Russell's Criticisms of Christianity & Jesus

5wize

Well-known member
And how has he done that?

john
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.
 

BMS

Well-known 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
plato came before christ, telling the events from the saturnian (satanic) point of view, which in dilute form repeat what the hieroglyphs describe as the attack upon and conquest of eden by that realm. this doesn’t mean scripture arose from those greek myths, only that the events were relayed by different groups and that the sumerians and egyptians and plato gave their version… and the greeks built a civilization that would value that mindset. that was the same classical greek education augustine received for example.
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
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Not interested. Why don't you discuss my points.
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
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.
So, he hasn't, in fact, "manipulated the world just like greek gods"?

john
 

BMS

Well-known member
Because you're engaging in a hominems after promising not to. You're not addressing Russell's arguments.
Several of us have affirmed that each of us have responded to Russell's arguments, yet you seem unable to see it
 

4thrite

Member
This is actually a really good point. If we are asking Christians to argue out of where we are at as atheists in order to bridge us from there to belief, we should do the same. Why are you Christian? National or familial culture? Logic? Faith? Disenchantment with the world? Disenchantment with the self? Fear of Hell? Desire for heaven? Gratitude? What?
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
Well then you can't blame Russell for his opinion on exactly how you agree that the materials present. He wasn't told to put special *soul* glasses on when reading it. I'm not going to either until you explain what they are and how they work.
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
 

cjab

Well-known member
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.
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.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Which does not prove that the reason he rejected Christianity was because of his lifestyle.
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."

Well that assumes that Christianity is correct, which I do not believe.
It may be more correct than you believe.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
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.
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.
 

cjab

Well-known member
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.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
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.
 

AV1611VET

Well-known member
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.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
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
I also absolutely abhorred the Easter celebration where the God of love, mercy, kindness and forgiveness required the slaughter and blood sacrifice of a man for some remedy. It sickened me to think that was the best version of redemption from my shortcomings that this God could muster. I felt the emotional sickness of blending this slaughter with love, like an abusive parent that would whip you as they claimed the depth of their love for you, so you grow up warped in what love entails.
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
 
Top