Russell's Criticisms of Christianity & Jesus

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
as i said, carry on without me.

What i care about is to talk to a soul who wants to understand and wants to meet Him.
No offense but no, you don't. You want to talk to someone who agrees with you.

EVERYBODY wants to understand and, if God exists, EVERYBODY wants to meet him. You confuse not believing what you say with not wanting to understand and not wanting to know God.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
the whole game here on this earth is to prevent the dons from understanding —-
and by that to continue the fallen situation forever, and to make souls reject Him and willingly follow them (satanic realm) instead.

it’s a spiritual war.
Again, completely unsupported.
 

AV1611VET

Well-known member
I am discussing what the biblical narrative says.

Oh? Did he not create the world? Did he not put the tree there? Did he not tell Adam and Eve not to eat of it? Did he not know that they would eat of it anyway? Who decided what would be the consequences of Adam and Eve eating the fruit?

All God. He did it all.
If you truly believed that, you'd be begging Him for mercy; not turning your back on Him.

Unless you have some kind of death wish on your own head or something.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
the tree is the torus concept i posted an representation of. it’s a physics and a consciousness, which is a negative mirror…an inversion and corruption of God’s reality… Adam partook of their mindset, and consciousness - and acquired that type of ‘thinking’ , which scripture calls the carnal mind.
You follow a very predictable pattern of making a bunch of completely unsupported claims, which you then claim to be supported by ancient texts, before making excuses for why you can't be bothered showing that this is so.
 

5wize

Well-known member
as i said, carry on without me.

What i care about is to talk to a soul who wants to understand and wants to meet Him.
But you said you cannot provide a method. This sounds like you possess a sure fire way to know Him. Do you?
 

BMS

Well-known member
So Russell likes some of Christ's teaching, but doesnt think Christians do it. I would ask since he likes the ones mentioned does he do them himself?
Then he moves on to the teachings of Christ he doesnt like. Isnt that why he rejects Christ?
 

BMS

Well-known member
I am discussing what the biblical narrative says.

Oh? Did he not create the world? Did he not put the tree there? Did he not tell Adam and Eve not to eat of it? Did he not know that they would eat of it anyway? Who decided what would be the consequences of Adam and Eve eating the fruit?

All God. He did it all.
So are you saying for you it would be God's fault if God existed?
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
So Russell likes some of Christ's teaching, but doesnt think Christians do it. I would ask since he likes the ones mentioned does he do them himself?
Probably not. He acknowledges that they are very hard to follow.

Then he moves on to the teachings of Christ he doesnt like. Isnt that why he rejects Christ?
It's why he cannot consider Christ to have been the best and wisest of men.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Then address what he actually said. He never claimed that all Christians are cruel.
Russell's critique of Christ is first directed against him personally, and objectionable as ignoring and sidelining the purpose of his visit to earth, involving bringing the gift of salvation to all men.

Russell rejects the need for any personal salvation as he prefers sin, and merely carps flippantly at Christ, such as his cursing of the fig tree without figs, whilst failing to understand the teaching connoted that men also will be cursed if they fail to bear fruit, whatever the season.

Russell asserts that the churches "continue to cause suffering" without bothering to note whether they are true or false churches, and whether the church is really an arm of secular government. Thus he deliberately confounds the secular administrative and judicial arm of State churches with their evangelical arm. He overlooks the numerous lives saved from sin and their role in upholding public morality - a morality that he himself despises and regards with total contempt.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Russell's critique of Christ is first directed against him personally...
Of course it is. It's a critique of Christ's character and teachings, which is exactly what you asked me for.

Russell rejects the need for any personal salvation as he prefers sin...
And there you go with your ad hominems again. You said you wouldn't do this.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Of course it is. It's a critique of Christ's character and teachings, which is exactly what you asked me for.


And there you go with your ad hominems again. You said you wouldn't do this.
You've asserted your right to bury your head in the sand and for that reason you will never discover spiritual things.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
You've asserted your right to bury your head in the sand and for that reason you will never discover spiritual things.
You've shown you can't address Russell's arguments on their own merit without degenerating into ad hominem attacks.
 

5wize

Well-known member
You've asserted your right to bury your head in the sand and for that reason you will never discover spiritual things.
And you've buried your head in spiritual sand so now you can't really know anything. What you choose to believe no longer requires any tangible veracity. A foolish way to live.
 

5wize

Well-known member
It comes about from a misreading of scripture. Take for example Revelation 20:14 wherein it states that "death and hell" were cast into the lake of fire. What does that mean? With respect to death a look at Revelation 21:4 tells us what it means: death will be no more.

If you think of fire, even the concept of an eternally burning fire, that which can be burned by it, is burned up by it and ceases to exist.

That is why Jesus referenced the one who can destroy the soul in hell: Matthew 10:28.

Hell, (hades, sheol in Hebrew) in the Bible is a word that means grave as in the common end of all humans. Except that some translations render the word gehenna as hell. Gehenna was a reference to a literal place outside of the walls of Jerusalem where fires burned continually and where the bodies of those executed by the authorities of the time were disposed of.

john
The lake of fire, mentioned only in Revelation 19:20 and 20:10, 14-15, is the final hell, the place of eternal punishment for all unrepentant rebels, both angelic and human (Matthew 25:41). It is described as a place of burning sulfur, and those in it experience eternal, unspeakable agony of an unrelenting nature (Luke 16:24; Mark 9:45-46). Those who have rejected Christ and are in the temporary abode of the dead in hades/sheol have the lake of fire as their final destination.
 
Top