Russell's Criticisms of Christianity & Jesus

RCM

Active member
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.

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
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
What a bunch of absolute nonsense, this is nothing more than philosophical spin...
This is not a serious or reasoned response to the point at hand.

The moral law and the laws of nature most certainly do require a law giver
Unsupported.

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
Already addressed.

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
That's not even remotely his argument, as I already explained to you in post #399.
 

RCM

Active member
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.

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
You're confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. It's weird how many people do this. Try answering what I asked.

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
 

Nouveau

Well-known 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
Do you deny that the things he said were necessary are in fact necessary?
 

RCM

Active member
Where's the strawman? When did the universe not exist?

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
 

Nouveau

Well-known 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?'
Because that's neither true nor what ad hominem means.

To use truth, facts, and reason to expose Russell arguments as false is not ad hominem
Sure, and if someone could do that I'd like to hear it.

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!
A statement is not an argument, and that one is not part of what we are discussing.
 

Nouveau

Well-known 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
We don't know that the universe had an absolute beginning, or that only things without beginnings don't have causes.
 

RCM

Active member
Exactly. It merely states that Russell is wrong. While Russell explains why Romans 1 is wrong.

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
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Yes I do deny what Russell states about Jesus, you cannot be a true Christian with Russell's definition of Jesus
That's not what I asked. You're again confusing necessary and sufficient conditions, just as BMS did.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Have you ever read Romans 1? You made a false statement
Unsupported.

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
A transparent rationalization that doesn't show Russell to have been wrong. Again, disagreeing with him isn't to refute him. Romans 1 merely advocates a design argument. Russell explains why such arguments are mistaken.
 

BMS

Well-known member
That's not what I asked. You're again confusing necessary and sufficient conditions, just as BMS did.
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.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Except that isnt relevant and ultimately I didnt confuse it
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.
 
Top