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 …show more content…
By shedding light on areas that need addressing, Russell rightly stirred a great deal of controversy and disagreement. Frequently, our man-made traditions, behaviors, and actions within a religion are wrongly designated as holy, but as we often say in class, “absolute power corrupts absolutely”; this is very evident in the watering down of Christian tradition through the power-grabbing tendencies of human nature. However, as in any aspect of life, if we are not willing to look into the parts of ourselves that need improvement, we will never grow. Though I may disagree with his broad categorization of Christians, I agree that his points are valid and definitely give the Christian faith a great deal to consider and work to improve