Russell's Criticisms of Christianity & Jesus

Hypatia_Alexandria

Well-known member
As interesting as this post, I'm unsure how it quite answers my question.
With regard to deities in human form outside of the Bible. Most biblical scholars would agree that in Genesis 1.26 the high deity is addressing the other members of the divine assembly and most would agree that being made in the image and likeness of the gods, human beings bear a physical resemblance to their own deities.
 

Furion

Well-known member
I don't understand your question, I'm afraid. But Romans 1 is certainly no general indictment of 'the unbeliever' in our sense of the term.
You don't understand Romans 1, you mean.

Yes, it is a general indictment of man, whether believer or not.
 

Lucian

Active member
With regard to deities in human form outside of the Bible. Most biblical scholars would agree that in Genesis 1.26 the high deity is addressing the other members of the divine assembly and most would agree that being made in the image and likeness of the gods, human beings bear a physical resemblance to their own deities.
Well, perhaps. But I was alluding to your earlier comments on the apparently mundane, perhaps even debauched, things that Semitic deities (including Yahweh) were supposed to be getting up to, and asking about any comparative evidence that's cited in the recent book you've been promoting. I ask because in the Homeric epics (a natural point of comparison) it's often alleged that the gods come off very anthropomorphically, with our concept of God being much more geistig. But I'm somewhat sceptical of this claim.
 

Furion

Well-known member
I'm afraid it isn't. I'm quite happy to explain further, if you're interested.
Yes it is, and you can post whatever you like.

So, one indictment, you are not thankful to God.

Do you praise God for all that He has done, especially for you?
 

Furion

Well-known member
I'm afraid it isn't, and I know I am. As I say, I'm quite happy to explain further, if you're interested.
Yes, it is, and you can post whatever you like. I'm always up for an atheist's explanation of scripture.

So not thankful and will not glorify God. Of course you won't answer, but that's ok, everything comes out in the end.

You do at least think the word of God is worth remembering, and following, correct?
 

Furion

Well-known member
I'm pleased to hear you're interested. I'll pull my thoughts together at some point this week and get back to you.
That is fine.

But as you gather, like I've related, and it's a simple thing really, I've shared with you three key things in Romans 1, and they apply to everyone, in all times, towards men of all beliefs. It's a chicken or egg dilemma. Did the unthankful, ungrateful and dismissive of God heart come first, or did the actions.
 

Hypatia_Alexandria

Well-known member
Well, perhaps.
What do you mean by that?
But I was alluding to your earlier comments on the apparently mundane, perhaps even debauched, things that Semitic deities (including Yahweh) were supposed to be getting up to, and asking about any comparative evidence that's cited in the recent book you've been promoting.

Plenty of comparative evidence is provided and the god of the Hebrews is contextualised within West Semite culture and the texts found in the Hebrew bible.






 

4thrite

Member
Only if the purpose and method are worthy... otherwise we call it a fools errand.
Well I think that the men and women who have given their lives for their country or other such thing were running that which you call a "fool's errand". But that doesn't prevent me from recognizing their bravery and valor nor the sacrifice of the parents. Even if they were misled, what they each did personally is worthy of my respect.
It's really nuts if you were to allow yourself to sit with this and think clearly about it.
I think that allowing my disagreement with the cause that so many have given their lives for to view them with disdain would be the opposite of thinking clearly.

john
 

4thrite

Member
The history of the early church is as ugly as it gets, murder, execution, torture... all to just forge a set a beliefs in an unseen. This cannot be where anything divine has staked a claim in such hearts.
You recognize, and rightly so, that the churches have nothing to do with the "divine". And yet in your posts you reproduce the ugly beliefs about the divine that they have promulgated over the centuries as a reason to reject the divine. When they are clearly reasons to reject the churches.

Beginning in the 2nd century CE a new generation of "wicked men and imposters" began to use force and fear to build an empire. Jesus said that one will know his disciples by the love they have among themselves.

john
 

4thrite

Member
Firstly, whatever the events of the fall were, they were awful because God chose them to be.
The direct events of the fall were: loss of eternal life, sin and being put out of the garden to fend for themselves.

Every awful thing that happened after that can be laid at the feet of the men who chose to act with greed and violence to satisfy their own desires.
Secondly, the idea of God doing something to get us out of a situation ... is absurd.
Salvation by God is the central theme of the Bible.
Thirdly, he's omnipotent. He could have gotten us "out of this situation" more easily than I can snap my fingers.
God's power is not at issue. What is at issue is God's right to rule. Since the time of Eden men have asserted their independence from God, that they have the right to rule, that we are better off under human rule than we would be under God's rule. God could have changed this with, as you say, a snap of his fingers, but that would not have demonstrated that his ways are better or that mens ways are worse. Allowing humans a time to rule will show it to be either beneficial or harmful to mankind.

john
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
Russell begins by defining terms, and concludes that three things are minimally necessary for qualifying as a Christian: Belief in God and immortality, and that Jesus was at least the best and wisest of all men.
SiInce all three Criteria are nothing but "Theological tenets", and have nothing to do with being a Born Again Christian, bothering with any of it would be a waste if time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS

Nouveau

Well-known member
SiInce all three Criteria are nothing but "Theological tenets", and have nothing to do with being a Born Again Christian, bothering with any of it would be a waste if time.
Do you think one can be a Christian either without believing in God, without believing in any afterlife, or without believing Jesus to have at least been the best and wisest of men?
 
Top