WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN BY RUSSELL EXPOSES JESUS
Bertrand Russell made many objections to Christ and Christianity in his paper
Why I am not a Christian. We consider a few of them here.
He wrote, “Belief in eternal hell fire was an essential item of Christian belief
until pretty recent times. In this country, as you know, it ceased to be an
essential item because of a decision of the Privy Council, and from that
decision the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York dissented; but
in this country our religion is settled by Act of Parliament, and therefore the
Privy Council was able to override their Graces and hell was no longer necessary
to a Christian. Consequently I shall not insist that a Christian must believe in
Hell.”
Russell commits the fallacy of rash generalisation. Just because some bishops
and Church leaders oppose the Christian doctrine of Hell he assumes it is not
binding on anybody to believe it.
The error here is in assuming that it is up to bishops and ecclesiastics to
decide what is to be believed by Christians. Russell should have remembered that
bishops and ecclesiastics may just as easily mutilate and try to misrepresent
the teaching of Christ as they can propound it accurately. To be a Christian one
must accept the teaching of Jesus Christ. People who are described as Christian
leaders quite frequently lead their flocks astray. If Jesus said there is a
Hell, then the Christian who considers the doctrine optional is not a true
Christian. He or she follows a semblance of Christianity.
Russell hints that Christianity is not revealed by God but is merely based on
human opinion. Some say that is the straw man approach. It accuses the faith of
being purely human but masquerading as divine. But they are the ones setting up
a straw man unless they can give good evidence that he is wrong.
He goes on to explain that it is not fair to call Jesus the wisest of men when
there are other contenders and when Jesus borrowed his doctrines from others: I
now want to say a few words upon a topic which I often think is not quite
sufficiently dealt with by Rationalists, and that is the question whether Christ
was the best and the wisest of men. It is generally taken for granted that we
should all agree that that was so. I do not myself. 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 with Him much further than most professing Christians can. You
will remember that He said: "Resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on
thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." That is not a new precept or a new
principle. It was used by Lao-Tse and Buddha some 500 or 600 years before
Christ, but it is not a principle which as a matter of fact Christians accept. I
have no doubt that the present Prime Minister, for instance, is a most sincere
Christian, but I should not advise any of you to go and smite him on one cheek.
I think you might find that he thought this text was intended in a figurative
sense.
That is the end of the quote and it is a good point that actions show what
Christians really think of Jesus' teaching. They brag about it but don't really
believe it is accurate generally.
Russell wrote: “Christ said, "Judge not lest ye be judged." That principle I do
not think you would find was popular in the law courts of Christian countries.”
He says this teaching is unrealistic and stupid.
But many people who call themselves Christians are fond of quoting Jesus out of
context in order to spread liberalism and indifference to immorality. What Jesus
actually meant was that you must not judge others unless you judge yourself
first. The context speaks of seeing the mote in the eye of another while there
is a plank in your own eye. Jesus’ teaching is not unrealistic at all. It urges
realistic and unbiased judgement. He is talking to people not to the judiciary.
Russell notes that Jesus thought that his long awaited coming on the clouds of
Heaven as glorious Messiah was literally close. That is to say that "his second
coming would occur in clouds of glory before the death of all the people who
were living at that time. There are a great many texts that prove that. He says,
for instance: "Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of
Man be come.' Then He says: 'There are some standing here which shall not taste
death till the Son of Man comes into His kingdom'; and there are a lot of places
where it is quite clear that He believed His second coming would happen during
the lifetime of many then living.' … That was the belief of his earlier
followers, and it was the basis of a good deal of His moral teaching. When He
said, 'Take no thought for the morrow,' and things of that sort, it was very
largely because He thought the second coming was going to be very soon, and that
all ordinary mundane affairs did not count. "
Christians say that none of the texts he cites indicates that Jesus meant a
coming where he would come in glory and power to take over the world. They say
Russell takes Jesus out of context. But they are twisting Jesus' words. There
was no other coming referred to in the Bible but the coming of Jesus as man and
as son of man in glory to reign over the world. They say Russell is using the
argument from ignorance for he incorrectly surmises that the lack of evidence
that Jesus meant his second coming means that he did mean it. Jesus is being
presumed guilty until proven innocent.
The believers might say I am forgetting that Jesus left us at the crucifixion
and came back to us and returned in the resurrection three days later. This was
fulfilled they say. But that is a rationalisation - Jesus rising from the dead
and making a few brief appearances is not much of a coming.
Russell implies that any person who believes in Hell as in irrevocable and
everlasting punishment starting at death is not a good person: “I do not myself
feel that any person that is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting
Punishment.”
Is that an ad hominem attack? It would seem that even if the doctrine were evil,
there would be many good people who have not thought the doctrine through and
taken it for granted as compatible with God’s love in some way they have not
heard about or can’t understand. But if good people thought it was okay to rape
a child would you make such an excuse? The people then might not be deliberately
bad but they are still harmful. It is not an ad hominem simply because if you
endorse a doctrine like that and say you only warn people to protect them from
it you would say that anyway. Passive aggressive traits exist in every person
and they all pretend it is about caring. Hell would be the top of the list as an
example of that trait.
Signing up to a faith that requires the belief is worse than actually believing
it. It is a terrible doctrine to go along with without sincerity.
Russell writes, “Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in
everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against
those people who would not listen to His preaching -- an attitude which is not
uncommon with preachers, but which does somewhat detract from superlative
Excellence.”
Christians say that Russell is setting Jesus up as a straw man here. "Jesus’
fury was not vindictive but reflected the very real danger of Hell. He was
warning people for their own good. Are you vindictive if you shout furiously at
somebody to get out of a burning house?" If it was not vindictive but just real
tough love, then why are the Christians not showing this love themselves? Jesus
gave a doctrine that would only bring about bad fruits and corruption and kill
the sensitive with fear.
Russell writes, “There is, of course, the familiar text about the sin against
the Holy Ghost: 'Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be
forgiven him neither in this world nor in the world to come.' That text has
caused an unspeakable amount of misery in the world, for all sorts of people
have imagined that they have committed the sin against the Holy Ghost, and
thought that it would not be forgiven them either in this world or in the world
to come.”
Christians say, "He is using the example of people who suffered because they did
not understand the Bible. They did not understand that Jesus merely meant the
blasphemy of hardening one’s heart so much that one would never repent and
respond to the grace of the Holy Spirit. Those who commit the sin do not worry
about having committed it for they are too blind to see how sinful they are."
But they presuppose that the people referred to by Jesus as being guilty of the
eternal sin were 100% hardened. Nobody is. What you have is people who are hard
enough not to let their better nature through. Of course the doctrine of the
eternal sin will torment them.
Of the repeated tendency of Jesus to centre on judgment and punishment in the
after life, Russell writes, “it is quite manifest to the reader that there is a
certain pleasure in contemplating wailing and gnashing of teeth, or else it
would not occur so often. “
Russel tells us, “There is the instance of the Gadarene swine, where it
certainly was not very kind to the pigs to put the devils into them and make
them rush down the hill into the sea. You must remember that He was omnipotent,
and He could have made the devils simply go away; but He chose to send them into
the pigs. “
Christians say that the gospel does not say that Jesus was to blame for what the
pigs did. He put the demons into the pigs but the demons were so evil and
furious they accidentally drove the pigs to suicide. They say that the divine
purpose in this miracle was to show how dangerous demons are and to get it
across that demons and the inhabitants of Hell are insane.
The argument is presented in the context of claiming that Jesus was not the
perfect man. Russell is accused of using an ad hominem attack on Jesus. The
Christians say the story is not relevant to proving Jesus bad because it does
not say Jesus was to blame for what happened to the pigs. Christians say that
Russell is guilty of the False Dilemma fallacy: Jesus killed the pigs.
Only a bad person would do that. Therefore Jesus was bad.
But if Jesus knowingly puts demented demons into pigs what does he expect?
Mayhem. Russell is right.
If Jesus does what seems bad to us, we have a right to know why. And especially
when he says he is to be adored as God. But the gospels just give us the story
and tell us nothing about any lessons we could learn. We would be entitled to
think the worst. Aren't the gospels supposed to inspire us?
Russell attacks the story of Jesus looking for food on a fig tree and cursing it
for there was nothing on it. The curse killed it. "This is a very curious story,
because it was not the right time of year for figs, and you really could not
blame the tree. I cannot myself feel that either in the matter of wisdom or in
the matter of virtue Christ stands quite as high as some other people known to
History. I think I should put Buddha and Socrates above Him in those respects.”
Christians without any justification rationalise this as follows, "Russell
forgets that Jesus preferred to teach the people through symbols and parables.
The fig tree was a parable he acted out. The point of the episode was to show
that God would not accept whoever had the potential to bear fruit but failed to.
What about the fact that it was not the time of year for figs? That doesn’t
matter for Jesus had the power to make figs appear on it but didn’t. He still
illustrated his point." Jesus never said it was a parable. He was trying to show
his power to destroy any creature that did not please him. It is terrible to
kill a tree with your power when you could make fruit appear on the poor tree or
better still go and heal somebody. A sensible view is that his loss of
temper shows what he would do with his power to destroy.
Russell has done a good job of eviscerating the myth of a special Jesus. Jesus
was nothing special. The current of fear instilled by this man and his gospel
message shows this is not a gospel.