Bertrand Russell - FISH!!! - Page 2

NotReady · #11 03-14-2007, 09:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]

How does this mesh with the idea that God wants everyone to be saved?

[/ QUOTE ]

The quote from Russell concerned the moral character of Jesus. Russell made an invalid inference based on a flawed interpretation while making an incorrect statement about Biblical content. The issue of whether God wants everyone saved unconditionally and how He views those who reject Him were not involved in the content of Russell's book. The only issue was whether Jesus takes pleasure at the suffering of humans.

This thread is about Russell and the stupidity of his book. My quote counters his allegations. Your quote raises a different issue. There are plenty of Bible quotes about God's love and also His judgment. I've commented on these issues many times and if you want a new thread on that I'm sure I will participate.

chezlaw · #12 03-14-2007, 09:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How does this mesh with the idea that God wants everyone to be saved?

[/ QUOTE ]

The quote from Russell concerned the moral character of Jesus. Russell made an invalid inference based on a flawed interpretation while making an incorrect statement about Biblical content. The issue of whether God wants everyone saved unconditionally and how He views those who reject Him were not involved in the content of Russell's book. The only issue was whether Jesus takes pleasure at the suffering of humans.

This thread is about Russell and the stupidity of his book. My quote counters his allegations. Your quote raises a different issue. There are plenty of Bible quotes about God's love and also His judgment. I've commented on these issues many times and if you want a new thread on that I'm sure I will participate.

[/ QUOTE ]We calready knew you think the book stupid - the quote adds nothing to that.

Nor does it demonstrate anything that you claim it does. By flawed interpretation you just mean different to yours - do you really think russell was denying people like you would have different interpretations?

All your saying is that assuming you're right, Russell was wrong [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

chez

revots33 · #13 03-14-2007, 11:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
2. It is in no wise manifest that Christ took pleasure in contemplating the wailing and gnashing of teeth. Russell is quite obviously reading that into the text because of the absence of understanding he has of the Bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that interpreting whether Jesus took "pleasure" in contemplating the suffering of nonbelievers is dependent on who is doing the reading. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Probably had to be there to know for sure. I'd actually think he probably didn't take any pleasure in it, but I could be wrong.

But I don't see how this discredits WIANAC, which IMO is a very thoughtful and well-reasoned argument against Christianity overall.

The overall point Russell is making is valid whether the word wailing appears once or 50 times. The words hell, fire, damnation, torment, etc. appear many times in both testaments and the message is the same: those who don't believe will be tortured for eternity. I think the average Christian's casual acceptance of this fact is what Russell has a problem with.

NotReady · #14 03-14-2007, 12:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]

The overall point Russell is making is valid whether the word wailing appears once or 50 times.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think is that point? Are we talking about this passage, the book as a whole, what?

chezlaw · #15 03-14-2007, 12:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The overall point Russell is making is valid whether the word wailing appears once or 50 times.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think is that point? Are we talking about this passage, the book as a whole, what?

[/ QUOTE ]
As you're the one so convinced his point is wrong, you must be pretty sure you know what his point was.

So you tell us, then if we think you're wrong this thread can be put to rest as it wont be about whether Russell's point is wrong but whether you're wrong about his point.

chez

IronUnkind · #16 03-14-2007, 12:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The words hell, fire, damnation, torment, etc. appear many times in both testaments and the message is the same:

[/ QUOTE ]
The word "hell" in scriptures.

Skidoo · #17 03-14-2007, 12:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The words hell, fire, damnation, torment, etc. appear many times in both testaments and the message is the same: those who don't believe will be tortured for eternity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Eternal torture as a punishment for unbelief does not appear anywhere in the Bible.

IronUnkind · #18 03-14-2007, 12:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It comes in one verse after another, and it is quite manifest to the reader that there is a certain pleasure in contemplating wailing and gnashing of teeth, or else it would not occur so often.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chez:

The pleasure which Russell infers is predicated upon the repetition of certain imagery. If no such repetition occurs, then this argument falls apart. Is this a matter of opinion?

The passage Russell references repeats the phrase "wailing and gnashing" once. This alone doesn't undermine the entire piece, but it is symptomatic of a lazy exegesis which ought to be criticized.

chezlaw · #19 03-14-2007, 12:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It comes in one verse after another, and it is quite manifest to the reader that there is a certain pleasure in contemplating wailing and gnashing of teeth, or else it would not occur so often.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chez:

The pleasure which Russell infers is predicated upon the repetition of certain imagery. If no such repetition occurs, then this argument falls apart. Is this a matter of opinion?

The passage Russell references repeats the phrase "wailing and gnashing" once. This alone doesn't undermine the entire piece, but it is symptomatic of a lazy exegesis which ought to be criticized.

[/ QUOTE ]
If there's no repetition of the sentiment then fair enough but even NotReady found it twice and he restricted himself to precise wording.

How often the sentiment is manefest to the reader depends on the reader but it was how Russell (and many others) see it. Russell is not saying that people who don't read it that way shouldn't be Christians because he (Russell) sees it that way.

Anyway that's absolutely no logical fallacy and arguing over different textual analysis of the bible is not for me.

chez

NotReady · #20 03-14-2007, 01:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]

This alone doesn't undermine the entire piece, but it is symptomatic of a lazy exegesis which ought to be criticized.

[/ QUOTE ]

I only picked one instance. The whole thing is sloppy, erroneous, obviously ignorant of much of the Bible, poorly reasoned and logically flawed. The reason I pick on it is Russell was a professional philosopher, logician and mathematician. If this was a college term paper the best grade it could get, at least in his day, would be D-.