Throughout his lecture, Bertrand Russell presents quite a few convincing arguments for the reasons he is not a Christian. Watering down of the foundations and expectations of Christianity, rejection of the advances of science, and behavior uncharacteristic of the Christ that Christians claim to emulate are all valid concerns that merit further consideration. While Russell makes many valid points throughout his account that I agree with, I would speculate that Russell based these observations on a broad response to the summary of Christianity, rather than consideration of the individuals involved and how their personally held beliefs might differ from these generalizations. To begin with, Russell’s frustration with the core definition of Christian belief is understandable; having a set of once-vital, basic beliefs viewed more as suggestions for exceptional living proves confusing and misleading. Russell’s observation that the title of Christian “does not have quite such a full-blooded meaning” (Russell, 1) as it once did is such a merited concern that, in recent years, some members of the church itself share this view; this
He recounted the all too common feeling of a meaningless life, the seemingly innate itch of human existence, and how it brought him to various places in his life—until he stumbled upon a particular group of people and was changed forever. This introduction, though short, is crucial to understand, for it sets the stage for the remainder of the book. It tells not only the story of a former non-believer, but the story of everyone—it presents us the life of Jesus Christ, not as a gentle sermon or a feel-good retelling, but as an assertive, rational reply to the accusation: ‘Christianity is a myth, and so is your God.’ III.
Ultimately, it becomes obvious that man differs in kind, not degree, from animals, and what separates him from his counterparts is his immortal soul. After Chesterton lays out this important starting point, he moves on to talk about religion and prehistoric man. He expresses the modern skeptical view of religion that it developed in a slow, evolutionary manner. It was probably caused by a combination of the fear of a tribe leader, the phenomena of some dreams, and sacrifices associated with the harvest. G.K. refutes this conviction by alluding to St. Augustine’s famous argument from desire.
He believes that, despite the new atheists’ staunch rejections of faith-based positions, their beliefs are often close minded and thus just as problematic. On Pages 88-89, De Waals suggests that the late Christopher Hitchens, author of god is Not Great, swapped one set of dogmatic beliefs for another throughout his life. He writes that Hitchens “moved from Marxism (he was a Trotskyist) to Greek Orthodox Christianity, then to American Neoconservatism, followed by an ‘antitheist’ stance…,” which is tantamount to “sprout[ing] a fresh dogmatic limb.” De Waals does not levy these criticisms because Hitchens’ views are ones with which De Waals disagrees - but rather because he held them irrationally. He believes that Hitchens’ radical changes in opinion are indicative of belief without proper reasoning - something which is very
The plan of God’s salvation in the book of Romans. According to Christian belief that salvation is from God, and salvation is the free gift from God to those who are believe. I believe too, the reason why salvation of God accured to people because of love, grace and because of the promise of God from the descendants of Adam, however, God also has planned salvation to His people in this world. But in this generation there are many people don’t believe that salvation comes from God instead salvation comes from the effort of man, and the good work of man, but the Bible itself does teach about that, its wrong, its not true at all. Reformed theologian believes that, man was corropted by sinned, and he done nothing to get the gift of God’s salvation,
He wrote a commentary on the epistle to the Romans. In this commentary Barth did not follow historical-critical questions about the Bible, which he considered to be a human attempt to bring the Word of God under our control. Instead of it, he tried to understand what the book of Romans says. Through study of the teaching of St. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans he struggled to clarify the relation between justification and social righteousness which governed all he had to say in later life about the relation of the Gospel to the power of the state and the oppression of the poor. His first major works established his position as a notable theologian with a new message about the sheer Goodness of God and the unlimited range of his grace.
In this way, the litmus of the paradigms helps us spot the difference between ethical dilemmas and moral temptations” (1995). Religion is a notable example on how we often confused being moral and unmoral. It’s something than can be interpreted differently from many individuals and cause us to walk blindly passing judgement unto others. When I first became a Christian, I felt very righteous and noble but at the same time I realized I was very arrogant. I passed judgement unto other religions based on the ideal that their religious practices were different from mine.
He explains that change can seem overwhelming and even threatening at times, which is why he wants Christians to have deep roots and dive in deeper into the grace of the gospel. Piper’s thesis is to show that the bloodlines of race do not matter when compared to the deep bloodline of Christ (227). He points out a pivotal problem that humans are alienated from God, and in doing so, are alienated from each other (227). A key way of looking at this is remembering that when people fail to love God, they fail to love others which causes disharmony, pride, and
The adage, “each one for himself and God for us all” seems to be the guiding principle of most love and friendship relationships. This new way of practicing love and friendship, have not only infiltrated our societies but it has also entered into Christian communities and churches. The common
Three main works of that time - "The Descent of Man" by Charles Darwin, "Points of Supposed Collision Between the Scriptures and Natural Science" by Gladstone, and "The Confession of Faith of a Man of Science" by Ernst Haeckel jointly represent the situation between religion and science of that time. For many 19th and early 20th century liberal religious thinkers, especially those whose primary concerns were with social justice, the cruelty and inefficiency of the process of development by natural selection seemed incompatible with their understandings of a caring God or their hopes for secular progress. That is why Darwin 's progressive theory often was called irreligious and was criticized by number of true believers - "I am aware that the conclusions