Some thoughts after reading Bertrand Russell's "Why I am not a Christian"

"Why I am not a Christian" was originally a lecture given by BerrandI Russell in 1929. I don't know if this article was very inspiring when it was first published, but, to me, it is not inspiring though because nearly all the points were heard before.

Back in his age, nearly everyone was a Christian. If one is not, perhaps he had to explain why he was not one. But it is not the case here in Hong Kong, a part of China, sharing all its traditions, both good and bad, no matter you like it or not. We have to answer why we convert to Christianity, not vice versa.

Actually, we Christians may have to thank Russell for he really read the Bible. Many commentators, critics or even believers nowadays do not read the Bible. That explains why they don't have a complete idea of Jesus. Many of us thank that Jesus is merely a "lovely grand-grandfather" that "hugs people like teddy bears", which is not the case.

Yes, Jesus loves the world, and similarly the father loves the world that he gave his only begotten son, for those who believe in him they shall have eternal life. It is absolutely true. But we should bear in mind that John 3:16 doesn't stop at that point. It continues to say that for whoever believes shall have everlasting life, but those who don't believe will peril. The "Hell" is originally designed for devil and its followers, but whoever sins go hand-in-hand with devil and thus accompany him to the hell. Is it cruel? Yes, I feel the same way, but sinners, including me, deserves it.

After all, who drive you to sin? Isn't that you yourself steal, murder, tell lies, curse people and do all sorts of bad things? And by doing this things we bluntly show the world that "we do not fear God". Heaven is so holy that it is no place for sinners, even if some of them want to have a glimpse of it.

Yes, God is love. But it is not the whole picture. God is also righteouous. The time will come when good people and bad ones will be separated, as Russell mentioned in his article. It is we who offend God, but not God who offends us. It is sealed in our heart and morality, no matter one is a believer or not, that sins derserve punishment.

Russell had some discontent about driving demons to the pigs and cursing the fig tree when it wasn't the time to harvast. The reason why he said that was to say Jesus was not perfectless, and he is an ordinary man no better than Lao Tze or the Buddha. But to me, it is not a big deal. From the New Testament, we know that Paul also see human's lives above animals. Perhaps Jesus our Lord also think the same way. Therefore, to the conscience of Jesus, saving a man's soul is far more important than the pigs. Yes, you may dislike it, like the villager of the demon-processed man, but it did not matter to Jesus.

Then how about the fig tree? Actually I had the same problem in my mind when I was reading that part of the Bible. If you pay enough attention, you can easily find that Apostle Peter also had that doubt: why cursing the fig tree? Some bible commentaries said that though it was not the season for picking seeds of fig, the tree should have a pre-mature bulb (young little premature fig) for eating. However, there was none on the tree. Simply nothing! And therefore the fig tree was cursed. It served as a warning to Israelis. If one doesn't satisfy with that answer, he may simply regrad it as a mystery, and Apostle Peter will always forgive you as he didn't know the reason behind either.

The above argument may be more inspiring when we look at the case at the other way round. According to some "experts", Jesus was no great man but his followers hail him as the Son of God. Some expert would like to "dymythized" Jesus and trace back "the historical Jesus". But if it is the case, why we see Jesus angily cleaning the Temple, rejecting his mom's requests, Pharisees, teacher of the law and Scribes looked down upon him, somebody called him "demon", and there were still lost of people stamlpled by him? Why the bible author write down the criticisms, betrays on Jesus? Why not depict Jesus as the most wonderful and well-received man in the first century? It is this multi-angled and detailed description of people surrounding Jesus in the Gospel that I believe the witness of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, two of which have direct contact with Jesus and two of which have close relationsihp with Apostles.

Russell was mainly arguing against Kant and Issac Newton, but even if arguments for Christianity fails, that doesn't mean God do not exist.

In Russell's lecutre he rebute the first clause hypothesis and said it doesn't satisfy with it. And throughout Russell's lecture he differentiate religion and science. But to me, religion and science deal with different things and they are not mutually exclusive. Religion deals with morality, Christianity deals with relationships with God while science deals with everything under heaven, or even outer space. If we call something a "thing", it is restricted by time and space. But God himself is outside of this material system. All things on the earth have a beginning but God is everylasting. Because it is he who set the time for us. The one who set the rule of a game can choose not to take part in that game. And yet God did came, in the form of Jesus, who is locked in time and space, born in a poor village, grown up in a carpenter's family. He had to eat, had to wash his legs, or even have to pee. Don't you think it is really admirable? The one who set the rules of this earth came down and be with us, in the form of perilling flesh. He grow old, he got sick, and therefore he understands us.
It's okay not to be a Christian, but you have to find the way out to help yourself.

But for me, Lord Jesus is the Way. Jesus is the Son of God, the savior of my sins and my hope.
I trust in Him.