|
Add to Interest Profile
Edit Interest Profile
Email This Message
Search
| My dear veerji Preet Mohan S Ahluwalia Sat Sri Akal. Thank you for your response. Some of my responses are long because for the benefit of the readers, I reproduce your response as well as my answer. Unfortunately the main over-arching point of your polemic is an ad hominem attack on my motives and intents, which have no relevance to the validity of my arguments, which should stand or fall on their own merit. I have always tried to give full and comprehensive answers to all the points that are raised and never to stray from the point as you have done in this lengthy and mostly irrelevant response. My arguments would be the same if Bertrand Russell had said what he had said about any religion and not just Sikhism. You are erroneously assuming that I had said what I said about Bertrand Russell because he was praising Sikhism. Not at all my dear veerji, you should know me better than that. Furthermore you have evaded my primary inquiry-- the page number, and context of the quote. I want to see it in black and white. You did not even specifically say that the quote came form "EXCELLENCE OF SIKHISM" by Sarup s Alag and I am still not sure that that is want you meant to convey. If so, please oblige with a page number. I was tempted to stop and pursue the matter as indicated in my previous responses, but truth is a very important value to me and must be championed at all costs. A "truthful life" flows from a truthful theology not vice versa. I shall respond to the points that you have raised. You write: << YOU SEEM TO SUBTLY BRING A REFERENCE TO JESUS AND CHRISTIANITY. >> Check my responses again, I only introduce that material which is relevant to my arguments and the topic under discussion. In your response, you are the one who has introduced the topics of 'hell' and what Jesus Himself had said about 'loving your neighbor'. Any quotations in the past from the Bible, the Koran or any other scriptures have been relevant to the topic and for the edification of the cyber sangat. You write: <<A CHRISTIAN'S RELIGIOUS BELIEFS MAY MAKE IT CONVINIENT FOR HIM/HER TO LABLE PEOPLE AS AN ATHEIST. AS A SIKH I DON'T HAVE THAT LUXURY. >> At times Russell considered himself an agnostic and at other times an atheist and at other times he said that he didn't see the difference between the two. He himself gave these "labels" to himself, it is not some peculiar characteristic that Christianity foists upon people. Language conveys meanings and the lexicon defines what an atheist is. Whether or not you as a Sikh have that luxury or not is irrelevant, an atheist is an atheist however you wish to or not wish to label him/her. <<MY RELIGIOUS BELIEF'S TELL ME THAT "NO MAN IS COMPLETELY LOST TO GOD BECAUSE GOD NEVER GIVES UP ON MAN". IN SIKHISM AN ATHEIST IS AS MUCH LIKELY TO RECEIVE GOD'S GRACE ("NADAR") AS A STAUNCH BELIEVER. >> This is a red herring, and irrelevant side tracking of the issues. We are not discussing the subject of salvation or grace as it relates to an atheist. But since you have brought up the topic, Christianity does not teach differently about the potential and possible salvation of an atheist. The great Cambridge and Oxford professor the late C.S.Lewis being a case in point. <<I DON'T KNOW HOW VARIOUS RELIGIONS DEFINE SIN. BUT IN SIKHISM THERE IS NO SUCH THING(OR SIN) THAT WILL "LEAD YOU TO ETERNAL HELL". >> Who said any thing about a specific sin that leads to eternal hell? I do not even recall mentioning the subject. Furthermore, the Sri Guru Granth Sahib says: ?Kah Ravidaas paapee narak sidhaariaa.? ?Ravidaas says, THE SINNER GOES TO HELL.? (SGGS p875 Ravidaas). A little earlier you wrote : <<IT IS OUR ACTIONS THAT TAKE US CLOSER TO OR FARTHER FROM GOD AND NOT ANY USELESS LABELS. >> And now you add: << TO UNDERSTAND SOMEONE'S ATTITUDE TOWARDS LIFE OR OTHER ASPECTS OF IT ONE NEED TO KNOW A BIT MORE ABOUT THAT PERSON. AS THE SAYING GOES: "MAN IS A SUM TOTAL OF HIS EXPERIENCES". >> Let me tell you something about Bertrand Russell. Most people do not realize that Russell lived a very immoral and promiscuous life and went through six marriages. It is well documented that he seduced almost every woman he could, even the daughters and wives of people who had him in their home as a guest. Any one living such a life style is going to fight very hard against the existence of God even though they be intellectually gifted in many ways with a brilliant mind as he was. He demonstrated in his life that he had a motivation for being an atheist. You then go on to analyze as to why Bertrand Russell was an atheist. Once again that is not the topic of discussion. You write: <<TO UNDERSTAND THE REVOLTING NATURE OF RUSSELL'S ARGUMENTS YOU NEED TO KNOW WHAT MADE HIM TO REVOLT. UNLESS WE CAN DO THAT WE'RE ALL WASTING OUR TIME. >> Since you have brought up the subject, I'll briefly go over the highlight of the change. Russell was very precocious and was primarily tutored by individual tutors as he was from a very wealthy family. From his own autobiography -He claimed that he believed in God when he was a young man. It was in his later teen years when he first read Immanuel Kant that he gave up belief in God and never again at any time does he ever concede to a belief in God. Why was Russell an atheist? Briefly, the "why" question has two different meanings, 1) what are the causes e.g. psychological, sociological familial etc. 2) But why in terms of the reasons is quite different. As mentioned above he demonstrated in his life that he had a motivation for being an atheist. You write: << YOU FEEL THAT RUSSELL'S ARGUMENTS AGAINST CHRISTIANITY ARE FALLACIOUS AND CAN BE REFUTED. THIS COULD BE A GOOD PROJECT FOR YOU TO WORK ON. ...ONCE YOU HAVE YOUR THOUGHTS PUBLISHED PLEASE LET US KNOW AND WE'LL BUY THE BOOK AND READ IT. >> I am afraid that I was born too late and many people far more brilliant than me, have already completed the project and I shall be glad to send you a bibliography. One of the books in response to Russell's book WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN is a book entitled WHY I AM STILL A CHRISTIAN. Russell's arguments for the non-existence of God were not much of an improvement over Immanuel Kant's arguments against the classical theistic proofs of the existence of God. Out of all of his most creative work no more than 5% to 10 % is accepted by philosophers, as having enduring intellectual merit. He had a gift for literary lucidity and his works on THE HISTORY OF WESTERN PHILOSPHY is very good, especially his critique of Marxism and Pragmatism. You write: <<YOU FEEL THAT BERTRAND RUSSELL COULD NOT HAVE SAID ABOUT SIKHISM WHAT HE DID. SO THIS IS WHAT ALL THE DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT. MY QUESTION TO YOU IS WHY WOULD YOU BE SO EAGER TO PROVE THAT HE DIDN'T. WHY SHOULD IT BOTHER ANYONE? IN FACT PEOPLE SHOULD BE HAPPY THAT SOME AMONGST US HAVE A TREASURE WHICH WE ARE MORE THAN WILLING TO SHARE WITH EVERYONE IRESPECTIVE OF THEIR BELIEFS OR ETHNICITY>> Let's play fair veerji, I have made it amply clear what I was trying to achieve and reading ulterior and sinister motives into my arguments is not justified. I know something about Bertrand Russell's major works and about the man himself and his background. I have also consulted a retired philosophy professor who has spent 40 years in this field and has studied most of Bertrand Russell's major works in great detail. My question was raised for the sake of academic truth. The reason I told you that his arguments were fallacious was lest you and the readers remain under the erroneous impression that Russell's arguments were sound. You write: << I ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT JESUS HAD SAID "LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR". HOWEVER WHAT HE PROBABLY MEANT WAS "LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR UNCONDITIONALLY" RATHER THAN "LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR IF HE BELIEVES IN ME AS THE ONLY SAVIOUR OTHERWISE CONSIDER HIM TO BE POSSESSED BY SATAN AND CONDEMNED TO A LIFE OF ETERNAL HELL". >> My posting was not for purposes of discussing or rebutting Bertrand Russell's arguments against Christianity, but since you bring it up, I will say that your observations are quite correct. Jesus was in fact quoting from the Old Testament book of Leviticus written by Moses: 'You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord.' (Leviticus 19:18). The bottom line is that if Russell ever did make that statement that you quoted, so what? It certainly was not a position that he maintained in his mature years. Even if I grant that at one time Russell said that, which I am not prepared to grant until I see it in black & white, my original point was that how can any Sikh who believes in God want to quote Russell? You end with the remark of 'Good Luck'. I am not sure what good luck has do with any rational discussion about truth? I have addressed each of your points, but you have selectively chosen to respond to only a few of my arguments and even those have been misinterpreted. I sincerely hope from the bottom of my heart that I have put my views across in a very loving caring and sensitive manner yet without compromising the truth. May Akal Purkh bless you and guide you to all truth. Bhul chak maaf karni. Humbly with love & regards Jass Singh. |
