Posts by vienne

43

Did Russell come up with the no hell fire and no Trinity doctrine or did steal that belief from another religion as well?

by nowwhat? in

just wondering hate to give the devil his due.

vienne

proof of something that does not exist is difficult.

43

Did Russell come up with the no hell fire and no Trinity doctrine or did steal that belief from another religion as well?

by nowwhat? in

just wondering hate to give the devil his due.

You see his doctrine as 'lies.' That's very subjective. Thousands of Bible Student adherents see his doctrines as absolute truth. They would dispute your characterization of his beliefs. In any case, to fit the definition of Charlatan, he would have have been consciously misrepresenting.

We're arguing about words here without making much progress.You present a definition of "lies" that is true in itself, but you misapply it to this situation. You've done the same with the word "charlatan" apparently to justify your characterization of Russell. I agree he was often wrong. I agree he believed things derived from others that were wrong. Being wrong does not make anyone a liar within the definition you quoted.

I'm disengaging from this conversation. We're parting here with both of us believing ourselves to be in the right. Would you characterize one of us as a liar? That's a rhetorical question ... You need not answer it.

43

Did Russell come up with the no hell fire and no Trinity doctrine or did steal that belief from another religion as well?

by nowwhat? in

just wondering hate to give the devil his due.

vienne

There is a vast difference between being wrong, which Russell most definitely was, and a conscious pretense, a false representation. Words and their definitions matter.

43

Did Russell come up with the no hell fire and no Trinity doctrine or did steal that belief from another religion as well?

by nowwhat? in

just wondering hate to give the devil his due.

vienne

There is a difference between a word's denotation and its connotation. The two functions define a word.

Subtle definitions

The person called a charlatan is being accused of resorting to quackery, pseudoscience, or some knowingly employed bogus means of impressing people. The aim is the same, however: to swindle his victims by selling them worthless nostrums, and similar goods or services, that will not deliver on the promises made for them. The word calls forth the image of an old-time medicine show operator, who has long left town by the time the people who bought his snake oil tonic realize that it does not perform as advertised.

Legal implications

Because of the connotations about intentional deceit, calling a living person a "charlatan" can actually be libelous or slanderous. Therefore, even with mounting evidence in support it can be a dicey thing to just call someone out as a charlatan scam artist.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Charlatan

43

Did Russell come up with the no hell fire and no Trinity doctrine or did steal that belief from another religion as well?

by nowwhat? in

just wondering hate to give the devil his due.

vienne

You still mis-define Charlatan, but I don't see any reason to continue to debate that. I just see him as 'wrong' on many issues, especially in his view of women.

The American side of my family has its share of Watch Tower adherents from the Russell era, some mentioned in Zion's Watch Tower. My mom rejected Witness belief, and though my Austrian-born gramma converted to Witness belief, my mom did not follow her into that folly.

43

Did Russell come up with the no hell fire and no Trinity doctrine or did steal that belief from another religion as well?

by nowwhat? in

just wondering hate to give the devil his due.

vienne

If something is sincerely stated, it does not make the thoughts accurate. But it does not make them a lie. It makes them wrong, which Russell frequently was. Words matter. If we want to be effective, we must use them as intended. Otherwise we violate grammar conventions and are nothing more than a misleading polemicist. That defeats our claims. It is reason for others to shrug their shoulders and think us illiterate.

My mom would have told you the Latin phrase that covers that aspect of false reasoning. I'm just telling you that your terms are wrong, grammatically speaking. If we misidentify, then we lose an argument.

43

Did Russell come up with the no hell fire and no Trinity doctrine or did steal that belief from another religion as well?

by nowwhat? in

just wondering hate to give the devil his due.

vienne

The definition suggests that the claim was knowingly false. Russell believed what he taught. So, while he was mistaken, we cannot call him a charlatan within the definition of the word.

I understand that you do not like him. I'm not certain how familiar you are with his life, beyond what you might have read on opposition Internet boards on in polemical literature. But, even if we detest the man, we should describe him fairly.

43

Did Russell come up with the no hell fire and no Trinity doctrine or did steal that belief from another religion as well?

by nowwhat? in

just wondering hate to give the devil his due.

vienne

Crofty,

Are you referring to his 1910 article on Studies in the Scriptures?

43

Did Russell come up with the no hell fire and no Trinity doctrine or did steal that belief from another religion as well?

by nowwhat? in

just wondering hate to give the devil his due.

vienne

Christian sects claim to follow the bible; they claim to derive their beliefs from it. So there is a vast similarity among them, even when they differ in key areas. This is as true of other sects as it is of Jehovah's Witnesses.

43

Did Russell come up with the no hell fire and no Trinity doctrine or did steal that belief from another religion as well?

by nowwhat? in

just wondering hate to give the devil his due.

vienne

"Charlatan" is inflammatory, and in this case it is unwarranted. He was a 'true believer'. Wrong in many respects, but a true believer nevertheless. Calling him a charlatan suggests that he purposely deceived people. He was flawed. But he believed what he wrote and taught.

All of his doctrines, even his date system, came from others, but who were these? Without exception they were respected clergy who had preceded him. If his doctrine seems strange to us today, it was not foreign to his contemporaries, though as Mom and B point out in Separate Identity, the combination was novel and controversial.

I read on these boards claims that he was in it for the money. The historical record does not sustain this. Several court cases opened portions of the Society's books. it was a money losing concern, sustained out of Russell's pocket and contributions from followers. On his death it was nearly bankrupt.

I read on these boards claims about his morals. They derive from newspaper articles. But the transcript of the Russell divorce is in the public record in Allegheny County. A copy is expensive, but it is available. No-one making assertions about his morals here or on other discussion boards seems to have read it. You really should before you believe what newspaper articles say. And I can hear someone muttering, 'but have you read it?' Yes, my Mom, her writing partner, B. W. Schulz, and my uncle Karl all have copies.

Don't foster nonsense. Dislike Russell? Fine by me. Hate what he taught? Okay. But if you wish to state your distaste, do not present a false narrative. Someone will notice. And as quality research is published, more and more will notice. There are some really good books out there now, including my Mom's. And somewhere on the site she posted a longish bibliography of worthwhile books.

Mom would have presented this in a clearer fashion than I have and with more detail. Unfortunately she died this year at only 41. We miss her daily.