Amos

The question was if he did or did not agree with the "Final Solution." Toto suggested that his quote, even if true, is easily taken out of context because he was a mathematician and I added that: either way, his opinion does not matter because I do not see him as a person to be influenced by. Then I go on to state why his idea about God and Immortality are wrong and now you are welcome to disagree with me on that.

The reason why I called him a good historian is because he wrote "The History of Philosophy," which a 'philosopher' would never(?) do.

Amos

That's fair enough and that makes him a 'believer' with a right to express his unbelief in the mainstream viewpoint. That, however does not make him a philospher in my view.

Yes, the condition of being a Christian is the end of religion or there would be churches in the Jew Jerusalem, which, to be sure, is heaven. So the point here is that Catholicism, as a religion, is the vehicle to Christianity in Christendom and is left behind when this end is reached. With no churches in the New Jerusalem there cannot be such thing as a Christian religion.It was just added to give some direction to my post. It also nullifies the 'smear campain' of Christian fundamentalists and leaves me to conclude that he was a nice guy for that reason. Is that so wrong?

Amos

Well isn't that nice! We/I have a different opinion of what it means to be a Christian but we learned something like that in grade school and were advised to get to know the depth, width and breadth of the Lord our God.

"Merely"?? Ever seen anybody succeed? Good point, but notice it was revealed to Peter which means that noone knew Jesus as Christ and he instructed them to tell noone that he was the Christ. Peter here was perceiving the second God identity of Jesus by whom Jesus was not known and never did become known until after the resurrection. Peter, of course, was the personification of "faith" and this revelation made the rest of the story possible.

DoubleDutchy

Couldn't find it (yet). I did find another quote, that might be of some use:

'I am still a pacifist in the sense that I think peace the most important thing in the world. But I do not think there can be any peace in the world while Hitler prospers, so I am compelled to feel that his defeat, if at all possible, is a necessary prelude to anything good; I should have felt as I do if I had lived in the time of Genghis Khan.' (Bertrand Russel 1940)
Limited Nazi sympathies I 'ld say . Russel Biography

Felidae990

DoubleDutchy,

Thanks for the quote! And thanks for taking the trouble to look. Although it's not the specific quote I'm looking for, this particular quote DOES destroy my e-mail contact's "Bertrand-is-a-Nazi" claim.

Amos,

<quote>Well isn't that nice! We/I have a different opinion of what it means to be a Christian but we learned something like that in grade school and were advised to get to know the depth, width and breadth of the Lord our God.</quote>

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary's very first definition of a Christian is this:

1a: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ

All the other definitions that follow it are broken apart by denominational categories. I was always raised to believe that a Christian was any individual who accepted Jesus' gift of salvation by acknowledging his death, burial and resurrection. I suspect all your "different opinions" are extra-Biblical.

<quote>quote:
What the heck are you talking about? Immortality is merely an escape from death.

"Merely"?? Ever seen anybody succeed?</quote>

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines the word "immortal" as thus:

1: exempt from death <the immortal gods>
2: exempt from oblivion: IMPERISHABLE <immortal fame>
3: connected with or relating to immortality

You, however, state:

<quote>Our souls are immortal and to be immortal 'we' have become 'one' with our soul. Since a pair of opposites cannot be conceived to exist without the other, immortality must be real before mortality can be extracted from it.</quote>

Your gobbledygook definition is unintelligible.

<quote>Good point, but notice it was revealed to Peter which means that noone knew Jesus as Christ and he instructed them to tell noone that he was the Christ. Peter here was perceiving the second God identity of Jesus by whom Jesus was not known and never did become known until after the resurrection. Peter, of course, was the personification of "faith" and this revelation made the rest of the story possible.</quote>

Have you even read the Gospels? Jesus' identity as "the Christ" was never a secret.

For example:

<quote>The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is the one I meant when I said, 'A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.'
I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel."

Then John gave this testimony: "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him.

"I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.' I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God." (John 1:29-32)</quote>

Earlier, John said that Jesus was the Word made flesh who came to earth to dwell among us. To say that Jesus wasn't the Christ until after he rose from the grave is a pretty bizarre, unconventional theological spin.

And what are you doing on this discussion thread, anyway? Do you have access to a May 1996 edition of the Prospect?

Amos

You should be happy about that if this forum is "for peole who think hard." No. What's this about?

And BTW, John never said that Jesus was the Word became flesh. The Word became flesh was Christ and therefore the dual identity of Jesus.

Felidae990

Amos

I find it very ironic that I'm having to explain basic Biblical doctrine to a believer on the Internet Infidels message board.

John 1 says that Jesus Christ lived eternally, that he was always with God, and that he is God. It's pretty obvious that he's calling Jesus and Yahweh one and the same person. Nowhere in the Gospels, or in the entire Bible, does it say that Jesus turned into a Messiah (although Martin Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ movie ran on that theme).

Amos

Hi Felidae, well, you are not doing a good job of it because Jesus never turned into a messiah. Jesus was the reborn Joseph in whom the Word became alive which gave him 'that' dual identity and was therefore called Jesus. Next, the Jesus identity was to be crucified and the Christ identity set free under the name of Bar-abbas. You can actually trace this quite well in the Gospels and so remove all paradoxes and anomalies.

DoubleDutchy

Charming !
If Russell's opinions don't matter why do you want to start an argument about them ? And why should I accept the invitation given that, frankly, I do not see you as 'a person to be influenced by' and thus, according to your logic, your opinions shouldn't bother me ?.
If you want to talk God and immortality, there are plenty of threads around to accommodate your needs.
Presumably I won't mix in there, G & I don't really fascinate me.
Russell does, that 's why I joined a thread about his opinions.
If you can't be bothered, that is, of course, up to you, no hard feelings at all, but why come here and disturb those that are interested in the subject ?

Russell's 'History of Western Philosophy' is a book I thouroughly enjoyed and still enjoy. It sure took a philosopher to write it.

Amos

Correct, "History of Western Philosophy." I did enjoy it and still have it. I think I made a good contribution to this tread by pointing out that his reason for not believing in God is nothing special.