Russell's Criticisms of Christianity & Jesus
- Thread starter Nouveau
- Start date
Take a hike.
Electric Skeptic
Well-known member
We've already been here. It's a false dichotomy. Not omniscient does not mean myopic; not myopic does not mean omniscient.
RCM
Active member
What a bunch of absolute nonsense, this is nothing more than philosophical spin just like David Hume, you define God, you define the terms so you can construct an argument according to your bias rather than what is truth (Have you ever read the exchange between Jesus and Pilate in John 18:33-38?)
The moral law and the laws of nature most certainly do require a law giver
Without God as primary, you have absolutely no answer for the existence of language, personality, reason, and conscience, nor do you have an answer for why the laws of nature exist or DNA
This whole thing boils down to the fact that since God exists and God is good, you have absolutely no answer for why evil and suffering exist, but the Bible states it plainly, it because of mankind's rebellion and sin
God has allowed death, evil, and suffering in the world as just punishment to confront mankind with the consequences of sin and rebellion and God gives each person a lifetime (some longer than others) to choose if they want to remain in a state of rebellion and separation from God for eternity, or if they want to repent and be reconciled to God.
Mankind thinks his problem is physical, but God says his problem is spiritual (Deuteronomy 8:3)
Many people cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman, they don't want to
RCM
RCM
Active member
Bertrand Russell was a critic of God, the Bible, and true Christianity based upon nothing more than his fallacious opinions, why do you not call that 'ad hominem?'
To use truth, facts, and reason to expose Russell arguments as false is not ad hominem
Let me give you an example of one of Bertrand Russell's fallacious arguments, Russell once made the statement, "What science cannot explain, humanity cannot know," well that statement is not a statement of science and it is obviously false, I can think of several illustrations where humanity has knowledge that is not based upon science!
RCM
RCM
Active member
I am not confusing anything, both Russel and you are ignorant of what God and Jesus emphatically state that which is necessary (primary) to be a true Christian
RCM
RCM
Active member
Here is what you stated, "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's strawman is comparing the universe to the Biblical God
The Biblical God is uncreated, without beginning
Science knows the universe had a beginning and I stated a reference, Dr. John Lennox
RCM
RCM
Active member
Yes I do deny what Russell states about Jesus, you cannot be a true Christian with Russell's definition of Jesus
RCM
We do.
And how many years of college did it take before you concluded you [guys) don't know anything about how the universe got absolutely started?
RCM
Active member
Have you ever read Romans 1? You made a false statement
Romans 1 explains that people like Russell suppress the truth that is both obvious to the eye and truth that is written on the heart of every person and they are without excuse
RCM
Prove it
Except that isnt relevant and ultimately I didnt confuse it
Same issues being put to you. Russell hasnt identified Jesus Christ sufficiently to correctly identify the necessary conditions for his criticism. Told you way back.
It is relevant and you did confuse them.
Russell said you can't be a Christian without meeting certain requirements. This is about what is necessary for being a Christian.
You and RCM are saying meeting those requirements isn't enough for being a Christian. That is about what is sufficient for being a Christian.