OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book IV/Chapter XXXVII

Chapter XXXVII.
He charges us, moreover, with introducing “a man formed by the hands of God,” although the book of Genesis has made no mention of the “hands” of God, either when relating the creation or the “fashioning” of the man; while it is Job and David who have used the expression, “Thy hands have made me and fashioned me;” with reference to which it would need a lengthened discourse to point out the sense in which these words were understood by those who used them, both as regards the difference between “making” and “fashioning,” and also the “hands” of God. For those who do not understand these and similar expressions in the sacred Scriptures, imagine that we attribute to the God who is over all things a form such as that of man; and according to their conceptions, it follows that we consider the body of God to be furnished with wings, since the Scriptures, literally understood, attribute such appendages to God. The subject before us, however, does not require us to interpret these expressions; for, in our explanatory remarks upon the book of Genesis, these matters have been made, to the best of our ability, a special subject of investigation. Observe next the malignity of Celsus in what follows. For the Scripture, speaking of the “fashioning” of the man, says, “And breathed into his face the breath of life, and the man became a living soul.” Whereon Celsus, wishing maliciously to ridicule the “inbreathing into his face of the breath of life,” and not understanding the sense in which the expression was employed, states that “they composed a story that a man was fashioned by the hands of God, and was inflated by breath blown into him,” in order that, taking the word “inflated” to be used in a similar way to the inflation of skins, he might ridicule the statement, “He breathed into his face the breath of life,”—terms which are used figuratively, and require to be explained in order to show that God communicated to man of His incorruptible Spirit; as it is said, “For Thine incorruptible Spirit is in all things.”
* ↑ ἐπὶ τῆς πλάσεως.
* ↑ Cf. Job x. 8 and Ps. cxix. 73.
* ↑ σχῆμα.
* ↑ κακοήθειαν.
* ↑ πλάσεως.
* ↑ Gen. ii. 7; Heb. ויפָאַפְ, LXX. πρόσωπον.
* ↑ ἐμφυσώμενον.
* ↑ Wisd. of Solom. xii. 1.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book V/Chapter III

Chapter III.
But observe how, in his desire to subvert our opinions, he who never acknowledged himself throughout his whole treatise to be an Epicurean, is convicted of being a deserter to that sect. And now is the time for you, (reader), who peruse the works of Celsus, and give your assent to what has been advanced, either to overturn the belief in a God who visits the human race, and exercises a providence over each individual man, or to grant this, and prove the falsity of the assertions of Celsus. If you, then, wholly annihilate providence, you will falsify those assertions of his in which he grants the existence of “God and a providence,” in order that you may maintain the truth of your own position; but if, on the other hand, you still admit the existence of providence, because you do not assent to the dictum of Celsus, that “neither has a God nor the son of a God come down nor is to come down to mankind,” why not rather carefully ascertain from the statements made regarding Jesus, and the prophecies uttered concerning Him, who it is that we are to consider as having come down to the human race as God, and the Son of God?—whether that Jesus who said and ministered so much, or those who under pretence of oracles and divinations, do not reform the morals of their worshippers, but who have besides apostatized from the pure and holy worship and honour due to the Maker of all things, and who tear away the souls of those who give heed to them from the one only visible and true God, under a pretence of paying honour to a multitude of deities?
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book V/Chapter L

Chapter L.
Celsus, still expressing his opinion regarding the Jews, says: “It is not probable that they are in great favour with God, or are regarded by Him with more affection than others, or that angels are sent by Him to them alone, as if to them had been allotted some region of the blessed. For we may see both the people themselves, and the country of which they were deemed worthy.” We shall refute this, by remarking that it is evident that this nation was in great favour with God, from the fact that the God who presides over all things was called the God of the Hebrews, even by those who were aliens to our faith. And because they were in favour with God, they were not abandoned by Him; but although few in number, they continued to enjoy the protection of the divine power, so that in the reign of Alexander of Macedon they sustained no injury from him, although they refused, on account of certain covenants and oaths, to take up arms against Darius. They say that on that occasion the Jewish high priest, clothed in his sacred robe, received obeisance from Alexander, who declared that he had beheld an individual arrayed in this fashion, who announced to him in his sleep that he was to be the subjugator of the whole of Asia. Accordingly, we Christians maintain that “it was the fortune of that people in a remarkable degree to enjoy God’s favour, and to be loved by Him in a way different from others;” but that this economy of things and this divine favour were transferred to us, after Jesus had conveyed the power which had been manifested among the Jews to those who had become converts to Him from among the heathen. And for this reason, although the Romans desired to perpetrate many atrocities against the Christians, in order to ensure their extermination, they were unsuccessful; for there was a divine hand which fought on their behalf, and whose desire it was that the word of God should spread from one corner of the land of Judea throughout the whole human race.
* ↑ καὶ ὡς εὐδοκιμοῦντές γε ὅσον οὐκ ἐγκατλείποντο.  The negative particle (οὐκ) is wanting in the editions of Hœschel and Spencer, but is found in the Royal, Basil, and Vatican mss. Guietus would delete ὅσον (which emendation has been adopted in the translation), while Boherellus would read ὅσοι instead.—Ruæus.
* ↑ [Josephus, Antiquities, b. xi. cap. viii.]
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book V/Chapter IV

Chapter IV.
But since he says, in the next place, as if the Jews or Christians had answered regarding those who come down to visit the human race, that they were angels: “But if ye say that they are angels, what do you call them?” he continues, “Are they gods, or some other race of beings?” and then again introduces us as if answering, “Some other race of beings, and probably demons,”—let us proceed to notice these remarks. For we indeed acknowledge that angels are “ministering spirits,” and we say that “they are sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation;” and that they ascend, bearing the supplications of men, to the purest of the heavenly places in the universe, or even to supercelestial regions purer still; and that they come down from these, conveying to each one, according to his deserts, something enjoined by God to be conferred by them upon those who are to be the recipients of His benefits. Having thus learned to call these beings “angels” from their employments, we find that because they are divine they are sometimes termed “god” in the sacred Scriptures, but not so that we are commanded to honour and worship in place of God those who minister to us, and bear to us His blessings. For every prayer, and supplication, and intercession, and thanksgiving, is to be sent up to the Supreme God through the High Priest, who is above all the angels, the living Word and God. And to the Word Himself shall we also pray and make intercessions, and offer thanksgivings and supplications to Him, if we have the capacity of distinguishing between the proper use and abuse of prayer.
* ↑ Cf. Heb. i. 14.
* ↑ ἐν τοῖς καθαρωτάτοις τοῦ κόσμου χωρίοις ἐπουρανίοις, ἢ καὶ τοῖς τούτων καθαρωτέροις ὐπερουρανίοις.
* ↑ Cf. Ps. lxxxvi. 8; xcvi. 4; cxxxvi. 2.
* ↑ ἐὰν δυνώμεθα κατακούειν τῆς περὶ προσευχῆς κυριολεξίας καὶ καταχρήσεως.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book V/Chapter IX

Chapter IX.
And still continuing a little confused, and not taking care to see what was relevant to the matter, he expressed his opinion that the Jews were induced by the incantations employed in jugglery and sorcery (in consequence of which certain phantoms appear, in obedience to the spells employed by the magicians) to bow down to the angels in heaven, not observing that this was contrary to their law, which said to them who practised such observances:  “Regard not them which have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the Lord your God.” He ought, therefore, either not to have at all attributed this practice to the Jews, seeing he has observed that they keep their law, and has called them “those who live according to their law;” or if he did attribute it, he ought to have shown that the Jews did this in violation of their code.  But again, as they transgress their law who offer worship to those who are said to appear to them who are involved in darkness and blinded by sorcery, and who dream dreams, owing to obscure phantoms presenting themselves; so also do they transgress the law who offer sacrifice to sun, moon, and stars. And there is thus great inconsistency in the same individual saying that the Jews are careful to keep their law by not bowing down to sun, and moon, and stars, while they are not so careful to keep it in the matter of heaven and the angels.
* ↑ ἐγγαστριμύθοις.
* ↑ ἐπαοιδοῖς.
* ↑ Cf. Lev. xix. 31.
* ↑ The emendations of Ruæus have been adopted in the translation, the text being probably corrupt. Cf. Ruæus, in loc.
# Anniston Manufacturing Company v. Davis

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
301 U.S. 337
Anniston Manufacturing Company v. Davis
Argued: April 2, 1937. --- Decided: May 17, 1937
[Syllabus from pages 337-339 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Joseph B. Brennan and William A. Sutherland, both of Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner.
Messrs. Stanley F. Reed, Sol. Gen., and James W. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Anniversary

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Anniversary."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* The Anniversary, a poem by John Donne
* The anniversary, a poem by Otokar Březina
# An Outline of Philosophy

AN OUTLINE OF PHILOSOPHY
[Advertisements]
THE ANALYSIS OF MIND
INTRODUCTION TO MATHEMATICAL PHILOSOPHY
OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE EXTERNAL WORLD
PRINCIPLES OF SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION
THE PROSPECTS OF INDUSTRIAL CIVILISATION
ROADS TO FREEDOM
JUSTICE IN WAR TIME
ON EDUCATION
AN
OUTLINE OF PHILOSOPHY
BY
BERTRAND RUSSELL
LONDON: GEORGE ALLEN & UNWIN , LTD.
RUSKIN HOUSE, 40 MUSEUM STREET , W. C. 1
First published in Great Britain 1927 Published and copyrighted in U.S.A. under the title "Philosophy" All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain by R. & R. Clark, Limited, Edinburgh.
CONTENTS
| Chap. | Chap. | Page |
| I. | Philosophic Doubts | 1 |
| PART I |||
| MAN FROM WITHOUT |||
| II. | Man and his Environment | 19 |
| III. | The Process of Learning in Animals and Infants | 32 |
| IV. | Language | 46 |
| V. | Perception objectively regarded | 61 |
| VI. | Memory objectively regarded | 73 |
| VII. | Inference as a Habit | 82 |
| VIII. | Knowledge behaviouristically considered | 91 |
| PART II |||
| THE PHYSICAL WORLD |||
| IX. | The Structure of the Atom | 103 |
| X. | Relativity | 113 |
| XI. | Causal Laws in Physics | 120 |
| XII. | Physics and Perception | 129 |
| XIII. | Physical and Perceptual Space | 143 |
| XIV. | Perception and Physical Causal Laws | 150 |
| XV. | The Nature of our Knowledge of Physics | 157 |
| PART III |||
| MAN FROM WITHIN |||
| XVI. | Self-observation | 169 |
| XVII. | Images | 184 ​ |
| XVIII. | Imagination and Memory | 195 |
| XIX. | The Introspective Analysis of Perception | 209 |
| XX. | Consciousness? | 218 |
| XXI. | Emotion, Desire, and Will | 226 |
| XXII. | Ethics | 233 |
| PART IV |||
| THE UNIVERSE |||
| XXIII. | Some Great Philosophers of the Past | 247 |
| XXIV. | Truth and Falsehood | 265 |
| XXV. | The Validity of Inference | 277 |
| XXVI. | Events, Matter, and Mind | 287 |
| XXVII. | Man’s Place in the Universe | 303 |
| | Index | 313 |
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1970, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 53 years or less. This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Tertullian: Part Fourth/On Fasting
## Contents

* Chapter 1
* Chapter 2
* Chapter 3
* Chapter 4
* Chapter 5
* Chapter 6
* Chapter 7
* Chapter 8
* Chapter 9
* Chapter 10
* Chapter 11
* Chapter 12
* Chapter 13
* Chapter 14
* Chapter 15
* Chapter 16
* Chapter 17
* Elucidations
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Tertullian: Part Fourth/On Fasting/Chapter 14

Chapter XIV.—Reply to the Charge of “Galaticism.”
Being, therefore, observers of “seasons” for these things, and of “days, and months, and years,” we Galaticize. Plainly we do, if we are observers of Jewish ceremonies, of legal solemnities: for those the apostle unteaches, suppressing the continuance of the Old Testament which has been buried in Christ, and establishing that of the New. But if there is a new creation in Christ, our solemnities too will be bound to be new: else, if the apostle has erased all devotion absolutely “of seasons, and days, and months, and years,” why do we celebrate the passover by an annual rotation in the first month? Why in the fifty ensuing days do we spend our time in all exultation? Why do we devote to Stations the fourth and sixth days of the week, and to fasts the “preparation-day?” Anyhow, you sometimes continue your Station even over the Sabbath,—a day never to be kept as a fast except at the passover season, according to a reason elsewhere given. With us, at all events, every day likewise is celebrated by an ordinary consecration. And it will not, then, be, in the eyes of the apostle, the differentiating principle—distinguishing (as he is doing) “things new and old”—which will be ridiculous; but (in this case too) it will be your own unfairness, while you taunt us with the form of antiquity all the while you are laying against us the charge of novelty.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Comp. Gal. iv. 10.
* ↑ Comp. Luke xxii. 20; 2 Cor. v. 17, etc.
* ↑ Comp. Mark xv. 42.
* ↑ Comp. Matt. xiii. 52 ad fin.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Tertullian: Part Fourth/On Exhortation to Chastity/Elucidation

Elucidation.
(Albeit they be laics, p. 54.)
In the tract on Baptism Tertullian uses language implying that three persons compose a Church. But here we find it much more strongly pronounced,—Ubi tres, Ecclesia est, licet Laici. The question of lay-baptism we may leave till we come to Cyprian, only noting here, that, while Cyprian abjures his “master” on this point, his adversary, the Bishop of Rome, adopts Tertullian’s principle in so far.  But, in view of Matt. xix. 20, surely we may all allow that three are a quorum when so “gathered together in Christ’s name,” albeit not for all purposes. Three women may claim the Saviour’s promise when lawfully met together for social devotions, nor can it be denied that they have a share in the priesthood of the “peculiar people.” So, too, even of three pious children. But it does not follow that they are a church for all purposes,—preaching, celebrating sacraments, ordaining, and the like. The late Dean Stanley was fond of this passage of Tertullian, but obviously it might be abused to encourage a state of things which all orderly and organized systems of religion must necessarily discard. On p. 58 there is a reference, apparently, to deaconesses as “women in Ecclesiastical Orders.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Chap. vi. vol. iii. p. 672, this series.
* ↑ Hooker, Eccl. Polity, b. iii. cap. i. 14.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Tertullian: Part Fourth/On Exhortation to Chastity/Chapter 8

Chapter VIII.—If It Be Granted that Second Marriage is Lawful, Yet All Things Lawful are Not Expedient.
Let it now be granted that repetition of marriage is lawful, if everything which is lawful is good. The same apostle exclaims: “All things are lawful, but all are not profitable.” Pray, can what is “not profitable” be called good? If even things which do not make for salvation are “lawful,” it follows that even things which are not good are “lawful.” But what will it be your duty rather to choose; that which is good because it is “lawful,” or that which is so because it is “profitable?” A wide difference I take to exist between “licence” and salvation. Concerning the “good” it is not said “it is lawful;” inasmuch as “good” does not expect to be permitted, but to be assumed. But that is “permitted” about which a doubt exists whether it be “good;” which may likewise not be permitted, if it have not some first (extrinsic) cause of its being:—inasmuch as it is on account of the danger of incontinence that second marriage, (for instance), is permitted:—because, unless the “licence” of some not (absolutely) good thing were subject (so our choice), there were no means of proving who rendered a willing obedience to the Divine will, and who to his own power; which of us follows presentiality, and which embraces the opportunity of licence. “Licence,” for the most part, is a trial of discipline; since it is through trial that discipline is proved, and through “licence” that trial operates. Thus it comes to pass that “all things are lawful, but not all are expedient,” so long as (it remains true that) whoever has a “permission” granted is (thereby) tried, and is (consequently) judged during the process of trial in (the case of the particular) “permission.” Apostles, withal, had a “licence” to marry, and lead wives about (with them). They had a “licence,” too, to “live by the Gospel.”  But he who, when occasion required, “did not use this right,” provokes us to imitate his own example; teaching us that our probation consists in that wherein “licence” has laid the groundwork for the experimental proof of abstinence.

## Footnotes

* ↑ 1 Cor. x. 23.
* ↑ See 1 Cor. ix. 5.
* ↑ See vers. 4, 9–18.
* ↑ In occasionem.
# Androcles and the Lion (Shaw)/Preface to Androcles and the Lion/Credibility of the Gospels

CREDIBILITY OF THE GOSPELS.
It will be noted by the older among my readers, who are sure to be obsessed more or less by elderly wrangles as to whether the gospels are credible as matter-of-fact narratives, that I have hardly raised this question, and have accepted the credible and incredible with equal complacency. I have done this because credibility is a subjective condition, as the evolution of religious belief clearly shows. Belief is not dependent on evidence and reason. There is as much evidence that the miracles occurred as that the battle of Waterloo occurred, or that a large body of Russian troops passed through England in 1914 to take part in the war on the western front. The reasons for believing in the murder of Pompey are the same as the reasons for believing in the raising of Lazarus. Both have been believed and doubted by men of equal intelligence. Miracles, in the sense of phenomena we cannot explain, surround us on every hand; life itself is the miracle of miracles. Miracles in the sense of events that violate the normal course of our experience are vouched for every day: the flourishing Church of Christ Scientist is founded on a multitude of such miracles. Nobody believes all the miracles: everybody believes some of them. I cannot tell why men who will not believe that Jesus ever existed yet believe firmly that Shakespear was Bacon. I cannot tell why people who believe that angels appeared and fought on our side at the battle of Mons, and who believe that miracles occur quite frequently at Lourdes, nevertheless boggle at the miracle of the liquefaction of the blood of St. Januarius, and reject it as a trick of priestcraft. I cannot tell why people who will not believe Matthew's story of three kings bringing costly gifts to the cradle of Jesus, believe Luke's story of the shepherds and the stable. I cannot tell why people, brought up to believe the Bible in the old literal way as an infallible record and revelation, and rejecting that view later on, begin by rejecting the Old Testament, and give up the belief in a brimstone hell before they give up (if they ever do) the belief in a heaven of harps, crowns, and thrones. I cannot tell why people who will not believe in baptism on any terms believe in vaccination with the cruel fanaticism of inquisitors. I am convinced that if a dozen sceptics were to draw up in parallel columns a list of the events narrated in the gospels which they consider credible and incredible respectively, their lists would be different in several particulars. Belief is literally a matter of taste.
# Androcles and the Lion (Shaw)/Preface to Androcles and the Lion/Fashions of Belief

FASHIONS OF BELIEF.
Now matters of taste are mostly also matters of fashion. We are conscious of a difference between medieval fashions in belief and modern fashions. For instance, though we are more credulous than men were in the Middle Ages, and entertain such crowds of fortunetellers, magicians, miracle workers, agents of communication with the dead, discoverers of the elixir of life, transmuters of metals, and healers of all sorts, as the Middle Ages never dreamed of as possible, yet we will not take our miracles in the form that convinced the Middle Ages. Arithmetical numbers appealed to the Middle Ages just as they do to us, because they are difficult to deal with, and because the greatest masters of numbers, the Newtons and Leibnitzes, rank among the greatest men. But there are fashions in numbers too. The Middle Ages took a fancy to some familiar number like seven; and because it was an odd number, and the world was made in seven days, and there are seven stars in Charles's Wain, and for a dozen other reasons, they were ready to believe anything that had a seven or a seven times seven in it. Seven deadly sins, seven swords of sorrow in the heart of the Virgin, seven champions of Christendom, seemed obvious and reasonable things to believe in simply because they were seven. To us, on the contrary, the number seven is the stamp of superstition. We will believe in nothing less than millions. A medieval doctor gained his patient's confidence by telling him that his vitals were being devoured by seven worms. Such a diagnosis would ruin a modern physician. The modern physician tells his patient that he is ill because every drop of his blood is swarming with a million microbes; and the patient believes him abjectly and instantly. Had a bishop told William the Conqueror that the sun was seventy-seven miles distant from the earth, William would have believed him not only out of respect for the Church, but because he would have felt that seventy-seven miles was the proper distance. The Kaiser, knowing just as little about it as the Conqueror, would send that bishop to an asylum. Yet he (I presume) unhesitatingly accepts the estimate of ninety-two and nine-tenths millions of miles, or whatever the latest big figure may be.