Secular Wisdom versus Christian Wisdom
The following analysis applies mostly to those who quote these words than the original authors themselves especially because those who quote choose the authors and words to propagate and proclaim as truth; the more an author or promoter of a saying leaves out the true context they are using or the more a secular author makes an absolute truth claim, outside pure mathematics, the more wrong they are found to be.
Doing a comparison and contrast is an excellent learning tool that can be used for Bible Study by an individual, a church or school leader. You can learn a lot about what is true and false by seeing how the Bible defines and uses terms.
After you study this saying, you will realize that Einstein is not talking about himself, other scientists, poets, writers 9thinkers), empire builders, politicians, Christ, Jewish and Christian martyrs, or Jews. You can also learn how humanists define “good” and “evil”.
After you study this saying, you will realize that Einstein is not talking about himself, other scientists, poets, writers 9thinkers), empire builders, politicians, Christ, Jewish and Christian martyrs, or Jews. You can also learn how humanists define “good” and “evil”.
Great Spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. Albert Einstein
What a sweeping statement! It is very fascinating to see the great desire on the part of humanists to establish (or at least find) absolute truths outside of God. Here again you find a humanist author using “always” to establish an absolute rule. Equally intriguing is the choice of words chosen by the writer and accepted and passed on by others. The more you study humanistic proverbs, the more questions and inconsistencies arise, and the more elitist you will find some of these sayings to be. Finally, the nebulous terms used raise questions that give the reader the opportunity to answer them in different ways (build in their own assumptions) based on their own desires and knowledge. The real genius is that this saying is a form of name it (define it your way) and claim it (to be true). Unfortunately, the logical and historical inconsistencies render the saying untenable as truth.
What is the author’s basis for this rule?
What is the author’s basis for this rule?
What is the basis for his/their “always” rule? Is it either scientifically or historically proven? Is it even logical? A straightforward reading of the saying before the application or overlapping of any history and/or additional assumptions yields the following meaning: Is he saying that a mediocre mind will realize its mediocrity and then recognize a great spirit and then be so infuriated by the affront to its mediocrity (opposed to it for unknown reason?) that it will always be violent against it??? How is a “great spirit” recognized, especially by a “mediocre mind”? Are they recognized by what they say, what they do or how they look?
The Bible does talk about secular sayings in general “Will they not teach you and tell you, And bring forth words from their minds?” Job 8: 10 In other words, humanists will teach you what they, or other men, made up. Einstein’s humanistic saying in particular is covered by contrast in the Bible “And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force. “For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John”” Matt 11: 12-13 Here God, through Matthew in the 1st century, is telling us that the kingdom of heaven, who is Jesus Himself as prophesied, is the one suffering violence; the violent action coming on the part of those opposed to His kingdom. Notice that the Bible does not use “always” in Matt 11: 12 and that the words “great”, “mediocre” and “violent” are not found together anywhere in the Bible. Logic leads to the assumption that if it was “always”, then no one would then accept salvation.
This saying cannot refer to Christ for the following reasons: The spirit of Christ was never referred to as “great”, Einstein said “great spirits” (multiple), “always” is illogical and not supported by any evidence, “mediocre minds” are not referenced in the passages, and the source of violence is not “mediocre minds” as discussed below.
“Great” “spirits”?
What is the purpose of Einstein to call them “spirits” not persons, minds, or personalities? Why not define and specify what these “great spirits” do to make them great? So who and what are the “great spirits” and equally important, who and what are the “mediocre minds”? Do mediocre minds have spirits? Can mediocre minds have great spirits or are we to surmise that only great minds have or are great spirits?
The Bible does have numerous references to “spirits” which covers all types of entities, and “spirits” are differentiated by what they do. None are referred to as great. The Bible refers to “familiar spirits” as those to be avoided :“regard not them that have familiar spirits”; or part of the corrupted creation or humanity “spirits of all flesh”; or the dead in Shoel “departed s tremble under the waters”, will the departed spirits rise and praise you?; or demon spirit-possession to be removed “power against unclean (evil, wicked) spirits, to cast them out”; or the cause of sickness “sick folks, and them which were vexed (afflicted) with unclean spirits”; or “the spirits of the prophets”; or bad influences “seducing (deceitful) spirits”; or in reference to God “subject to the Father of spirits” and His creation “”Who maketh his angels spirits”, his disciples “ministering spirits”, “spirits of just men made perfect”, those in need “preached unto spirits in prison”; or false prophets “believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God; because many are false prophets”; or “The seven Spirits of God who are before His throne (sent out into all the earth)”. I don’t think he/they are referring to these seven Spirits of God as great, though they would be right to compare these and any other human mind as mediocre relative to them and certainly God (even 100 billion billion human geniuses taken together).
Who is he (they) calling “great spirits”? Is he referring to himself, other great minds, or scientists? If he is referring to the great scientists, especially 20th century scientists, the major countries did everything to get them for their war efforts. They were saved, recruited, and encouraged in their work. There seems to be a need to be, or have, superior people (heroes) on the part of humanists and to call them “great”.
Is he talking about great poets and writers? How about the great sculptors, painters or performing artists? No, there is very little evidence for violent opposition to these, and only a very few examples of political or academic opposition.
Assuming he is talking about Copernicus, Copernicus worked in important positions and lived (free) until his death at age 70 and is buried in the Frombork Cathedral. Legend has it that he died immediately after the first printed copy of his last work was placed in his hands. Is Einstein referring to Galileo, whom he called “the father of modern physics”? After the trial and sentence he was placed under house arrest and later with the help of the Archbishop of Siena, Galileo was allowed to return to his villa near Florence, where he spent the remainder of his life under house arrest and where he wrote his work Two New Sciences. After Galileo’s death at age 77, he was buried first in the adjoining chapel and then reburied in the main body of the Basilica of Santa Croce. Is this his definition of “violent”? Is this the basis of his universal rule?
Now if he is talking about the hundreds of thousands of spirits- the Old Testament prophets, Christ’s disciples and apostles and countless Christian martyrs over the centuries including Tyndale and Luther, who were stoned, crucified, burned alive, hanged, tortured and killed then yes, he is (they are) the closest to being right. Here the historical record is replete with proof.
Is he talking about politicians, generals or kings? How do they separate the great spirits from the mediocre spirits? By their accepted ideology or something more concrete? Were Hitler, Stalin and Mao great? How about the great minds Marx, Darwin, Nietzche and Engels from which the former group got their inspiration? How about Castro and Chavez? Which brings up a very important question? Do “great spirits” have any followers? How about “mediocre- minded” followers? What are the consequences? Does one mediocre-minded follower destroy the “always” argument/rule?
What, if any, is the difference between a great mind and a great spirit? If they are two separate attributes (by their potential definition), can a great mind also be a great spirit? Can a great spirit, or a great mind, ever do harm that would cause even violent opposition? Why not? Did the invention of the atom bomb do harm? Were Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus the Great, Alexander the Great, and Julius Caesar great by their definition? Who is great by their definition?
The millions of Jews who were rounded up and killed during the Holocaust were killed with millions of Christians many of which had directly opposed Hitler and Fascism, and millions of Gypsies and other groups who did not fit the evolutionary paradigm of “fit”. Getting killed for being labeled undesirable is hideous, undeserved, immoral, unethical, and against God’s commandments, being killed does not constitute greatness in and of itself. When evil people round up large numbers of people and wholesale kill them, they would have killed descent hard working people together with others who were not. They would have killed those who tried to live moral lives with those who did not. Fascists expended a great amount of brain power and energy in establishing a propaganda machine, in devising weapons of mass destruction and in devising ways to exterminate the most number of people in the shortest and cheapest ways. Their minds were not mediocre in these endeavors. Is Einstein saying that people can be brilliant in what they do, and mediocre-minded in to whom they do evil? Why not use the correct term “evil”? Why use “mediocre mind”?
“Always encountered violent opposition”?
Since he established an “always” rule, then it applies to all places and time periods raising additional questions. What are the reasons that a mediocre-mind is “always” opposed to the great spirits? Why is it “always” violent? What kind of society is he describing, one without laws? Is he saying that mediocre minds act alone or is he saying that spirits don’t have the kind of minds to mobilize people or to make laws to prevent this violence? Is he (they) saying that great spirits are not violent? Or can a great spirit (great mind?) realize pending danger and pre-emptively strike? Since the “always” rule applies, is he in reality calling for a pre-emptive strike by great spirits (minds) against mediocre minds under the self defense rule? The “always” rule makes the self-defense argument iron clad!
Any ones personal experience is that rejection is not always violent, even for those who fancy themselves great and others mediocre.
To Einstein, are mediocre minds followers or leaders? Can mediocre minds be better leaders than great spirits (minds) such that they can get the support of larger numbers of minds to cause violence to the great?
If leaders have followers, then how do you assign blame for the bad actions of the mediocre-minded followers of a “great spirit” leader? Was Mohammed a great spirit? If the followers of some great leader decide to follow, the letter of that great leader’s rules, who is to blame? How do you assign blame between Marx, Pol Pot and axe-wielding Cambodian teenagers?
Regardless of whether spirit and mind (for Einstein) are one or two attributes, can a great spirit convince the mediocre minds that what the great spirit thinks or does is good for the mediocre minds even if it is not so? Is this not possible?
Is he (they) also saying that great minds do not oppose great spirits? What happens if great minds and great spirits team up? Is such a team ever worthy to be opposed? Does it not more depend on what they are trying to do? If they are opposing what Christ wants, are they great? Can a mediocre minds defend great spirits?
It is natural from context, for a casual observer including Christian, to assume that the great spirits are good (in nature and/or action?) and the mediocre minds (nature) are bad because they do violence (a bad action?) which is assumed physical. What is his (their) legitimate basis for any value judgment-what is good, bad, desirable, etc? They can only speak of what is. The Bible and God tells us what is good and what is bad or evil. Evolution and humanistic thought can only describe what is. According to evolution, competition and death are not only natural, but they are the basis for natural selection which is the basis for evolutionary progress. Under the evolutionary paradigm, violence and death are natural, good and lead to the survival of the fittest, improvement of all species and an increase in complexity (single cell to man) – this is what most evolutionists, Marxists, Fascists and humanists believe. So why do they accept a saying that appears to go counter to the red tooth and claw law? For a few reasons: “Great” is supposed to win in evolution; the “mediocre” are supposed to be replaced by the superior, like they believe the Homo Sapiens replaced the Neanderthals. Second, and more importantly, it is a mediocre mind, not evil, that is defined as the source of problems, where the problem is confined to that of violence. The mere establishment of an absolute rule then delegates all other problems, which we Christians call sins, as less important or even non-existent. It is this last point that creates acceptance and promotion by humanists. Replace ‘great spirits” with “humble spirits” and “mediocre minds” with “evil people” and see what the humanist response is!
When Christ sent out the disciples two by two and told them that when the members of the household they were visiting rejected the message, the disciples were to dust of the dirt from their shoes. That meant that many, regardless of their mental ability, would reject them without violence. Our own personal experience is that rejection is not always violent.
When the apostles went out to preach to all corners of the Roman Empire, they did meet violent resistance but mostly from the elite-The Sanhedrin, the Pharisees and Sadducees, Herod(s), the roman governors, some merchants, some members of the populace, numerous Caesars. But many centurions, merchants, members of Caesar’s court, Pharisees, Jews and gentiles, from all Roman provinces converted, helped the apostles and were themselves martyred. Most who rejected the message (of all intellect and social economic levels) simply ignored them without violence. This universal rule does not match history.
Going back to the words in the saying: Great Spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. There is a natural assumption that the author is referring to an intrinsic nature of those he calls “great” and those he labels “mediocre” because he makes the “always” rule and because he does not qualify what makes each what they are or by what they do. It is also natural assumption from context that the great spirits are good (in nature and/or action?) and the mediocre minds (nature) are bad because they do violence (a bad action?) which is assumed physical. What is his (their) legitimate basis for what is bad? They can only speak of what is. The Bible and God tell us what is good and what is bad.
It is not mediocre minds that cause violence, but what causes violence and other sins comes from what minds, of any ability, desire. “being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;” Rom 1: 30. “Do not be envious of evil men, Nor desire to be with them; For their heart devises violence, And their lips talk of troublemaking.” Prov 24:2 God also tells us that we can set our minds on things of the flesh or on the Spirit which is God (who is elsewhere the only being described as great). “For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.” Rom 8: 5.
Mediocre minds?
The Bible usually refers to the minds (m) in various ways or actions, many times the minds are changing either for the good or bad: “change their minds, speak your m, chafed in their own m, set their m, stirred up the m, minds were hardened, m should be corrupted from, m lead astray, corrupt minds, faint in your own minds, and your pure minds by way of remembrance”.
In the Bible, there are no references to a mental condition being locked into only one action such as violence. Instead, God knows and tests all minds and hearts and judges all actions. “and all the churches will know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts; and I will give to each one of you according to your deeds.” Rev 2:23b. Here and elsewhere the mind and heart are linked together, and the judgment of all individuals is according to their deeds and will be done by God.
The definitions in the Bible of “spirits” and “minds” are clearer and markedly different from Einstein’s terminology. Spirits are not “great” and minds are not referenced as “mediocre”; this is because God gives all people regardless of their mental acuity, the ability and will to either find, learn about, and follow Him or the ability and will to reject. “But their m were blinded” 2 Cor 3:14”
Under Einstein’s saying, can a great spirit have a mediocre mind? Why not, especially if they are defined as two separate attributes. If they are not separate attributes, then his (their) definitions are elitist. Consider his following quote “Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.” Although he sheds a little more light on his definition of “mediocre minds”, how does this translate into “violence” or help define “great” or “spirit”?
Under their saying, can mediocre minds espouse the thoughts of great spirits? Are humanists, by their own potential definition, elitist? Are they great? What is a “mediocre mind” and why can’t it also be a “great spirit”? Is his (their) definition and their reality elitist? Who has a higher potential to do harm, a “great spirit” or a “mediocre-mind”? If you assume that great means ability to do harm, then how does this change you feeling about the saying? Does greatness show up in empire building or the making of weapons of mass destruction?
There are many logical inconsistencies and undefined terms and processes that make this saying useless as wisdom. What makes this saying popular is that a reader can insert their personal assumptions and read into it what want and desire.
The need to define goodness to be based on metal ability is based on their belief that the mind controls all action and that very intelligent people like themselves are better and therefore good. This is seen in the following news headline: Sir Elton John has claimed Jesus was a "super-intelligent gay man" in an interview with a US magazine. Notice how Elton claims Jesus to be someone like himself and see how it fits with Einstein’s definition.
God is in charge and He is the only one who is great
God can always save, but He will or will not save the elect from violence according to His plan. “He delivers me from my enemies. You also lift me up above those who rise against me; You have delivered me from the violent man” Ps 18:48 “Oh Lord, how long shall I cry, And You will not hear? Even cry out to You, “Violence!” And You will not save.” Hab 1:2
God also is in charge and knows what each of us desires. From the passages above and this passage that follows, it is clear that violence comes from desires and not mental ability. “Oh, let the wickedness of the wicked come to an end, But establish the just; For the righteous God tests the hearts and minds. My defense is of God, Who saves the upright in heart. God is a just judge, And God is angry with the wicked every day.” Ps 7:9 This connection is seen more clearly when you realize that heart and mind are linked together in the Scriptures. Are humanists trying to separate themselves from some of the results of their ideas/work. Or are they trying to deny evil by calling it the product of mediocre minds or do they just like the felling of superiority or do they need heroes (these four are not mutually exclusive).
The Bible does talk about secular sayings in general “Will they not teach you and tell you, And bring forth words from their minds?” Job 8: 10 In other words, humanists will teach you what they, or other men, made up. Einstein’s humanistic saying in particular is covered by contrast in the Bible “And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force. “For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John”” Matt 11: 12-13 Here God, through Matthew in the 1st century, is telling us that the kingdom of heaven, who is Jesus Himself as prophesied, is the one suffering violence; the violent action coming on the part of those opposed to His kingdom. Notice that the Bible does not use “always” in Matt 11: 12 and that the words “great”, “mediocre” and “violent” are not found together anywhere in the Bible. Logic leads to the assumption that if it was “always”, then no one would then accept salvation.
This saying cannot refer to Christ for the following reasons: The spirit of Christ was never referred to as “great”, Einstein said “great spirits” (multiple), “always” is illogical and not supported by any evidence, “mediocre minds” are not referenced in the passages, and the source of violence is not “mediocre minds” as discussed below.
“Great” “spirits”?
What is the purpose of Einstein to call them “spirits” not persons, minds, or personalities? Why not define and specify what these “great spirits” do to make them great? So who and what are the “great spirits” and equally important, who and what are the “mediocre minds”? Do mediocre minds have spirits? Can mediocre minds have great spirits or are we to surmise that only great minds have or are great spirits?
The Bible does have numerous references to “spirits” which covers all types of entities, and “spirits” are differentiated by what they do. None are referred to as great. The Bible refers to “familiar spirits” as those to be avoided :“regard not them that have familiar spirits”; or part of the corrupted creation or humanity “spirits of all flesh”; or the dead in Shoel “departed s tremble under the waters”, will the departed spirits rise and praise you?; or demon spirit-possession to be removed “power against unclean (evil, wicked) spirits, to cast them out”; or the cause of sickness “sick folks, and them which were vexed (afflicted) with unclean spirits”; or “the spirits of the prophets”; or bad influences “seducing (deceitful) spirits”; or in reference to God “subject to the Father of spirits” and His creation “”Who maketh his angels spirits”, his disciples “ministering spirits”, “spirits of just men made perfect”, those in need “preached unto spirits in prison”; or false prophets “believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God; because many are false prophets”; or “The seven Spirits of God who are before His throne (sent out into all the earth)”. I don’t think he/they are referring to these seven Spirits of God as great, though they would be right to compare these and any other human mind as mediocre relative to them and certainly God (even 100 billion billion human geniuses taken together).
Who is he (they) calling “great spirits”? Is he referring to himself, other great minds, or scientists? If he is referring to the great scientists, especially 20th century scientists, the major countries did everything to get them for their war efforts. They were saved, recruited, and encouraged in their work. There seems to be a need to be, or have, superior people (heroes) on the part of humanists and to call them “great”.
Is he talking about great poets and writers? How about the great sculptors, painters or performing artists? No, there is very little evidence for violent opposition to these, and only a very few examples of political or academic opposition.
Assuming he is talking about Copernicus, Copernicus worked in important positions and lived (free) until his death at age 70 and is buried in the Frombork Cathedral. Legend has it that he died immediately after the first printed copy of his last work was placed in his hands. Is Einstein referring to Galileo, whom he called “the father of modern physics”? After the trial and sentence he was placed under house arrest and later with the help of the Archbishop of Siena, Galileo was allowed to return to his villa near Florence, where he spent the remainder of his life under house arrest and where he wrote his work Two New Sciences. After Galileo’s death at age 77, he was buried first in the adjoining chapel and then reburied in the main body of the Basilica of Santa Croce. Is this his definition of “violent”? Is this the basis of his universal rule?
Now if he is talking about the hundreds of thousands of spirits- the Old Testament prophets, Christ’s disciples and apostles and countless Christian martyrs over the centuries including Tyndale and Luther, who were stoned, crucified, burned alive, hanged, tortured and killed then yes, he is (they are) the closest to being right. Here the historical record is replete with proof.
Is he talking about politicians, generals or kings? How do they separate the great spirits from the mediocre spirits? By their accepted ideology or something more concrete? Were Hitler, Stalin and Mao great? How about the great minds Marx, Darwin, Nietzche and Engels from which the former group got their inspiration? How about Castro and Chavez? Which brings up a very important question? Do “great spirits” have any followers? How about “mediocre- minded” followers? What are the consequences? Does one mediocre-minded follower destroy the “always” argument/rule?
What, if any, is the difference between a great mind and a great spirit? If they are two separate attributes (by their potential definition), can a great mind also be a great spirit? Can a great spirit, or a great mind, ever do harm that would cause even violent opposition? Why not? Did the invention of the atom bomb do harm? Were Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus the Great, Alexander the Great, and Julius Caesar great by their definition? Who is great by their definition?
The millions of Jews who were rounded up and killed during the Holocaust were killed with millions of Christians many of which had directly opposed Hitler and Fascism, and millions of Gypsies and other groups who did not fit the evolutionary paradigm of “fit”. Getting killed for being labeled undesirable is hideous, undeserved, immoral, unethical, and against God’s commandments, being killed does not constitute greatness in and of itself. When evil people round up large numbers of people and wholesale kill them, they would have killed descent hard working people together with others who were not. They would have killed those who tried to live moral lives with those who did not. Fascists expended a great amount of brain power and energy in establishing a propaganda machine, in devising weapons of mass destruction and in devising ways to exterminate the most number of people in the shortest and cheapest ways. Their minds were not mediocre in these endeavors. Is Einstein saying that people can be brilliant in what they do, and mediocre-minded in to whom they do evil? Why not use the correct term “evil”? Why use “mediocre mind”?
“Always encountered violent opposition”?
Since he established an “always” rule, then it applies to all places and time periods raising additional questions. What are the reasons that a mediocre-mind is “always” opposed to the great spirits? Why is it “always” violent? What kind of society is he describing, one without laws? Is he saying that mediocre minds act alone or is he saying that spirits don’t have the kind of minds to mobilize people or to make laws to prevent this violence? Is he (they) saying that great spirits are not violent? Or can a great spirit (great mind?) realize pending danger and pre-emptively strike? Since the “always” rule applies, is he in reality calling for a pre-emptive strike by great spirits (minds) against mediocre minds under the self defense rule? The “always” rule makes the self-defense argument iron clad!
Any ones personal experience is that rejection is not always violent, even for those who fancy themselves great and others mediocre.
To Einstein, are mediocre minds followers or leaders? Can mediocre minds be better leaders than great spirits (minds) such that they can get the support of larger numbers of minds to cause violence to the great?
If leaders have followers, then how do you assign blame for the bad actions of the mediocre-minded followers of a “great spirit” leader? Was Mohammed a great spirit? If the followers of some great leader decide to follow, the letter of that great leader’s rules, who is to blame? How do you assign blame between Marx, Pol Pot and axe-wielding Cambodian teenagers?
Regardless of whether spirit and mind (for Einstein) are one or two attributes, can a great spirit convince the mediocre minds that what the great spirit thinks or does is good for the mediocre minds even if it is not so? Is this not possible?
Is he (they) also saying that great minds do not oppose great spirits? What happens if great minds and great spirits team up? Is such a team ever worthy to be opposed? Does it not more depend on what they are trying to do? If they are opposing what Christ wants, are they great? Can a mediocre minds defend great spirits?
It is natural from context, for a casual observer including Christian, to assume that the great spirits are good (in nature and/or action?) and the mediocre minds (nature) are bad because they do violence (a bad action?) which is assumed physical. What is his (their) legitimate basis for any value judgment-what is good, bad, desirable, etc? They can only speak of what is. The Bible and God tells us what is good and what is bad or evil. Evolution and humanistic thought can only describe what is. According to evolution, competition and death are not only natural, but they are the basis for natural selection which is the basis for evolutionary progress. Under the evolutionary paradigm, violence and death are natural, good and lead to the survival of the fittest, improvement of all species and an increase in complexity (single cell to man) – this is what most evolutionists, Marxists, Fascists and humanists believe. So why do they accept a saying that appears to go counter to the red tooth and claw law? For a few reasons: “Great” is supposed to win in evolution; the “mediocre” are supposed to be replaced by the superior, like they believe the Homo Sapiens replaced the Neanderthals. Second, and more importantly, it is a mediocre mind, not evil, that is defined as the source of problems, where the problem is confined to that of violence. The mere establishment of an absolute rule then delegates all other problems, which we Christians call sins, as less important or even non-existent. It is this last point that creates acceptance and promotion by humanists. Replace ‘great spirits” with “humble spirits” and “mediocre minds” with “evil people” and see what the humanist response is!
When Christ sent out the disciples two by two and told them that when the members of the household they were visiting rejected the message, the disciples were to dust of the dirt from their shoes. That meant that many, regardless of their mental ability, would reject them without violence. Our own personal experience is that rejection is not always violent.
When the apostles went out to preach to all corners of the Roman Empire, they did meet violent resistance but mostly from the elite-The Sanhedrin, the Pharisees and Sadducees, Herod(s), the roman governors, some merchants, some members of the populace, numerous Caesars. But many centurions, merchants, members of Caesar’s court, Pharisees, Jews and gentiles, from all Roman provinces converted, helped the apostles and were themselves martyred. Most who rejected the message (of all intellect and social economic levels) simply ignored them without violence. This universal rule does not match history.
Going back to the words in the saying: Great Spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. There is a natural assumption that the author is referring to an intrinsic nature of those he calls “great” and those he labels “mediocre” because he makes the “always” rule and because he does not qualify what makes each what they are or by what they do. It is also natural assumption from context that the great spirits are good (in nature and/or action?) and the mediocre minds (nature) are bad because they do violence (a bad action?) which is assumed physical. What is his (their) legitimate basis for what is bad? They can only speak of what is. The Bible and God tell us what is good and what is bad.
It is not mediocre minds that cause violence, but what causes violence and other sins comes from what minds, of any ability, desire. “being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;” Rom 1: 30. “Do not be envious of evil men, Nor desire to be with them; For their heart devises violence, And their lips talk of troublemaking.” Prov 24:2 God also tells us that we can set our minds on things of the flesh or on the Spirit which is God (who is elsewhere the only being described as great). “For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.” Rom 8: 5.
Mediocre minds?
The Bible usually refers to the minds (m) in various ways or actions, many times the minds are changing either for the good or bad: “change their minds, speak your m, chafed in their own m, set their m, stirred up the m, minds were hardened, m should be corrupted from, m lead astray, corrupt minds, faint in your own minds, and your pure minds by way of remembrance”.
In the Bible, there are no references to a mental condition being locked into only one action such as violence. Instead, God knows and tests all minds and hearts and judges all actions. “and all the churches will know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts; and I will give to each one of you according to your deeds.” Rev 2:23b. Here and elsewhere the mind and heart are linked together, and the judgment of all individuals is according to their deeds and will be done by God.
The definitions in the Bible of “spirits” and “minds” are clearer and markedly different from Einstein’s terminology. Spirits are not “great” and minds are not referenced as “mediocre”; this is because God gives all people regardless of their mental acuity, the ability and will to either find, learn about, and follow Him or the ability and will to reject. “But their m were blinded” 2 Cor 3:14”
Under Einstein’s saying, can a great spirit have a mediocre mind? Why not, especially if they are defined as two separate attributes. If they are not separate attributes, then his (their) definitions are elitist. Consider his following quote “Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.” Although he sheds a little more light on his definition of “mediocre minds”, how does this translate into “violence” or help define “great” or “spirit”?
Under their saying, can mediocre minds espouse the thoughts of great spirits? Are humanists, by their own potential definition, elitist? Are they great? What is a “mediocre mind” and why can’t it also be a “great spirit”? Is his (their) definition and their reality elitist? Who has a higher potential to do harm, a “great spirit” or a “mediocre-mind”? If you assume that great means ability to do harm, then how does this change you feeling about the saying? Does greatness show up in empire building or the making of weapons of mass destruction?
There are many logical inconsistencies and undefined terms and processes that make this saying useless as wisdom. What makes this saying popular is that a reader can insert their personal assumptions and read into it what want and desire.
The need to define goodness to be based on metal ability is based on their belief that the mind controls all action and that very intelligent people like themselves are better and therefore good. This is seen in the following news headline: Sir Elton John has claimed Jesus was a "super-intelligent gay man" in an interview with a US magazine. Notice how Elton claims Jesus to be someone like himself and see how it fits with Einstein’s definition.
God is in charge and He is the only one who is great
God can always save, but He will or will not save the elect from violence according to His plan. “He delivers me from my enemies. You also lift me up above those who rise against me; You have delivered me from the violent man” Ps 18:48 “Oh Lord, how long shall I cry, And You will not hear? Even cry out to You, “Violence!” And You will not save.” Hab 1:2
God also is in charge and knows what each of us desires. From the passages above and this passage that follows, it is clear that violence comes from desires and not mental ability. “Oh, let the wickedness of the wicked come to an end, But establish the just; For the righteous God tests the hearts and minds. My defense is of God, Who saves the upright in heart. God is a just judge, And God is angry with the wicked every day.” Ps 7:9 This connection is seen more clearly when you realize that heart and mind are linked together in the Scriptures. Are humanists trying to separate themselves from some of the results of their ideas/work. Or are they trying to deny evil by calling it the product of mediocre minds or do they just like the felling of superiority or do they need heroes (these four are not mutually exclusive).
© 2009 Biblicaltruthandscience All rights reserved
No comments:
Post a Comment