why i'm not a christian

[semmie]

have any of y'all read Why I'm Not A Christian, by Bertrand Russell???? it's actually an essay based off of a lecture he made at some point in his life. but it is featured in a book of his essays bearing the same title. i'm looking for some opinions and responses to the essay. like...

1. do you find that russell's evidence is fair? a):...is it appropriate for him to attack the character of christians under the heading of "the character of christ" ? b): is it appropriate for him to declare religion as the foundation for modern intolerance and cruelties (i.e. slavery, ethnic cleansing, facism, etc.)

2. if russell honestly doesn't believe that christ is an historical figure, why doesn't he just give us his evidence for that decision (instead of attempting to disprove christ's deity and goodness) ?

3. is religion based on fear, as russell claims? and if so, is that a bad thing?

4. does it bother you that russell makes zero distinction between "christian" and "catholic" ?

and 5. do you agree with russell's definition of "christian" ? [must have a): belief in god & immortality, and b): belief in christ as the "best and wisest of men." and furthermore, c): a belief in hell is not necessary.]

and i guess the ultimate question that i'm facing is this: if russell is an atheist (and from reading his other works, i've assumed he is), why doesn't he write a description of the evidence and foundation of his atheism....instaed of trying to attack the evidences that some use for christianity (which he does poorly, i might add)?

[Jaltus]

He became an atheist simply by not being a Christian. At that point in time, you were either a Christian or an atheist, so he went for the latter.

[semmie]

so.....that is to say.....his rejection of christianity was the reasoning behind his atheism?

doesn't seem right to me. i guess it explains why he wrote the way he did, though...:shrug:

[Vorkosigan]

He became an atheist simply by not being a Christian. At that point in time, you were either a Christian or an atheist, so he went for the latter.

Of course! All other modes of human religious expression came into existence after the first half of the twentieth century. :uhoh:

Vorkosigan

[Vorkosigan]

1. do you find that russell's evidence is fair? a):...is it appropriate for him to attack the character of christians under the heading of "the character of christ" ? b): is it appropriate for him to declare religion as the foundation for modern intolerance and cruelties (i.e. slavery, ethnic cleansing, facism, etc.)

Er..Yes. There is nothing inappropriate about making the argument. What didn't you feel was fair?


2. if russell honestly doesn't believe that christ is an historical figure, why doesn't he just give us his evidence for that decision (instead of attempting to disprove christ's deity and goodness) ?

Why does he need to supply evidence? He gives his opinion that the existence of Jesus is historically doubtful, says the question doesn't interest him much, and moves on. It's really not important whether Jesus lived; what counts are what his followers are doing. Thus, for Russell, other issues, such as ethics and morality, were of greater concern, at least the way I read him.

3. is religion based on fear, as russell claims? and if so, is that a bad thing?

Yes, and yes.

4. does it bother you that russell makes zero distinction between "christian" and "catholic" ?

All Catholics are Christian. There isn't any distinction between them.

and i guess the ultimate question that i'm facing is this: if russell is an atheist (and from reading his other works, i've assumed he is), why doesn't he write a description of the evidence and foundation of his atheism

The book's title is not WHY I AM AN ATHEIST but WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN. That probably goes a long way toward explaining why the book attacks Christianity.

Vorkosigan

[semmie]

thanks for your feedback, vork!!!


Er..Yes. There is nothing inappropriate about making the argument. What didn't you feel was fair?
what i felt was less than appropriate (and less than fair) was that he labeled the particular passage "the character of christ" or something to that extent, and he then goes on to speak of the morality of christians--NOT christ. if he wants to debunk christianity by virtue of the lack of morality in CHRISTIANS, then his argument is fair and appropriate. but if he's going to say that we're talking about the character of CHRIST, then i'm not sure why he's so concerned about those who are not christ.:shrug:

Why does he need to supply evidence? He gives his opinion that the existence of Jesus is historically doubtful, says the question doesn't interest him much, and moves on. It's really not important whether Jesus lived; what counts are what his followers are doing. Thus, for Russell, other issues, such as ethics and morality, were of greater concern, at least the way I read him.
i guess i totally disagree with you. if jesus didn't exist, then there's no point in arguing about his character, or the characters of those who profess him. and...if "what counts are what his followers are doing" then russell needs to stop pretending that his attack is against christ himself, and needs to call it what it is...an attack on "the character of christendom."

is religion based on fear, as russell claims? and if so, is that a bad thing? Yes, and yes.
what is fear? i fear my father's discipline, too. is that a bad thing?

All Catholics are Christian. There isn't any distinction between them.
not all christians, however, are catholic. there is and should be a distinction made if he is going to attack a particular group of christians.

The book's title is not WHY I AM AN ATHEIST but WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN. That probably goes a long way toward explaining why the book attacks Christianity.
well said, but i think i disagree with you. russell very obviously has theologies and ideas about god. i just wonder why he doesn't defend HIS beliefs, instead of trying to debunk someone else's (which he does rather pitifully, i think).

[KingDavid8]

I don't quite understand those who say that religion is based on fear. Fear of what, exactly?

Fear of hell? Since non-religious people don't believe in hell, how is a fear of hell going to drive them to religion?

Fear of death? Since non-religious people believe that when we die, no part of us lives on, then what part of that should we be afraid of? If nothing comes after, then I guess we religious types are afraid of nothing!

I suppose one could argue that, if one believes that God exists, a fear of hell could convince them to try to be within the will of God. But a fear of hell (or a fear of death) doesn't seem to be a likely candidate to cause someone to believe in God in the first place.

David

[semmie]

Today @ 07:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80392#post80392)
KingDavid8:

I don't quite understand those who say that religion is based on fear. Fear of what, exactly?

Fear of hell? Since non-religious people don't believe in hell, how is a fear of hell going to drive them to religion?

Fear of death? Since non-religious people believe that when we die, no part of us lives on, then what part of that should we be afraid of? If nothing comes after, then I guess we religious types are afraid of nothing!

I suppose one could argue that, if one believes that God exists, a fear of hell could convince them to try to be within the will of God. But a fear of hell (or a fear of death) doesn't seem to be a likely candidate to cause someone to believe in God in the first place.

David

i'm kinda with ya there. i don't think that my faith is based on fear. i think it's based on trust and love. :shrug: but at the same time, i can see why folks would think religion is based on fear. have you read Russell's essay? i would highly recommend it. he does a decent job of explaining his stance on fear--that we are afraid of some big guy in the sky who's gonna smite us.....or that we are simply afraid of being alone. yes...if you've not read it, please do. i don't think any non-christian has stated the "fear" case as well as Russell does.

but even at that, it's not very effective, i don't think. sure...i'll be the first to admit that there are some extreme forms of so-called "christianity" out there that promote fear-driven conversions. instead of preaching the gospel, as we're called to do, they preach hellfire to those who refuse to be humbled before other men.

frankly, it's more than disturbing, and it plays a serious role in our culture thinking christianity is a joke, i think. after all...we make it this big EMOTIONAL thing....

are you afraid of burning in hell? come bow your knee! ask jesus into your heart! he'll make you happy, and he'll take all your troubles away!

Russell may be correct that religion makes "fear" a footstool. but there is more than one type of fear, last i heard. fear can mean...terror--which i think Russell is referring to; it can mean....reverence and humility--which i have for my brother in law who's a marine corps sergeant who could snuff my life out in about five seconds; it can mean....despair over the consequences of a particular situation. i'm sure there are more, but those seem to be the obvious to me. and if Russell (and volk) are telling us that our faith is based on terror--i would entirely disagree. if they want to say it is based on reverence and humility--then i'm alright with that.

at any rate...it still leaves most of my questions unanswered.

i wonder.....if religion is based on fear....then....VOLK....(this question's for you)...what is atheism based on??? confidence? intellect? skepticism? something completely different?

[Patroclus]

Today @ 06:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80006#post80006)
Vorkosigan:

3. is religion based on fear, as russell claims? and if so, is that a bad thing?

Yes, and yes.


I think this is a poor generalization. Yeah, of course there is some fear involved. But, considerring the history of religion, I think the argument can be made that it begins with a curiosity of those things that we cannot fully explain. For instance, why do we fear? Of course, if you are some eliminative materialist you can just say that it is an instinctual reaction that can be overcome by proper mental training. And it may be insinctual. But the obvious question is "why?"

I do not doubt that some people are motivated by fear. But, if fear was the motivation, don't you think that people would be virtually unable to make a decision and be happy with it? There are many religions, and more than one teaches divine retribution.

I think, in healthy cases, the motivations include, fear, commitment, faith, desire for love, etc. An unhealthy faith would be relient on only one.

[Bob Jenkins]

[quote]
1. do you find that russell's evidence is fair? a):...is it appropriate for him to attack the character of christians under the heading of "the character of christ" ? b): is it appropriate for him to declare religion as the foundation for modern intolerance and cruelties (i.e. slavery, ethnic cleansing, facism, etc.)

[comment]
Is it not fair to judge a religion based on the behavior of it's adherents?

[quote]
3. is religion based on fear, as russell claims? and if so, is that a bad thing?

Yes, and yes.

[comment]
I would suggest that a religion also originates in seeking answers to mysteries. The first religions were very primatively concerned with nature's cycles and gods seemed to statisfy the questions. Now, of course, we have the Agriculture Department...

[Woman]

semmie,

Are you a student?

[Bob Jenkins]

[quote]
if russell is an atheist (and from reading his other works, i've assumed he is), why doesn't he write a description of the evidence and foundation of his atheism....

[comment]
Russel has written of his beleifs and it begins on page 46 of my copy of the book you refer to and goes on through page 87

[Bob Jenkins]

[quote from Patroclus]
I do not doubt that some people are motivated by fear. But, if fear was the motivation, don't you think that people would be virtually unable to make a decision and be happy with it? There are many religions, and more than one teaches divine retribution.

I think, in healthy cases, the motivations include, fear, commitment, faith, desire for love, etc. An unhealthy faith would be relient on only one.

[comment]
I would not think that the fear that "freezes" people is what is being talked about. That would be a mental disorder.

However, there are several other fears that play a role in religion. Fear of death regardless of a beleif of eternal retribution.. Fear of being alone, fear of being banished from your community, fear of not having a mate with which to reproduce one's self - all corresponding to your desire of love..

In the days of Inquisition fear of death or torture played a dual role. It converted many jews to Christianity and strenghted the "faith" of the faithful who did not want to be a target of the Inquisition.

I think these are some of the fears that went into establishment of personal and community faith. Today we can add the fear of ridicule, the fear of osterization, fear of secular and subtle retribution..

I am an open atheist here on TWeb but I do not make a point of being public about my views.. My silence partly protects my wife's job and our circle of friends. It protects me from predudicial ruling from the courts so I dont ask that I be given the "athiest" oath so I have to figurately cross my fingers when "so help me God" comes around. At least here, there are few (if any) with power to disrupt my life and there is still a great deal of anonymity. However that does not stop the belittlement engendered by my atheistic views..

[semmie]

04-27-2003 @ 09:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80467#post80467)
Bob Jenkins:

Is it not fair to judge a religion based on the behavior of it's adherents?



yes and no, bob. sure, i think followers of a religion should be an indication of the morality and character of a religious idea. however....#a: i do not think that you can judge christianity based on the poor example of so-called "christians." were we to hold such a standard for all religions, we would find (no doubt in my mind) that all of man's philosophies have been abused and misused. that does not reflect on the character of the philosophy, necessarily, but the character of the PEOPLE claiming it. and #b: i don't think you can judge christ--THE PERSON--based on folks who follow him. do we judge the character of mohammed on the basis of how muslims today act? no--at least, we shouldn't. and neither should we judget he character of jesus on the basis of modern-day people who profess to believe a certain way.


04-27-2003 @ 10:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80476#post80476)
Woman:

semmie,

Are you a student?

uhm.....i'm not currently enrolled in classes, if that's what you mean. :smile: i took a year off, because i was not doing well in my social work classes--i was spending more time reading things like "Why I'm Not A Christian" than i was attending classes and reading textbooks. i will be returning in the fall to complete my BS in social work.....i think. out of curiosity....why do you ask???

bob...by the way....i'm aware that russell speaks of his religions beliefs in the book. but why go to the trouble of attacking christianity? did he have something to prove?

[Bob Jenkins]

“ 04-27-2003 @ 09:51 PM post located here
Bob Jenkins:

Is it not fair to judge a religion based on the behavior of it's adherents?

”



yes and no, bob. sure, i think followers of a religion should be an indication of the morality and character of a religious idea. however....#a: i do not think that you can judge christianity based on the poor example of so-called "christians." were we to hold such a standard for all religions, we would find (no doubt in my mind) that all of man's philosophies have been abused and misused. that does not reflect on the character of the philosophy, necessarily, but the character of the PEOPLE claiming it. and #b: i don't think you can judge christ--THE PERSON--based on folks who follow him. do we judge the character of mohammed on the basis of how muslims today act? no--at least, we shouldn't. and neither should we judget he character of jesus on the basis of modern-day people who profess to believe a certain way.

[comment]
I tend to agree with you - especially what is contained in #b.. But I think #a needs a little tweaking before we can both agree on it. How about adding this to the pot A religious idea is judged subjectively but is only one element of a religion. The "people" you mentioned can also be divided into followers and leaders. I can make very little judgement based on the behavior of followers. (we all sin etc..) However, those in leadership roles have power the followers do and consequently thier behavior is more critical to my judgement. Hypocracy is added to the ordinary sins/evils when committed by leaders.

I'm afraid this response is not as clear as I would like it to be but I'm stymied

[Bob Jenkins]

From semmie

bob...by the way....i'm aware that russell speaks of his religions beliefs in the book. but why go to the trouble of attacking christianity? did he have something to prove?

[comment]
Why Christianity instead of Islam, for example? I'd be lying if I said I knew why - all I have is conjecture.

It could be that Russel knows more about it than any other. I think his main expertise is Western philosophy which would have close ties to Western religion. Since Christianity is the overwhelmingly dominate religion in the West. it makes sense to "kick your own dog rather than the neighbors"

What he says about the evil in Christianity, I'm sure, have correspondences in other world religions. There are points made against Christianity that are applicable to them as well.

It could be also true in answer to your question about something to prove. Some of the forward and the entire appendix chronicle a persecution notable for it's malevelance, intoleration,.and perversion. Could this be "baggage" that prompts his writing this way? Perhaps.....perhaps not (I lean toward the perhaps not)

I see the same thing (although milder) in TWeb and felt some of those stings and arrows myself. I am amazed at the amount of hatred displayed in a forum for a "loving" creed in a country that prizes freedom. Russel makes a very good case about the harm Christianity causes. (Don't worry, I'm not about to repeat the rant I had in another thread - not here anyway)

[Vorkosigan]

Sorry! I didn't mean to imply that religion is based only on fear. I personally think it has a number of roots including (1)teleological thinking built into the human brain (2) our sociality (3) fear of death and loneliness and so on. Monocausality is nonsense.

what i felt was less than appropriate (and less than fair) was that he labeled the particular passage "the character of christ" or something to that extent, and he then goes on to speak of the morality of christians--NOT christ. if he wants to debunk christianity by virtue of the lack of morality in CHRISTIANS, then his argument is fair and appropriate. but if he's going to say that we're talking about the character of CHRIST, then i'm not sure why he's so concerned about those who are not christ.

Hmmm.... did we read the same book? On pages 22-24 there are extensive remarks both on the moral nature of Jesus. For example, Russell critized Jesus for believing in Hell, and so on.


i guess i totally disagree with you. if jesus didn't exist, then there's no point in arguing about his character, or the characters of those who profess him. and...if "what counts are what his followers are doing" then russell needs to stop pretending that his attack is against christ himself, and needs to call it what it is...an attack on "the character of christendom."

I sort of agree with you, but I can also see Russell's point of view. Christians are people who think Jesus existed; so attacking his character might be an important way to refute his ideas. Its not important to Russell whether he existed, but it important to Christians, right? So it is best if Russell behaved as though Jesus existed.

V: The book's title is not WHY I AM AN ATHEIST but WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN. That probably goes a long way toward explaining why the book attacks Christianity.

S: well said, but i think i disagree with you. russell very obviously has theologies and ideas about god. i just wonder why he doesn't defend HIS beliefs, instead of trying to debunk someone else's (which he does rather pitifully, i think).

Well, all I can say is, that's not really what the book is about. In any case, there is a debate there where Russell does deal with this topic.

Vorkosigan

[semmie]

04-29-2003 @ 10:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82649#post82649)
Bob Jenkins:



[comment]
I tend to agree with you - especially what is contained in #b.. But I think #a needs a little tweaking before we can both agree on it. How about adding this to the pot A religious idea is judged subjectively but is only one element of a religion. The "people" you mentioned can also be divided into followers and leaders. I can make very little judgement based on the behavior of followers. (we all sin etc..) However, those in leadership roles have power the followers do and consequently thier behavior is more critical to my judgement. Hypocracy is added to the ordinary sins/evils when committed by leaders.

I'm afraid this response is not as clear as I would like it to be but I'm stymied

a religious idea is judged subjectively? hm. okay, i'll agree with that. does that mean that the idea itself is subject to judging based on the character of its so-called followers? i think not. ideas and philosophies cannot and should not be judged based on human behavior. do i think it would strongly help the christians case if she were a little bit more adherent to a christ-like lifestyle? i certainly do. but should that be the evidence for or against the truth of christ's words? heavens, no! especially not in a modern (or modern at Russell's time) culture, where folks don't even have to read their bibles and know about christ in order to profess "christianity."

you also said: "I can make very little judgement based on the behavior of followers." is that so? because that is exactly my point. that is what russell is trying to do. if he wants to judge the RELIGION of christianity based on the actions of the followers, then maybe we'd have a different scenario. but again, he puts all of this under the heading "the character of christ."


04-30-2003 @ 03:48 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82848#post82848)
Bob Jenkins:



[comment]
Why Christianity instead of Islam, for example? I'd be lying if I said I knew why - all I have is conjecture.

It could be that Russel knows more about it than any other. I think his main expertise is Western philosophy which would have close ties to Western religion. Since Christianity is the overwhelmingly dominate religion in the West. it makes sense to "kick your own dog rather than the neighbors"

What he says about the evil in Christianity, I'm sure, have correspondences in other world religions. There are points made against Christianity that are applicable to them as well.

It could be also true in answer to your question about something to prove. Some of the forward and the entire appendix chronicle a persecution notable for it's malevelance, intoleration,.and perversion. Could this be "baggage" that prompts his writing this way? Perhaps.....perhaps not (I lean toward the perhaps not)

I see the same thing (although milder) in TWeb and felt some of those stings and arrows myself. I am amazed at the amount of hatred displayed in a forum for a "loving" creed in a country that prizes freedom. Russel makes a very good case about the harm Christianity causes. (Don't worry, I'm not about to repeat the rant I had in another thread - not here anyway)

"What he says about the evil in Christianity, I'm sure, have correspondences in other world religions." i bet they even have correspondances in his religion. hehe. see, i fail to see it as a connection of "religious ideas"....i see it as a connection of human behavior; therefore, it is inappropriate to judge an idea OR a single person based on the actions of people living thousands of years after the fact.

do we judge mohammed based on the actions of osama bin laden? i think not. should we? i think not. do some? i'm sure some do...that makes them just as erred as mr. russell.

"I am amazed at the amount of hatred displayed in a forum for a "loving" creed in a country that prizes freedom." #a: we are not all "hating." #b: even if we were, would that nullify the creed itself? or would it prove only that we have a not so great handle on love? and #c: i think in that case, we would have to come to a common definition on the term "love." according to a christian, love should be defined as: patient, kind, not envious, not boastful, not proud, not self-seeking....etc...all that 1cor. 13 stuff. but again, if we fail to walk perfectly, does that nullify our message or our creed? i just don't think it does.

and lastly, you said: "Russel makes a very good case about the harm Christianity causes." i don't think i could disagree with you more. perhaps we should make distinction between christianity and the catholic church....or the pentecostal church....or ANY church. it doesn't matter. in every organized denominational gathering (under the title "christian") you're going to find some who genuinely seek to follow in the words and footsteps of Christ; and also those who serve the religion and religious leaders (ie: their pastor; the pope; etc.). if you want to support this statement, i would love to hear your response. you cannot judge a philosophy based on the abuse of that philosophy.

and furthermore...if you MUST resort to judging a philosophy based on specific abuses that you've witnessed, i would contend that you have no real issue with the philosophy itself--just an issue with the folks who claim to follow it. just because i flipped off the dude who cut me off this morning on my way to work, that doesn't mean that christianity condones this; nor does it mean that it was a christ-like behavior. it was merely human character. if you're going to judge christ or his teachings based on me flipping off some stranger who can't drive, then i would say you don't have a very good handle on the life or teachings of christ.

but that's just me.

and by the way, i would welcome your rants and raves. :teeth:

[semmie]

04-30-2003 @ 11:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83780#post83780)
Vorkosigan:


Hmmm.... did we read the same book? On pages 22-24 there are extensive remarks both on the moral nature of Jesus. For example, Russell critized Jesus for believing in Hell, and so on.

I sort of agree with you, but I can also see Russell's point of view. Christians are people who think Jesus existed; so attacking his character might be an important way to refute his ideas. Its not important to Russell whether he existed, but it important to Christians, right? So it is best if Russell behaved as though Jesus existed.


:rofl: sure, we read the same book. did you notice that russell attacked christian behaviorisms before he even mentioned christ's belief in hell? i will readily admit that russell speaks of christ's belief in hell and the second coming--and i will readily admit that he makes good case. this is under the heading "defects in christ's teaching." i have no issue with this. what i took issue with (as i stated to begin with) is that under the heading "the charachter of CHRIST," russell attacks the adherency and character of professed christians. i found this to be an extremely weak arguement. it would have been more acceptable for him to talk about whether or not jesus should have turned water into wine.

example: i go to Northern Michigan University (well, not this semester, but usually i do). the president of the University is Judy Bailey. now...just because i go to her school, does this mean you can judge her intellect based on my semester gpa? i know this is a simplified analogy, but it's the same concept. russell wants to judge christ for actions and inconsistencies that should be attributed to denominational gatherers.

[Vorkosigan]

sure, we read the same book. did you notice that russell attacked christian behaviorisms before he even mentioned christ's belief in hell?

I understand what you mean. I don't understand what's so important about it. I mean, the criticisms of both Jesus and his followers are dead on. If you don't like the order he discusses them, that's cool. <shrug> Do you have some more substantive criticism? I recall you said you thought some of his arguments were weak.

Vorkosigan

[semmie]

[I understand what you mean. I don't understand what's so important about it. ]

let me re-post a few statements i've made since the start of this thread. perhaps it will help you see what my problem is with russell's criticism of christ.

"is it appropriate for him to attack the character of christians under the heading of "the character of christ""

"what i felt was less than appropriate (and less than fair) was that he labeled the particular passage "the character of christ" or something to that extent, and he then goes on to speak of the morality of christians--NOT christ."

"if he's going to say that we're talking about the character of CHRIST, then i'm not sure why he's so concerned about those who are not christ."

"i do not think that you can judge christianity based on the poor example of so-called "christians."

"all of man's philosophies have been abused and misused. that does not reflect on the character of the philosophy, necessarily, but the character of the PEOPLE claiming it."

"i don't think you can judge christ--THE PERSON--based on folks who follow him."

"neither should we judget he character of jesus on the basis of modern-day people who profess to believe a certain way."

"ideas and philosophies cannot and should not be judged based on human behavior."

"I can make very little judgement based on the behavior of followers." is that so? because that is exactly my point. that is what russell is trying to do. if he wants to judge the RELIGION of christianity based on the actions of the followers, then maybe we'd have a different scenario. but again, he puts all of this under the heading "the character of christ."

"it is inappropriate to judge an idea OR a single person based on the actions of people living thousands of years after the fact."

"#a: we are not all "hating." #b: even if we were, would that nullify the creed itself?"

"again, if we fail to walk perfectly, does that nullify our message or our creed?"

"you cannot judge a philosophy based on the abuse of that philosophy"

"if you MUST resort to judging a philosophy based on specific abuses that you've witnessed, i would contend that you have no real issue with the philosophy itself--just an issue with the folks who claim to follow it."

"if you're going to judge christ or his teachings based on me flipping off some stranger who can't drive, then i would say you don't have a very good handle on the life or teachings of christ."

"what i took issue with (as i stated to begin with) is that under the heading "the charachter of CHRIST," russell attacks the adherency and character of professed christians."

Vork....are you with me still? :poke: i don't think you understand what my complaint is, because you have yet to address it. i never said that russell was wrong about the character of some christians. in fact, i agree with him almost wholeheartedly in the things he says about the history of the "christian church," and the character of "christians." christendom is not my favorite topic, okay? what made russell's stance weak (as i stated in my last post) was that he attacked the character of christians under the title "the character of christ." if you still don't follow me, i'm not sure how else to say it. russell is trying to attribute my bad choises to the morale of jesus himself. and that's just a bunch of cow dung. it's deceptive, really. it means that jesus was morally deficient because of judas's betrayal. it means that jesus was morrally deficient because of hitler's nazi regime. it means that jesus was morally deficient because of all those preists who rape little altar boys. russell is right in pointing to evil and sin; he is wrong to attribute these evils and sins to christ.

[Do you have some more substantive criticism?]

my criticism of russell's work is still in progress. that's why i started this thread. i wanted to see how others (christian or not) responded to the essay in question. as far as this particular criticism not being substantive enough, i guess i'm not sure why you would think that. it's pretty simple. if russell wanted to address the character of the christian church, he should title it "the character of the christian church." he misleads his reader into thinking that it is acceptible to count the sins of a religious party against christ himself. and it is not.

[I recall you said you thought some of his arguments were weak.]

let me repost this part so you know what i found to be "weak"
what i took issue with...is that under the heading "the charachter of CHRIST," russell attacks the adherency and character of professed christians. i found this to be an extremely weak arguement.

i guess that's all i have to say about that for now. i have no problem with the order of criticism on russell's part, or in the context of the criticism. it is all fair game, i think. i don't think it's fair to judge the character of christ based on how some christians have acted, though.

make sense???? :shrug:

[Bob Jenkins]

Let me start again - no quotes here - but bearing in mind what has struck me from the thread and a rereading of the section The Character of Christ..

Russell says on page 14, within the questioned section,
" I think that there are a good many points upon which I agree with Christ a great deal more than the professing Christians do. I do not know that I could go with Him all the way, but I could go much further than most professing Christians can." Russell then goes on to cite examples of Christ's teachings that don't seem to be followed by today's flock. He concludes the section citing an "excellent" maxim. and then says All these, I think, are good maxims, although they are a little difficult to live up to. I do not profess to live up to them myself; but then, after all, it is not quite the same thing as for a Christian.

Thus, I think Russell shows respect for Christ and disdain for those who claim Christ as their moral force. Perhaps the title of this section should not be taken as a critique of Christ in the first place. However the section immediately following on page 15 entitled Defects in Christ's Teachings which has it's own problem. Russell only talks about one defect not in a plural sense..

Can we agree that Russell didn't know beans about section titles?

I have included page number because I have a feeling that we are in fact taking our "quotes" from different editions of the the same book.

Vorkosigan cites pages 22-24 as a disccusion of Christ's belief in Hell. My edition starts the discussion on page 17 under the section title The Moral Problem"

[semmie]

Today @ 12:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=87273#post87273)
Bob Jenkins:
Can we agree that Russell didn't know beans about section titles?


yes! thank you! *chalks up one point for bob* :rofl::rofl::rofl:

[JssSandals]

" 3. is religion based on fear, as russell claims? and if so, is that a bad thing?

Yes, and yes."

Fear certainly does have its place in Religion, but it is not necessarily a bad thing. However, I can see where one can misunderstand the role of fear and despair in religious belief. Fear of death or hell are not the kinds of fear that I'm talking about here, though. Fear in respect of Despair is what I am after here.
Soren Kierkegaard argued in his philosophy of the three modes of life (The Aesthetic, ethical, and Religious) that the final phase, the Religious phase, is a result of despair. Kierkegaard argued that the religious individual, the individual that embraces God as the mainstay and driving force of his life, only comes to realize the sheer magnitude and power of God through a path of despair. According to Kierkegaard, when one examines oneself in relation to his surroundings and his relation with himself, he is filled with Great despair. He certainly fears for his being, both physically and spiritually, and realizes the imperfections that lie within him. It is only when this person is in this state of despair that they can fully realize the power and glory of God.
Thus the individual enters into the mode of being a Religious individual. He is driven by a compassion for God and fueled by an understanding of God's glory in his life. Everything that he does is for God and through God. It is this state that you find the average Christian in their Happy and blissful relations with Christ. So, if you want to compare Fear to what Kierkegaard describes as Despair, then yes, Religion is based on Fear. Fear for one's own being in the greater expanse of the universe. However, seeing as how Fear serves as the catalyst to a greater understanding of one's own being in light of the existence of an infinitely powerful and knowing God, it is not necessarily a "bad thing". On the contrary, it is a glorious thing that connects us with a loving God.

[FormerFundy]

He became an atheist simply by not being a Christian. At that point in time, you were either a Christian or an atheist, so he went for the latter.

In 1927, you were either a Christian or an atheist? Being too simplistic again, Big J. He could have been an agnostic or a deist or a Buddhist or a Shintoist or a Spiritualist or a Unitarian or any number of other possiblities.

[FormerFundy]

I don't quite understand those who say that religion is based on fear. Fear of what, exactly?

Fear of hell? Since non-religious people don't believe in hell, how is a fear of hell going to drive them to religion?

Fear of death? Since non-religious people believe that when we die, no part of us lives on, then what part of that should we be afraid of? If nothing comes after, then I guess we religious types are afraid of nothing!

I suppose one could argue that, if one believes that God exists, a fear of hell could convince them to try to be within the will of God. But a fear of hell (or a fear of death) doesn't seem to be a likely candidate to cause someone to believe in God in the first place.

David

I think it is more the fear of uncertainty. What Christianity and other religions tend to do is offer certainty (subjective) to those who accept their tenets by faith. It offers some type of explanation of the world and why we are here and how we fit into the overall scheme of things. In other words it offers some meaning and purpose to life and the ability to fit everything into a neat well understood box. Vork mentioned the teleologic aspect of the human brain. I think he is right. We want to understand the meaning and purpose of things.

[Vivian]

" 3. is religion based on fear, as russell claims? and if so, is that a bad thing?

Yes, and yes."

Fear certainly does have its place in Religion, but it is not necessarily a bad thing. However, I can see where one can misunderstand the role of fear and despair in religious belief. Fear of death or hell are not the kinds of fear that I'm talking about here, though. Fear in respect of Despair is what I am after here.
Soren Kierkegaard argued in his philosophy of the three modes of life (The Aesthetic, ethical, and Religious) that the final phase, the Religious phase, is a result of despair. Kierkegaard argued that the religious individual, the individual that embraces God as the mainstay and driving force of his life, only comes to realize the sheer magnitude and power of God through a path of despair. According to Kierkegaard, when one examines oneself in relation to his surroundings and his relation with himself, he is filled with Great despair. He certainly fears for his being, both physically and spiritually, and realizes the imperfections that lie within him. It is only when this person is in this state of despair that they can fully realize the power and glory of God.
Thus the individual enters into the mode of being a Religious individual. He is driven by a compassion for God and fueled by an understanding of God's glory in his life. Everything that he does is for God and through God. It is this state that you find the average Christian in their Happy and blissful relations with Christ. So, if you want to compare Fear to what Kierkegaard describes as Despair, then yes, Religion is based on Fear. Fear for one's own being in the greater expanse of the universe. However, seeing as how Fear serves as the catalyst to a greater understanding of one's own being in light of the existence of an infinitely powerful and knowing God, it is not necessarily a "bad thing". On the contrary, it is a glorious thing that connects us with a loving God.



Actually, JssSandals, this kind of fear – despair arising out of self’s unmet desires, whether they be for safety, vanity or pleasure - is a bad thing. No where in the New Testament does it say this is part of our journey Home. In fact just the opposite is declared over and over.

Jesus said – deny self, pick up your cross and follow me. Is not deny self contrary to “be so concerned over your own existence in this world that you are in despair”?

The Way to eternal life is certainly not paved by feelings of despair over our little self, but as Jesus tells us, it is paved with love, with heart and mind, soul and entire being focused towards God. With loving others as if we and they were the same in the forefront.

Self is the opposite of God. The more we are thinking about ourselves the farther we are from Him.

Those who fully belong to Christ have done as He commanded – they have crucified their little self, with its vanity and pride, fears and desires. Those who fully walk with Christ do so in self forgetfulness and are certainly not in despair over fears and unmet needs, but walk with all focus upward to God our Father and outward to feed the lambs of Christ.

And in these times, would it not be most beneficial for our human family if we were to put Jesus' words into action? If we truly were not concerned for our own self but whereever we are at, to put all our energy and focus into serving and caring for others?



vivian

[Vivian]

You are bringing up an excellent point with this thread FF. I too am a former fundie and actually left grudgingly. My church was good at making us feel good about our selves- quieting our fears and helping us figure out how to get more from life - more love, more pleasure, more comfort, more friends. But more self equates to less God.

And so we each must consider honestly which Master we are serving.

We either are serving selfish concerns or we are serving God. We cannot serve both.


vivian

[kd1023]

Just an aside, but I have read that Russell converted to Christianity shortly before his death. Was he afraid to meet his Maker?

[Cleombrotus]

have any of y'all read Why I'm Not A Christian, by Bertrand Russell???? it's actually an essay based off of a lecture he made at some point in his life. but it is featured in a book of his essays bearing the same title. i'm looking for some opinions and responses to the essay. like...

1. do you find that russell's evidence is fair? a):...is it appropriate for him to attack the character of christians under the heading of "the character of christ" ? b): is it appropriate for him to declare religion as the foundation for modern intolerance and cruelties (i.e. slavery, ethnic cleansing, facism, etc.)

2. if russell honestly doesn't believe that christ is an historical figure, why doesn't he just give us his evidence for that decision (instead of attempting to disprove christ's deity and goodness) ?

3. is religion based on fear, as russell claims? and if so, is that a bad thing?

4. does it bother you that russell makes zero distinction between "christian" and "catholic" ?

and 5. do you agree with russell's definition of "christian" ? [must have a): belief in god & immortality, and b): belief in christ as the "best and wisest of men." and furthermore, c): a belief in hell is not necessary.]

and i guess the ultimate question that i'm facing is this: if russell is an atheist (and from reading his other works, i've assumed he is), why doesn't he write a description of the evidence and foundation of his atheism....instaed of trying to attack the evidences that some use for christianity (which he does poorly, i might add)?

You should pick up a copy of Paul Johnson's book, Intellectuals and read his chapter on Russell. Not a nice man at all although he obviously had a superior intellect. But one can find reason enough to speculate that the driving force behind much, if not all, of his existentialist ravings was a strong desire for self-justification.

I would also like to make a comment on your last point and say that it is unlikely that you will ever hear an argument for atheism which does not rely on objections to theism. Even as acute an intellect as Russell's couldn't come up with one and I am wholly confident that none of the armchair philosophers calling themselves "atheists" in here, can either.

Perhaps that may give us a clue about the fundamentals of atheism and the motivations of those who wish to promote it.

[G.C. Howard]

B. Russel was a brilliant man, imo. I have his book "Wisdom in the West" next to me, which I am to begin perusing so I can pique my philosophical interest and hopefully get a somewhat decent view on western philosophical thought.

And this post did nothing to add to this conversation. I apologize. For some random reason, I felt need to express a thought which would of been best to throw away.

But, I thought I might occupy a few seconds of your life and fill your head with a thought that was once mine.

Thus, from my mind to yours...

*makes creepy telekinetic electric force energy sound like the emperor from Star Wars*

muwahahaha!

[MrManNo1]

Some posts in this topic confuse me. How, exactly, is a Christian afraid? The only thing I, personally, fear is that other people will not get to know God's glory. If anything, this type of fear would drive me away from God, as opposed to bringing me closer to Him. The post that makes the most sense to me here is the post that states that fear of hell is an illogical explanation.

I go to a liberal college in New York, and am going to school for physics. If anything, I have more to fear being a Christian than not being a Christian. True Christians are few and far between where I live, and I have only met a handful of people, in person, that are more devoted to God than I. Quite simply, most people here are atheists/new agers. If I wanted to be accepted, then I would choose atheism/new age.

I have not read Russel's book, but I do have a response to the following quote:
"I think that there are a good many points upon which I agree with Christ a great deal more than the professing Christians do. I do not know that I could go with Him all the way, but I could go much further than most professing Christians can."
I feel I should point out that professing that you are something does not mean that you actually are that thing. I could go around telling people I'm a mountain goat all I want, but that doesn't make it so. Russel seems to be confusing the people who wear the title of Christianity as a badge with the people who actually are Christian. There is no reason that saying you're a Christian means you are. If that were the case, then Hitler would be a Christian, and I can assure you that he most definitely was not.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Why does he need to supply evidence?Because Russell said that if he died and were confronted by God, he would explain his unbelief by saying "not enough evidnce, God, not enough evidence."

Evidently, Russell thinks it wrong to believe things without evidence. Ergo, his own standards demand that he needed to defend his claim about the historicity of Jesus with some evidence.

[Rusty T]

Not having read the posts that followed your OP, I'll just say that I read Bertand Russel's work in question when I myself was an atheist. Even then I found it to be weak.

rusty

[Implicit_assume]

deja vu!
rusty or is it tizzidale

[Rayado]

It's funny...I read this book at work last week in my spare time, and I've got to say that if I was a Humanities professor and by chance a young student of mine by the name of Bert Russell turned in a research paper that just happened to be Why I Am Not A Christian, after having read it I would have failed him without regret or hesitation. The argument against Christianity, in that lecture, is simply that bad. You would think that he'd spend more than four or five pages on the person and actions of Jesus and attempt to deal with more than just one miracle--and he managed to mangle each and every scripture verse he quoted, too.

:no:

[Rupert Pupkin]

All you guys complaining about "Why I'm not a Christian" haven't really seen the main point. Let me explain.

Certain academics, who at some point in their life actually did some interesting and groundbreaking work, become popular celebrities. This then leads to their transformation into what I call "the guru". I have often thought of starting a website for aspiring gurus, with an explanation of the principles of academic guruhood.

Anyway, once said academic has achieved guru status, he or she no longer feels constrained to writing well-researched books on topics they are expert in. Instead, they now feel free to write books on any topic that presently bugs them, without doing any serious research and without bothering about scholarly nicities. Having achieved guruhood, they are way above that sort of thing. Only mere mortal academics need to worry about actually providing evidence for what they say, properly doing a literature review, and so forth. Gurus may instead just rabbit on about what they read last week in an article in Newsweek magazine.

Gurus can be identified by the fact that they always top popular polls of "the ten most brilliant people alive today", or similar, run by the BBC. This is because they are the only ten academics that the average person has ever heard of. "I've heard that name, he must be brilliant!" Examples of living gurus include:

Academic gurus:

Noam Chomsky
David Suzuki (actually, I have a vague recollection he might have died - not sure)
Stephen Hawking
Paul Davies
Richard Dawkins

Political gurus:

Al Gore
Mikhail Gorbachev
Gough Whitlam

Another way to identify gurus is that they hold world tours in which each location where they talk is packed with wide-eyed admirers, who worship every syllable that emanates from their mouth. They also appear on TV and radio nearly as much as Paris Hilton.

Some gurus are "local", and others are "global". So, for example, Paul Davies and Gough Whitlam would be mainly local Australian gurus I suspect. Whereas Noam Chomsky and David Suzuki have attained the very pinnacle of international guruhood. Also, some gurus achieve lifetime guru status, whereas the media seems to grow sick of others after a while and they disappear back into the oblivion of ordinary academia (I think Paul Davies is pretty much in that category now - there was a time when you couldn't turn on "the 7:30 report" or "Lateline" on the ABC for three nights in a row without seeing him, but he seems to have sadly disappeared).

I have observed gurus for some time now - it's kind of a hobby of mine and someone I used to work for was a classic aspiring guru (he taught me another way to recognize aspiring gurus - if a person has a huge self-portrait of themselves, Ayatollah Khomeini style, in their office, they are probably an aspirational guru) - and I can offer much advice for those who are wanting to climb the ladder of guru success. But there is just one, simple, principle, that over-rides all others, and which is the central law of guruhood, the one thing which one must at all times pursue. It is this:

Rupert's Law of Guruhood: Find a niche market of people who want to hear something, and keep on telling them what they want to hear. They will love you for it!

Anyway, the point is, that Bertrand Russell was an earlier generation's equivalent of a guru, and this is the fundamental explanation for books like WINAC.

Nothing more to it than that.

You've gotta love gurus. Like Paris Hilton, they should not be condemned for anything they do, because they bring a ray of brightness and fun into our otherwise dreary lives. You just have to know when to take them seriously, and when just to dissolve into hysterical fits of laughter.

[Okieshowedem]

The Original Scriptures used Yahweh's proper Name.
All the prophets wrote using Yahweh's proper Name.
These are just facts.
So who changed the writtings of the prophets?
It was the Christian religion that removed the Holy Name Yahweh and replaced that wonderful Name with pagan titles such as lord and god.
So to be a Christian means you are fighting against the Creator Whose Name alone is, and always will be YAHWEH!
That is reason enough not to be a part of the Christian religion.

http://www.yahweh.com/booklets.Whois/Whois.htm

Okieshowedem

Advertising not allowed. No double posting either.

[Crow]

The Original Scriptures used Yahweh's proper Name.
All the prophets wrote using Yahweh's proper Name.
These are just facts.
So who changed the writtings of the prophets?
It was the Christian religion that removed the Holy Name Yahweh and replaced that wonderful Name with pagan titles such as lord and god.
So to be a Christian means you are fighting against the Creator Whose Name alone is, and always will be YAHWEH!
That is reason enough not to be a part of the Christian religion.

http://www.yahweh.com/booklets.Whois/Whois.htm

Okieshowedem

What about the false prophets?

If someone can be proven to be prophesizing falsely, how does YAHWEH want us to deal with them?

[Pilgrim]

What about the false prophets?

If someone can be proven to be prophesizing falsely, how does YAHWEH want us to deal with them?

Good question. Especially given the fact that Okie appears to have been falsely prophesizing. I mean, June 12th came and went and we're all still here.

[semmie]

Rupert's Law of Guruhood: Find a niche market of people who want to hear something, and keep on telling them what they want to hear. They will love you for it!

:thumb:

thanks for clearing that up.

[4given4life]

Bob, I don't believe Christianity causes harm as you say it does. I believe in psychology they call it shifting the blame on another. You're going off of an objjective mentality. Where you think every subject instead of being a subject it's an object. The gospel in it's entirety isn't subject to subject/object distinctions. You're either in two states about it unbelief or belief. Most the atheists I've seen on Tweb misquote to death the scriptures they quote. IOW it's not fair when the skeptics or atheists or infidels or agnostics or gnostics or any sect that claims to be Christian or ex-Christians to misquote the bible the way they do to try and disprove Christianity. It's all narrowed down to two things though and here they are: reject Jesus Christ and go to hell, accept Jesus Christ and go to heaven. I've got news for attackers of Christianity, the people in it are sinners just like the attackers are sinners. The same God that Christians believe in has mercy and compassion on everyone alike.