Bertrand Russell

Originally posted by @fmf
Would you say that the millions and millions of Christian men - who have rationalized why they should dump their wives and who had their logical reasons all neatly laid out for why they should not be faithful to their marriages - were, are, and will be "forgiven" for doing so because they believe in Jesus?

Hey, you saw what King David, the man after God's own heart, did with Bathsheba.

David was forgiven for his adultery and murder.
David did not escape the disciplinary consequences for his sin.

All manner of sins can be forgiven, Bertrand Russell and everyone else who comes to Christ for forgiveness.

He probably chose not to.

No FMF, I am not saying Christian men divorcing is therefore to be smiled upon.

Failure is failure.
Redemption is redemption.

And just to make sure you get to put another feather in your cap, some Atheists were truer to their wives than some Christian theists were. It didn't make Christ remain in the tomb though.

Would you say that the millions and millions of Christian men
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have statistics ?
Or does millions and millions just come out to be a round expression?

How do you know the "millions and millions" were all Christians? Maybe some of the millions and millions were just cultural "Christians" You know, like "Yes, I agree with the Golden Rule" or "Yes, I am an American."

Originally posted by @sonship
No FMF, I am not saying Christian men divorcing is therefore to be smiled upon.

Failure is failure.
Redemption is redemption.

I said nothing about anybody "smiling upon" anybody.

Just to be clear, for a Christian who does the same thing as Bertrand Russell did, there is no personal consequence whatsover, they are "forgiven" and "saved" because they believe certain stuff about Jesus, right?

Anybody know why the logician Bertrand Russell, informing the world that God is not, had four wives ?

No emotional baggage? Only pure reason there ??

Originally posted by @sonship
[b] Would you say that the millions and millions of Christian men
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have statistics ?
Or does millions and millions just come out to be a round expression?

How do you know the "millions and millions" were all Christians? Maybe some of the millions and millions ...[text shortened]... ral "Christians" You know, like "Yes, I agree with the Golden Rule" or "Yes, I am an American."[/b]

I am talking about Christian men who believe the same things about Jesus as you do. I'm not talking about non-believers.

Millions, hundreds of thousands, whatever; the straight forward question you're dodging remains unanswered.

Originally posted by @sonship
Anybody know why the logician Bertrand Russell, informing the world that God is not, had four wives ?

No emotional baggage? Only pure reason there ??

Why is it relevant?

Originally posted by @fmf
I am talking about Christian men who believe the same things about Jesus as you do. I'm not talking about non-believers.

Millions, hundreds of thousands, whatever; the straight forward question you're dodging remains unanswered.

Divorce among those professing to be Christians is a scandal.
I don't deny it for a minute.

Bottom line - Bertrand Russell's unsteady marriage life doesn't prove God exsts.

I just point out that the mathematical minded philosopher had emotional baggage for what he liked and didn't like.

Christians never getting divorce (if such were the case, and is not) would not prove God's existence.

Originally posted by @great-king-rat
Why is it relevant?

Fair question.

In the big question of God, Who is He, not only logical and philosophical smarts as Russell obviously had, should be considered. Faithfulness, moral power, integrity are important factors.

The " No evidence" argument is often the response of "I have not yet been forced by you to believe in God, whom I prefer to live WITHOUT. "

Originally posted by @sonship
Fair question.

In the big question of God, Who is He, not only logical and philosophical smarts as Russell obviously had, should be considered. Faithfulness, moral power, integrity are important factors.

The " No evidence" argument is often the response of "I have not yet been forced by you to believe in God, whom I prefer to live WITHOUT. "

When listening to his arguments, why is his personal life important?

Why can't you discuss the points he made without attacking his personal life?

Am I to conclude you don't listen to and contemplate anything that any human being tells you, since we all have our weaknesses?

He made some interesting points in the video. Which of those (if any) you thought were faulty and why?

And no... again, for the umpteenth time, atheists in general don't "prefer" to live without god. We simply see no evidence for his existence. Misrepresenting our viewpoint on this time and time again doesn't change that, it merely shows your desperation in wanting to believe we all secretly share your religious beliefs.

Originally posted by @great-king-rat
When listening to his arguments, why is his personal life important?

Why can't you discuss the points he made without attacking his personal life?

Am I to conclude you don't listen to and contemplate anything that any human being tells you, since we all have our weaknesses?

He made some interesting points in the video. Which of those (if any ...[text shortened]... erely shows your desperation in wanting to believe we all secretly share your religious beliefs.

Tell you what. Let me hear the whole video and maybe we'll examine some of his points - why what seems a problem for Bertrand Russell is not a problem to me.

There was no distance though between what a man like Paul wrote and how Paul lived. His life WAS the message that he taught.

We are not just a cerebrum. We are not just a mind. Part of our total make up as human beings is also emotion telling us what we like and don't like, and will - what we decide to choose and decide to not choose.

Russell had no mathematical formula proving beyond a shadow of doubt that God did not exist. His emotion and will come into play and it is not just a matter of his logic.

Originally posted by @sonship
Divorce among those professing to be Christians is a scandal.
I don't deny it for a minute.

Bottom line - Bertrand Russell's unsteady marriage life doesn't prove God exsts.

I just point out that the mathematical minded philosopher had emotional baggage for what he liked and didn't like.

Christians never getting divorce (if such were the case, and is not) would not prove God's existence.

You're still dodging. What is the consequence for someone who believes in Jesus who does what Russell did? If they believe in Jesus, and they do what Russell did, are they "forgiven" and "saved" anyway?

Originally posted by @whodey
Who or what are you dependent upon?

I'm indepent in a co-depedent society.


Wordplay lacks any real substance.

Originally posted by @sonship
David was forgiven for his adultery and murder.
David did not escape the disciplinary consequences for his sin.

If, say, you were to do what Bertrand Russell did, what would be the "disciplinary consequences" that you would not be able to escape?

Originally posted by @fmf
If, say, you were to do what Bertrand Russell did, what would be the "disciplinary consequences" that you would not be able to escape?

Let us say that there are sins which I know about. I confess and am cleansed.
Then there are sins that I do not know about and do not confess.
In the process of sanctification, the increasing light in my heart will eventually make known to me those presumptuous sins.

Suppose I die without confessing those sins.
Suppose I being forgiven to receive eternal life, nevertheless do not want to acknowledge that a certain matter I clung to was displeasing to God?

Two alternatives:

1.) God is stuck and must accept you though you still have things undealt with.
2.) God is too wise to be so incompetent that saved can take advantage of "cheap grace".

The latter is the case.
Upon careful reading of the Bible it should be clear that the latter is the case.

Years ago I wrote a thread and explained this. It was called, I think "Five Kinds of Forgiveness".

Discipline is not only for this life, as we see in David's history after his failure with Bethsheba, but before the commencement of the eternal age, God still has time to do remedial work to transform the saved into the image of Christ.

Count how many times "a thousand years" is mentioned in Revelation 20 before the age of eternity with the new heaven and new earth.

Study the parable of the Master and his servants in Matthew and Luke. Discover that after the Master returns some of his servants still needing education, receive it.

Discipline in the age of grace has one flavor.
Discipline in the age of the millennial kingdom of 1,000 years will have a different flavor to it.

I would advise those who think God is not too swift to deal with a problem like this - to just forget about it. He is wise.

Forget about imagining that the there is a shortage of practical wisdom in God's plan of salvation. Its not going to happen.

Originally posted by @sonship
Suppose I die without confessing those sins.
Suppose I being forgiven to receive eternal life, nevertheless do not want to acknowledge that a certain matter I clung to was displeasing to God?

Two alternatives:

1.) God is stuck and must accept you though you still have things undealt with.
2.) God is too wise to be so incompetent that saved can take advantage of "cheap grace".

So a person who believes in Jesus - in, let's say, more or less the same way you do - can be, nevertheless, 'thrown into the Lake of Fire' if they do not confess that they got divorced or if they do not confess that they married multiple times? Regardless of their belief in Jesus. a person who does not confess doing these things faces "damnation", is that right?