I think he is right and you are wrong. Lets examine the evidence again
Russell's Criticisms of Christianity & Jesus
- Thread starter Nouveau
- Start date
4thrite
Member
My point was God is depicted in the Bible as a god that intervenes regularly with the world, just like a greek god. The modus operandi is common to ancient god concepts. No need to invent them if they don't do anything anthropomorphic, like hold the sun up or something.
There is nothing special about the Hebrew deity in that regard.
Yes God does intervene regularly, but unlike the other gods He has made a way for forgiveness and salvation by becoming man and dwelling among us. So there is something unique and arguably special.
4thrite
Member
What you mention above about events relayed by different groups holds true with respect to the deluge of Noah's day. According to The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Vol. 2, p. 319, 1982) : “Flood stories have been discovered among nearly all nations and tribes. Though most common on the Asian mainland ... and on the North American continent, they have been found on all the continents. Totals of the number of stories known run as high as about 270 . . . The universality of the flood accounts is usually taken as evidence for the universal destruction of humanity by a flood and the spread of the human race from one locale and even from one family. Though the traditions may not all refer to the same flood, apparently the vast majority do. The assertion that many of these flood stories came from contacts with missionaries will not stand up because most of them were gathered by anthropologists not interested in vindicating the Bible, and they are filled with fanciful and pagan elements evidently the result of transmission for extended periods of time in a pagan society. Moreover, some of the ancient accounts were written by people very much in opposition to the Hebrew-Christian tradition.”
If the deluge occurred in fact, it is only reasonable that the descendants of the survivors took with them stories of the flood and although some of the details changed over the centuries a common theme among them is that the flood was a divine judgement, that warning was given and that a means of salvation was provided. The fact that there are not merely a few but hundreds of different stories about the deluge, and that such stories are found among the traditions of many primitive races the world over, is a strong proof that all these people had a common origin and that their early forefathers shared that Flood experience in common.
john
Because you're engaging in a hominems after promising not to. You're not addressing Russell's arguments.
It seems no-one here is willing to defend Christianity against Russell's criticism.
4thrite
Member
Several of us have affirmed that each of us have responded to Russell's arguments, yet you seem unable to see it
4thrite
Member
For me disenchantment with the world and with myself probably well describes the "soil" in which the "seeds" were initially planted. But since then, living by the teachings of Christ and the principles enunciated in the Bible the issues with myself have disappeared, my life is much more rewarding and I am by far a much happier person. The "world", by contrast, simply has nothing in comparison to offer - if there is no God then all we can expect is more of the same: a world in which the rich get richer and more powerful and others suffer.
john
4thrite
Member
Russell held Jesus complicit in the teaching of eternal torment; there is no need to put on "special soul glasses" to see that neither Jesus nor the Bible present that belief. All that is needed is an ability to read the relevant passages with comprehension.
john
The debate's moved on to why Russell is using ad hominens to attach Christians. Seems you don't want to be part of it.
True, but Christ himself told us why people would reject him, and he discounted pseudo intellectual arguments as cast by Russell. The reasons Christ gives includes "love for the world, delight in sin, lust etc."
It may be more correct than you believe.
No, you've merely falsely accused Russell of this because you're not able to meet his arguments. I'm not interested in your ad hominems or your false charges against Russell. I'm here to discuss his ideas.
I'm here to discuss why Russell is so keen to allege cruelty against Christians. That's part of what you wrote and so it's part of the debate. To my mind it's central to the debate. Everything else is secondary.
Then address what he actually said. He never claimed that all Christians are cruel.
When a person wonders how a person who gets saved can keep on doing what he wants to do, I tell him that person probably never got saved in the first place.
Because if he had really gotten saved, his want-tos would have changed.
2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
Off-topic non sequitur.
4thrite
Member
In most cultures a son (or daughter), along with his (her) parents, who volunteers for a mission that may cost him his life are accorded a great deal of respect.
john