Bertrand Russell - FISH!!!

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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-.

[/ QUOTE ]
You picked one instance that didn't make your case in the slightest. The silly polemic is embarrassing.

chez

[kurto]

There seems to be a trend of Notready posts where he insults anyone making an argument against his Faith.

[JayTee]

[ QUOTE ]
This bit is so ridiculous an 8th grader could rip it to shreds.

[/ QUOTE ]

An illiterate man would recognize this as hyperbole. If you have a valid point, why is there a need to preface it with this drivel?

[ QUOTE ]
1. I searched the KJV NT and found the word wailing 4 tmes. Only 2 of those were "wailing and gnashing of teeth", same chapter about 8 verses apart.

That really is all that's necessary to show the idiocy of Russell in this work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it was exactly 8 verses. Is that all that is necessary to show the "idiocy" (once again, note the hyperbole) of your work? All that you have "shown" is that perhaps Russell could have worded himself better in a sentence that he wrote.

[ 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 would venture to guess that Russel was somewhat well-read when it came to the Bible. Maybe though, he lacked YOUR understanding. Either way I find it far from obvious that this is the case.

It is this mentality that reaffirms my belief in the amount of intellectual damage done by your religion. Why did you read Russell in the first place? Was it to expose your mind to new ideas? Was it for the purpose of finding a few sentences to copy, paste, and intentionally mischaracterize in an attempt, not to promote discussion, but to reassure yourself of your own irrational beliefs? Or something else?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

An illiterate man would recognize this as hyperbole. If you have a valid point, why is there a need to preface it with this drivel?


[/ QUOTE ]

In this instance it wasn't intended as hyperbole. I think the book is that bad. One reason I think that is I first picked up the book within two months after I became a Christian at the age of 22 with no formal training in philosophy or logic, no real understanding as yet of the Bible or Christian doctrine and no experience in defending the faith. After reading a couple pages I easily dismissed this joke as any kind of problem for any thinking person, Christian or atheist.

[ QUOTE ]

All that you have "shown" is that perhaps Russell could have worded himself better in a sentence that he wrote.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's obviously not just a question of wording.

[ QUOTE ]

I would venture to guess that Russel was somewhat well-read when it came to the Bible.


[/ QUOTE ]

This instance and others make this unlikely. He probably read the Gospels, I doubt more than once or twice. I see little evidence that he has any familiarity with the OT, ancient Israel, the ancient Near East, Bible interpretation, Christian doctrine or church history. He may have been an expert in all of that, The opposite appears from this.

[NotReady]

OK, I admit I was running a little experiment here. The points I listed for why Russell's argument is silly are valid but there's a much more important reason which I intentionally withheld out of curiosity whether anyone else would notice.

The quoted section of the book is under the heading The Moral Problem in which Russell claims there was a moral defect in the character of Christ. His reason for this allegation is, and I quote, "that He believed in hell." The reason his argument here is faulty is very simple but very important because the same mistake is made by many anti-Christians. <font color="red">If Christ is right that hell exists He would be immoral not to repeatedly warn about it. </font> Russell never considers this question.

A simple illustration. I believe if you open the door to that room you will be killed by a man-eating tiger. I tell you that, warn you, plead with you not to go in there. I genuinely believe the tiger is there. If I say nothing because doing so would frighten you, by Russell's logic I am more moral than if I warn you. Please note that whether the tiger exists or not isn't of primary importance to the question of my moral character.

Mischief Managed.
QED

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Aquinas quote does not imply taking sadistic pleasure in the torments of the damned. It implies being more thankful and grateful to God for saving them from the terrible sufferings of Hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any evidence for this? No, of course not. You just believe that because that's what you want it to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

Moronic. Unlike you, I am familiar with the writings of Aquinas, and also unlike you, I can read in context without ill will. From the Summa Theologica Question 94 Article 3:

"I answer that, A thing may be a matter of rejoicing in two ways. First directly, when one rejoices in a thing as such: and thus the saints will not rejoice in the punishment of the wicked. Secondly, indirectly, by reason namely of something annexed to it: and in this way the saints will rejoice in the punishment of the wicked,by considering therein the order of Divine justice and their own deliverance, which will fill them with joy.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The quoted section of the book is under the heading The Moral Problem in which Russell claims there was a moral defect in the character of Christ. His reason for this allegation is, and I quote, "that He believed in hell." The reason his argument here is faulty is very simple but very important because the same mistake is made by many anti-Christians. If Christ is right that hell exists He would be immoral not to repeatedly warn about it. Russell never considers this question.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh you are quite right, shooting the messenger is an elementary and unforgivable error.

Russell must have thought Christ had some special status.

You should also consider if Russell was talking of belief in the moral validity of hell rather than belief in hell's existance.

chez

[JayTee]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, I admit I was running a little experiment here. The points I listed for why Russell's argument is silly are valid but there's a much more important reason which I intentionally withheld out of curiosity whether anyone else would notice.

The quoted section of the book is under the heading The Moral Problem in which Russell claims there was a moral defect in the character of Christ. His reason for this allegation is, and I quote, "that He believed in hell." The reason his argument here is faulty is very simple but very important because the same mistake is made by many anti-Christians. <font color="red">If Christ is right that hell exists He would be immoral not to repeatedly warn about it. </font> Russell never considers this question.

A simple illustration. I believe if you open the door to that room you will be killed by a man-eating tiger. I tell you that, warn you, plead with you not to go in there. I genuinely believe the tiger is there. If I say nothing because doing so would frighten you, by Russell's logic I am more moral than if I warn you. Please note that whether the tiger exists or not isn't of primary importance to the question of my moral character.

Mischief Managed.
QED

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, I think that the quoted section must be read in the context of the entire piece, especially with the preceding section "Defects in Christ's Teaching"

I think Russell is using this statement as a reason against the idea that Jesus the son of God ever existed. If I were to take for granted that he believed in hell then I should believe all of the other accounts of his life, including the resurrection. I don't do this. If this character in the Bible believed in eternal punishment how can I conclude that he is a model of morality that I should use as a guide to how I live my life? I don't like the idea of eternal punishment, it offends my sense of morality. The burden of proof is upon those making the claims of Jesus' existence. Russell isn't attempting to disprove Christ's existence he is merely making an argument against it.

I'll let others judge your analogy for themselves.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

First of all, I think that the quoted section must be read in the context of the entire piece, especially with the
preceding section "Defects in Christ's Teaching"

I think Russell is using this statement as a reason against the idea that Jesus the son of God ever existed.


[/ QUOTE ]

And people accuse Christians of interpreting the Bible any way they want.

[ QUOTE ]

Russell isn't attempting to disprove Christ's existence he is merely making an argument against it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Got to be the joke of the day.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
And people accuse Christians of interpreting the Bible any way they want.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Russell isn't attempting to disprove Christ's existence he is merely making an argument against it.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Got to be the joke of the day.


[/ QUOTE ]
This would explain much of your confusion. Russell is explaining why he doesn't believe christianity is true (the clue is in the title). Basically why its irrational to be a christian.

Its not an attempt to disprove christianity. They are not the same thing, its quite possible for it to be irrational to believe something that happens to be true.

Also bear in mind that some of it is personal and may not apply to everyone.

chez