave of Christ,

    SA, who wonders how "intelligent" it is to be disuaded from a valid issue/question, simply because one is blinded by their bias as to the propounder. Seems a bit short-sighted... and short-changing... to me...

Share this