Russell's Criticisms of Christianity & Jesus

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
Christ is my witness and his word is true.

John 3:19 "And this is the verdict: The Light has come into the world, but men loved the darkness rather than the Light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come into the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed."
Objection - hearsay.
This is not the witness's direct testimony.
 

AV1611VET

Well-known member
Already answered.
I don't get it.

You said God was guilty of contributory fault.

Yet you don't act like He is.

If I honestly thought that tiger I'm in the vicinity of is a man-eater, I wouldn't stand around discussing it with those standing around.

I'd skedaddle.

I'm amazed at how people can talk all day about what a tyrant God is, then go to bed and sleep like a baby.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
I don't get it.

You said God was guilty of contributory fault.

Yet you don't act like He is.

If I honestly thought that tiger I'm in the vicinity of is a man-eater, I wouldn't stand around discussing it with those standing around.

I'd skedaddle.

I'm amazed at how people can talk all day about what a tyrant God is, then go to bed and sleep like a baby.
Do you not know that I'm an atheist? I do not believe God exists. I am talking about the narrative as described in the bible, although I do not believe it to be true.

It's akin to having a discussion on what Sauron did and what he's responsible for...except some people actually believe Sauron exists.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
He has my support, so you are wrong there. Perhaps if you said he has little support it would be better.

...better but not good because there are a number of posters who agree with him.
He was talking about evidential support, not cheerleader support from other posters.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
From a Biblical worldview, Russell is so far out in left field that he can't even see home plate, he isn't even close
You haven't explained why. Do you think one can be a Christian without believing in God? Without believing in an afterlife? Or without believing that Jesus was at least the best and wisest of men?

Again, Russell's ignorance is displayed front and center. The Bible knows nothing of a created God (Exodus 3:14). Created gods in the Bible are known as idols. Russell is such a hypocrite, he wants to claim God must have a beginning, but then he wants to postulate the idea that maybe the world or creation or the universe has always been existence.
That's not his argument. He is rather pointing out that if God can be an exception to all things needing a cause, then so can the universe. The first cause argument is unsupported on both premises.

Romans 1 refutes Russell
But you don't say how. Mere disagreement is not a refutation.

Macro Evolution is theory only, the law of heredity is both factual and scientific. There is nothing that exists in nature that did not inherit its characteristics from is predecessors. People who support macro evolution as the basis for what exists have no explanation for the personal coming from the impersonal, therefore they have no explanation for personality, reason, conscience, nor language.
Evolution is one of the best-supported theories in science, and claiming it is 'only' a theory betrays a lack of understanding of what 'theory' means in science. You've also only addressed a small part of what Russell was saying about the design argument.

Russell has no concept of God's holiness and justice nor of the Biblical themes of Light and Darkness

Russell is making assessments from a finite fallen viewpoint
This doesn't address Euthyphro's dilemma at all. You might as well be stamping your foot and insisting "He just doesn't understand!". This doesn't amount to a rebuttal.

Question, how does an innocent child who is murdered receive justice?
He doesn't. That's Russell's point. The rational person sees such things and concludes that the world is lacking in justice. The religious wishful thinker sees this and assumes there must be justice somewhere else to make up for the lack we see.

Russell had no concept of the Person of Jesus Christ. Jesus claimed to be the first and last (see Isaiah 41:4 and Isaiah 44:6), Jesus claimed to be the Good Shepherd (see Psalm 23), Jesus claimed to be the Great I Am (see John 8:58).
Which of course does not address Russell's points of criticism in the slightest, unless you're trying to show that Christ also lacked humility.

Russell makes a fallacious assumption and reveals his complete ignorance
Yet you don't show how, once again presenting nothing that amounts to a rebuttal. What fallacious assumption? You haven't addressed the quotes from scripture he gave in support of his point.

Hell was created for the devil and the angels who rebelled against god (Matthew 25:41) and for those who reject the Son of God (Hebrews 10:26-31)
Which again does not address Russell's criticism.

This is the first somewhat valid argument that Russell makes, a lot of religion is corrupt, and it is corrupt for the reason that there are people who profess to be christian who are counterfeit and then also satan loves religion and uses it to discredit God and Jesus
Okay.

God's moral law is rejected by men because it exposes sin

Nothing is more denied but at the same time so constantly observable as sin
Russell's point is that many things labelled as sin have nothing to do with immorality.

For Russell there is no difference between religion and Christianity, but there is a big difference
Religion is man determining what should be acceptable to God
Christianity is God revealing how man can be reconciled to God through forgiveness found only in Jesus Christ (Acts 4:10-12)
Christianity is a religion, and Russell's point is that all religions, but specifically Christianity, are founded on fear of death and fear of the unknown.

Right here Russell acknowledges God both as a law giver and His moral law
If you admit that there is bad (evil) the you have to acknowledge there is such a thing as good, and if you acknowledge good and evil then you acknowledge a moral law, and if you acknowledge a moral law then you have to acknowledge a moral law giver, who is God, but that is who Russell is trying to disprove
Without a moral law there is no evil or good, it is only personal preference
Morality does not require a law-giver any more than the laws of nature do. You are merely repeating an argument here that Russell directly refutes in the essay with Euthyphro's Dilemma: "The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, you are then in this situation: is that difference due to God’s fiat or is it not? If it is due to God’s fiat, then for God Himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God’s fiat, because God’s fiats are good and not bad independently of the mere fact that He made them."

Russell rejects the Biblical God and the Bible because it exposed him as a fallen, sinful, prideful man who would not admit his guilt!
I appreciate you being one of the very few to attempt a full rebuttal, and thank you for your post. But I'm saddened to see yet another poster compelled to resort to a blatant ad hominem against Russell. It seems he really gets under the skin of some people, making them want to attack him instead of his arguments.
 

RCM

Active member
You haven't explained why. Do you think one can be a Christian without believing in God? Without believing in an afterlife? Or without believing that Jesus was at least the best and wisest of men?

We are talking about what defines a person as a true Christian and the primary qualification is that a person admits they are a lost sinner, separated from God and without hope in the world. And death is evidence of mankind's sinful and condemned state. Russell completely misses it entirely.

As for believing in God, the afterlife, and Jesus..........the demons are not Christian and they believe and shudder (James 2:19) and so should Russell and anyone else who refuses to repent of their sin


RCM
 

RCM

Active member
That's not his argument. He is rather pointing out that if God can be an exception to all things needing a cause, then so can the universe. The first cause argument is unsupported on both premises.

Russell is grasping at strawmen, because scientists know that the universe was not always there and that DNA was not always there (reference Dr. John Lennox)

As for God of the Bible, He is primary, and what we know about God can only be known by what He has revealed about Himself


RCM
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
We are talking about what defines a person as a true Christian and the primary qualification is that a person admits they are a lost sinner, separated from God and without hope in the world. And death is evidence of mankind's sinful and condemned state. Russell completely misses it entirely.

As for believing in God, the afterlife, and Jesus..........the demons are not Christian and they believe and shudder (James 2:19) and so should Russell and anyone else who refuses to repent of their sin
You're confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. It's weird how many people do this. Try answering what I asked.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Russell is grasping at strawmen, because scientists know that the universe was not always there and that DNA was not always there (reference Dr. John Lennox)

As for God of the Bible, He is primary, and what we know about God can only be known by what He has revealed about Himself
Where's the strawman? When did the universe not exist?
 

RCM

Active member
But you don't say how. Mere disagreement is not a refutation.

The Natural Law Argument, which is the idea that God is revealed by the regularity of nature. Russell notes that the simple laws of Newton have been replaced by the less intuitive theories of Einstein and the statistical averages of QM, less suggestive of design vs chance, and then explains the difference between prescriptive human laws and descriptive natural laws, where only the former imply a law-giver. He also points out that God's choice of laws would be either arbitrary or subject to laws independent of God.

Romans 1:18-22, states, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools."

God's word in Romans 1 emphatically states that Russell is wrong



RCM
 

RCM

Active member
Evolution is one of the best-supported theories in science, and claiming it is 'only' a theory betrays a lack of understanding of what 'theory' means in science. You've also only addressed a small part of what Russell was saying about the design argument.

Don't make me laugh, theory is theory and fact is fact

Provide just one example of progeny that doesn't follow the law of heredity, there isn't one

Russell nor you have no answer for the existence of language, reason, conscience, and personality apart from the existence of a personal God


RCM
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Don't make me laugh, theory is theory and fact is fact

Provide just one example of progeny that doesn't follow the law of heredity, there isn't one

Russell nor you have no answer for the existence of language, reason, conscience, and personality apart from the existence of a personal God
And the one does not become the other. Theories explain facts. Highly successful theories like evolution explain a lot of facts.
Evolution does not deny heredity, and in fact requires it. Mutation is also a source of novel traits.
The things you list arise from evolution and socio-cultural development. There's no reason to think a supernatural being was ever involved.

But this isn't really the place to debate evolution, so if you're going to challenge Russell's point that evolution undercuts the design argument, then I'll just note that this move further supports his other point about how religion impedes progress.
 
Last edited:
Top