Re: Some Defects in Russell's Teaching
/ Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
/ and alt.philosophy and alt.religion.apologetics /
/ Forum > TheologyOnline: Philosophy ~ Religion / 03Oct02 /
.
Dear Cyber-Saints, the offensive one has lately been spending
much time in council with his very good doggish-friend Bertie,
and although I greatly admire the general clarity of his
thinking, it has become clear to me (of late) that he is
considerably out of his depth when he ventures into the foggy
realm of biblical commentary.
.
Now I make this observation chiefly on the basis of his
fascinating 1927 essay, entitled ‘Why I Am Not A Christian’,
wherein he gives an orderly account of his views on various
theological arguments, the stature of Christ, the church as
anti-progress, and so forth. Thus this weird free-thinker’s
confession is in many ways a powerful statement of faith (or
unfaith, if you prefer).
.
For example, his discussion on the defects within Christ's
teachings (as given in the gospels) are particularly
impressive; although a little too rough around the edges for
my good taste. “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting
fire!” Certainly not one of the New Testament’s finest moments.
But having thus made his point that Christ's teachings are in
some respects defective, Russell is not content to remove his
philosophical paws off of the sacred text and move on to the
next topic. No. Instead he points out Christ's unkindness to
the Gadarene swine, and his similar unkindness to the poor
cursed fig tree.
.
And it is at this point that Russell reveals the essential
confusion that characterizes his attitude toward the New
Testament. Thus he begins by mentioning "the curious story
of the fig tree, which always rather puzzled me". The source
of his confusion, I dare say, stems chiefly from the fact that
although he rightly recognizes it as being ‘story’, he never-
theless treats it as ‘reality’ (ie. a plain historical account
of an actual event). Such a skewed interpretation can only
fail completely to miss the point that the cursing of the fig
tree is a prophetic act, with a symbolic (not literal) meaning.
.
So let us see if we can do a little something in the way of
dispelling much of Russell’s lamentable puzzlement:
.
“Then Jesus entered into Jerusalem and went to the temple.
And having looked around everywhere, since it was already late,
he went out to Bethany with the twelve. And on the next day,
having gone out from Bethany, he was hungry” (Mk.11:11-12).
.
Now here's a poser for all believers to ponder: What is Jesus
hungry for? ... Russell is of the literal view that he was
hungry for something to fill his tummy, but I rather favor the
view that he was hungry for something considerably larger
(eg. a more abundant life, the salvation of souls, the fullness
of the coming Kingdom in the manifestation of what the
early believers called ‘the fruits of the spirit’, etc). And why
should Russell (and other superficial readers) suppose that
Jesus was hungry for food? Did not our Lord tell us plainly
that man does NOT live on bread alone? But perhaps Russell
is of the opinion that he does.
.
“And having seen from a distance ...”
.
This ‘long-distance seeing’ is a subtle reference to
the uncompromising vision of a prophet. This seemingly
insignificant phrase immediately alerts us that a prophetic
judgment is fast approaching.
.
“a fig tree with leaves,”
.
This is a reference to the city of Jerusalem (a fig tree)
and its Temple.
.
“Jesus went to see if perhaps he would find anything on it.”
.
In other words, he went hoping to find saints and believers.
.
“And when he came upon it he found nothing but leaves,”
.
That is, he found priests and rituals, pharisees and rituals,
petitioners and rituals, and so forth, all of which gives the
appearance of the presence of spiritual life, but ...
.
“for it was not the season for figs” (Mk.11:13).
.
Meaning that the world of Jesus’ time was still in the Old
World, and would remain so for some few more centuries yet
before finally giving way to the New World (in which we all
currently reside, btw).
.
“So Jesus said to it, ‘May no one eat the fruit from you
any longer into the age ...’” (v14).
.
In other words, the so-called curse expresses the Lord’s out-
rage at the lack of production of the priestly systems, as
well as his determination to oppose the Old World system of
goodness. Thus the prophetic will is immediately rendered
tangible and visible in the dramatic episode of Mark 11:15-19,
wherein Jesus runs amok in the Temple, and rather gets every-
one’s attention (except the guards and Roman solders,
apparently).
.
Then comes verse twenty:
“And the next morning as they passed by,”
.
Meaning that the Faith is moving toward a brighter future
(ie. the new age of the spirit is already active in Jesus
and his followers).
.
“they saw the fig tree withered from the roots” (Mk.11:20).
.
Meaning that the emptiness and spiritual darkness of priest-
craft will be apparent to anyone who cares to look closely at
it.
.
“And having remembered, Peter said to him, ‘Rabbi, look!
The fig tree you cursed has been withered’” (Mk.11:21).
.
Meaning that the Faith will displace and replace all the many
and varied systems of the priests and scribes and pharisees
(including even their current post-modern manifestations).
.
“And Jesus answered, saying to them, ‘Have faith in God’”
(verse 22).
.
In other words, Jesus is saying: "You know the truth, now
act on it. Put away all priestcraft, and shed thyself of the Old
World legacy of the scribes and pharisees that always fails to
grow edible food. Instead practice religion the way I have,
and build your spiritual life on the foundation of faith in God.”
.
In conclusion we may observe that for Jesus (and all true
believers) religion is chiefly a matter of faith, hope, and
love; whereas for Russell religion is mostly the result of
fear and cruelty. As for myself, I would rather say that
all authentic religion rests on faith, while all inauthentic
religion rests on fear and cruelty. Significantly, Jesus
allows for this important distinction, but Russell does not.
.
- one whose bark is worse than his bitee – textman ;>
.
P.S. And so the Lord Jesus has heard that Lord Russell prefers
to place him third in line after the Lord Buddha and the
sublime Socrates, and has therefore asked me to pass along a
message for his skeptical lordship. So here it is, Bertie;
the Lord of Lords sayeth: “Have faith in God!”
x
Re: Some Defects in Russell's Teaching
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
/ and alt.philosophy and alt.religion.apologetics /
/ Forum > TheologyOnline: Philosophy ~ Religion / 4oct02 /
.
> On Oct3 Ryokan wrote: Careful with talk like that.
> When you take the bible and make it a great work of
> philosophy, theology, and literature, the people who
> think it is an instruction manual get upset.
.
textman say: Right U R. Sadly, it can't be helped. :)
.
> And I find it strange that the individual about whom you
> write holds both Socrates and the Buddha in such high
> esteem, as they are almost polar opposites.
.
I'm somewhat curious why you should say that, Ryokan. The
thing is that the conjunction of Jesus, Buddha, and Socrates
(in whatever order) is not nearly as strange as you seem to
think. The philosopher Karl Jaspers recognizes all three as
being what he calls "paradigmatic individuals", which is just
a fancy philosophical way of recognizing the innate genius
and greatness of these world-shaking and unrepeatable heroes.
[see 'The Great Philosophers', volume one, for details]
x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
+
>> tx: "for it was not the season for figs" (Mk.11:13). <snip>
.
> On 03oct Chad L ([email protected]) wrote: Textman,
> I liked your analysis of the biblical metaphor; and I think
> it sounds very reasonable.
.
textman say: Thx, blueknight. I've always believed that Faith
and Reason need not be inherently hostile to each other, but
could even sometimes co-operate to mutual advantage.
.
> However, <snip a HUGE chunk of blueknight's reasoning>
.
I snipped your text not because I disagree with it, but
chiefly because I have nothing to say about it.
.
> From here you'll say, 'Ah, but the tree (or crop) made the
> choice of its own free-will to pull up its own "roots-of-
> faith" (if you will) and prevent the nourishment from God
> from running through its life-giving channels.'
.
There was (and still is) a lot of needless prevention going on.
.
> From here we may get into the free-will debate.
> From which you most assuredly will lose;
.
Oh, MOST assuredly!
.
> but you'll deny that you've lost because you have invested so
> much into your belief that you can no longer fully imagine an
> alternative to your hypothesized scenario that "Christianity
> is the only path to god in the after-life" without a racking
> pain-like sensation shooting through your brain that you
> avoid at all costs.
.
I've got a swelling itching pain pounding in my brain! ...
But it's NOT because I'm unable to conceive of alternatives.
Rather, it's because I can conceive of too many.
.
> In short, if god were wrong; you wouldn't want to be right.
.
Uh, I guess not. Can I now assume that it's been established
that God is wrong about something?
.
> At any rate, fig trees or crops or human beings have
> just as much free-will as they have dry-liquid,
> hot-ice, and circular-squares.
.
I take it, then, that you deny the existence of free-will as
an active element in the composition of human beings? That's
a curious philosophical standpoint upon which to build your
thinking. For myself, the so-called 'problem of free-will'
becomes an issue only in regard to one's general approach to
history. In 'War and Peace' Tolstoy takes a close look at this
problem of free will and necessity. He suggests that it is
chiefly a matter of perspective. At this present moment it
seems to us (as individuals) that we are free to do any number
of different things. But if we look at some long past event,
say Alexander's military career, then it seems to us that the
fall of Persia was inevitable. But our perception of past
events is distorted by own knowledge of the "necessary"
consequences of those events. We cannot conceive what the
world's history would have been like had Alexander died at
the age of six from a snake-bite. Oh ho! And what have we
here? Even MORE constipation of the imagination, perhaps? This
is why objectivity in History is so hard to come by. Freedom
shades into necessity (and visa versa) so gradually that we
aren't even aware of crossing the line!
.
> Perhaps you correctly pointed out that Russell took that
> particular passage of the bible too literally
.
What do you mean "perhaps"? There's no 'perhaps' about it!
.
> (a very uncharitable thing to do on his part) but we may
> forgive him because this was not even close to being the
> sole reason for him saying, "I'm not a Christian".
.
Oh, I think you're quite right about that, blueknight. The
impression I gain from his essay is that given his premise that
religion is the result of fear and cruelty, then one has no
choice really but to conclude that Christianity is inherently
irrational, manifestly anti-progress, and just all around
nasty. Hence Russell's attempt to demonstrate that even
Christ is not entirely free of all hint of nastiness.
.
> So, in conclusion, if you have nothing else of any convincing
> substance to reply with, you'll fall back on your faith and
> say something like, 'I'll be praying for you'.
.
Wouldn't dream of it!
.
> Which is in reality a way of saying, "I'm praying AT you",
.
ha ha ha! Good one, Chad.
.
> for the benefit of the audience - as you
> appeal ad populum to their beliefs and prejudices
.
I do. I do!
.
> in order to avoid your own burden of proof (and attempt
> to make me feel guilty for challenging you, all at the
> same time).
.
I'm not sure how I'm avoiding this "burden of proof" thingy
you mentioned, so I can't really answer to that, but I do
know that I would never want to make anyone feel guilty for
"challenging" me! I like it when people (even unbelievers such
as yourself) keep me on my toes, and alert to all possible
errors gained en route. It's all part of the learning process.
.
> Well, that was a great dialogue we just had!
.
A true socratic dialogue is not about challenge and battle, or
victory and defeat. It is not a battle of wits; as if it were
some jaded amusement for the idle rich. It is not a clash of
over-inflated egos; as if it were some perverted darwinian
survival contest where the one still standing at the end is
thus proved the superior specimen! No. A thousand times NO!
.
> We'll have to do it again some time. :)
.
Okay ... How about now? See p.s. dialogue below:
.
> Cheers.
.
Friends!
.
> p.s. the great thing about the bible is that it tells
> you what to do, and what you should be doing.
.
I agree :)
.
> But it doesn't tellya how to do it,
.
Sure it does. The bulk of the Torah is chiefly about the
specific details involved in actually doing what the Lord
of Hosts demandeth. Most of the other scriptures also deal
with this thorny problem of HOW in one way or another;
hence the Sermon on the Mount is deliberately set forth
as a re-enactment of the giving of the Torah/Law.
.
The point is that all things are possible through faith,
hope, and love. In theological terms this means salvation,
redemption, sanctification, and so forth. In psychological
terms this means happiness, direction, resolve, and so forth.
In philosophical terms this means being "grounded" or
'grounded in being' (whichever works best for you); which
put in just one word is 'authenticity'.
.
... The eternal Word holds very little back from those seeking
answers to difficult questions. Usually the problem is that the
seeker just doesn't know exactly HOW to find them. Opening the
Book at random with the expectation that God will immediately
reveal the answers thus is highly unrealistic to say the least.
You have to know the scriptures in order to use them well.
.
> or how you ought to go about doing it.
.
With a song in your heart, and a spring in your step!
.
> This is probably why the average Christian is no better
> (behaves no better) than the average non-Christian.
.
No. It's because the same sinful human nature abides in both.
This in itself does not surprise or alarm me. Nor does it
prove the Faith to be at fault, since the main difference
between nominal Christians and authentic true believers is
that the latter genuinely love Jesus to the point whereat
they actually *want* to obey His commands, and so *try* to
be good disciples in *all* aspects of their daily lives.
.
- one juggling too many concepts at once - textman ;>
.
P.S. Don't debate. Investigate!
x
Buddhism for Believers.
/ Re: Some Defects in Russell's Teaching /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
/ and alt.philosophy and alt.religion.apologetics /
/ Forum > TheologyOnline: Philosophy ~ Religion / 5oct02 /
.
> On 4oct Ryokan replies: I say that because Socrates and
> Christ call one to live an examined life, a life of virtue.
> The Buddha wants one just to live life, and denies both the
> idea of self examination and the self, as well as over lying
> virtue. Socrates says that the unexamined life isn't worth
> living, while the Buddha says it is the examination that
> causes us trouble. I think that is what they are saying,
> respectively, anyway.
.
textman say: Hmmmm. Methinks you could benefit much from
a closer study of the earliest Buddhist texts (many of which
are simply wonderful in every conceivable way). One can only
properly judge Buddhism by entering fully into its spirit, and
also by appreciating the amazing depth and diversity of this
world-class religion. Firstly, one must understand that the
Buddha's philosophy (or Middle Path, or Tao/Way) is built upon
a clear and sober recognition of the primacy of suffering in
human life. Question -> How does one overcome or transcend
this most fundamental human reality? The Buddha believed that
most of this suffering is self-generated. That is, the ultimate
source of our suffering is within us; is, in fact, us!
.
Now I fail to see how any of this could be deemed offensive to
believers, since the scriptures also recognize these things as
an accurate estimate of the basic 'problem of life'. Moreover,
I think that the Buddha (like Socrates and Jesus) does call us
to live a life of virtue and examination. The Eightfold Path is
specifically designed to focus "the mind on being fully aware
of our thoughts and actions, and developing wisdom by under-
standing the Four Noble Truths and by developing compassion for
others" ('An Introduction to Buddhism' by Chaiyana & Butler).Obviously there is nothing in this eightfold path that is1. Right Understanding
2. Right Thought
3. Right Speech
4. Right Action
5. Right Livelihood
6. Right Effort
7. Right Mindfulness
8. Right Concentration
inherently contrary to the Faith. Indeed, most believers would
do well to study and apply themselves to this Middle Way. I am
myself particularly fond of number seven, right mindfulness,
which is about developing clarity and precision in our
awareness of *all* the experiences within our daily lives.
.
Now that covers a lot of territory!
.
- one who also honors the Buddha - texttman ;>
.
P.S. "Now this, monks, is the noble truth of pain: birth is
painful, old age is painful, sickness is painful, death is
painful. Sorrow, lamentation, dejection, and despair are
painful. Contact with unpleasant things is painful. Not getting
what one wishes is painful." -- from 'The Sermon at Benares'
x
Goto more defects