Posted on 10/15/2010 11:28:20 AM PDT by Kaslin
WASHINGTON -- Christopher Hitchens -- bald from cancer treatments, speaking between doctor's appointments -- has a special disdain for deathbed religious conversions. Appearing before a group of journalists organized by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public life, he criticized the pressures put on Tom Paine to embrace Christianity and the malicious rumors of faith that followed Charles Darwin's demise. "I've already thought about this a great deal, thanks all the same," he explained. The idea "that you may be terrified" is no reason to "abandon the principles of a lifetime."
At this event -- a joint appearance with his brother Peter, a Christian -- Hitchens applied those principles with typical vigor. His arguments on the political dangers of religion are strong. In Turkey or Russia, he notes, "'faith-based' is not a preface to something positive." In Iraq or Iran, a "secular" ruler would be cause for celebration. The alliance of faith and power is often unholy.
But Christopher Hitchens is weaker on the personal and ethical challenge presented by atheism: Of course we can be good without God, but why the hell bother? If there are no moral lines except the ones we draw ourselves, why not draw and redraw them in places most favorable to our interests? Hitchens parries these concerns instead of answering them: Since all moral rules have exceptions and complications, he said, all moral choices are relative. Peter Hitchens responded, effectively, that any journey becomes difficult when a compass points differently at different times.
The best answer that Christopher Hitchens can offer to this ethical objection is himself. He is a sort of living refutation -- an atheist who is also a moralist. His politics are defined by a hatred of bullies, whether Kim Jong Il, Saddam Hussein or the mullahs in Iran. His affections are reserved for underdogs, from the Kurds to Salman Rushdie. The dreams of totalitarians are his nightmares -- what W.H. Auden described as: "A million eyes, a million boots in line / Without expression, waiting for a sign." Even Hitchens' opposition to God seems less of a theological argument than a revolt against celestial tyranny.
All this fire and bleeding passion would seem to require a moral law, even a holy law. But Hitchens produces outrage, empathy and solidarity without it.
At close range, the pitiless controversialist is actually kind to people he could easily humiliate -- a category to which most of us belong. The ferocious critic of Christianity accepts and seeks the company of Christians. Friendship is a particular talent. One review of his memoir, "Hitch-22," described it as "among the loveliest paeans to the dearness of one's friends ... I've ever read."
In earlier times, without derision or irony, this would have been called "humanism," a delight in all things human -- in wit and wine and good company and conversation and fine writing and debate of large issues. Hitchens' joy and juice put many believers of my acquaintance to shame -- people for whom religion has become a bloodless substitute for life. "The glory of God," said St. Irenaeus, "is man fully alive." Hitchens would hate the quote, but he proves the claim.
Hitchens' career, character and illness have led to an unexpected development -- unexpected, one suspects, particularly to him. While he remains unmellowed, he has seen a flood of affection. His disdain for Christianity, his animus for Islam, can still offend. But we admire the vivid, irreplaceable whole.
Hitchens has now been given his most astounding assignment, a visit to what he calls in a Vanity Fair article "the sick country." His account is raw, honest and impressive. He reports "a gnawing sense of waste" and the loss of "chest hair that was once the toast to two continents."
"To the dumb question 'Why me?' the cosmos barely bothers to return the reply: Why not?" He is, in some ways, a particularly reliable, clear-eyed witness -- unclouded by sentiment, free from comforting illusions, even illusions I view as truths. It is like watching a man assault Everest with only a can opener and a Q-tip. There is honor in the attempt. And the longer the assignment continues, the better for all of us.
At the Pew Forum, Christopher was asked a mischievous question: What positive lesson have you learned from Christianity? He replied, with great earnestness: the transience and ephemeral nature of power and all things human. But some things may last longer than he imagines, including examples of courage, loyalty and moral conviction.
Just think about this. If Hitchens lives in an Islamic society and was spouting off this garbage about no allah, just about how long do you think he would live?
Seriously think about that. If that doesn’t prove the existence of God, I don’t know what will. But then again, hate and evil is a powerful thing, and some choos eto turn a blind eye to TRUTH.
By what standard?
I love the metaphor here. LOL.
And you figured that out all by yourself. I stand in awe of your achievement. (Such as it is)
Just wondering, are you a hedge fund manager?
Numerous verses within THE standard say:
“Every man’s ways are right in his own eyes”
The simple truth is that most self-described atheists these days could never function in a society in which true atheism ruled the day. This is what makes a lot of what Hitchens claims to believe rather hypocritical.
As Dennis Prager (a Jew himself) once pointed out (I'm paraphrasing here):
"If I were walking down a dark street in a dangerous neighborhood and came across a group of young men of unknown character, I would take great comfort in learning that they were Christians on their way home from a Bible study group meeting. And any Jew, atheist or other non-Christian who tells you otherwise is lying."
Excellent point
How do we choose which biblical laws to follow?
Dang straight.
If you “choose” which part of the bible to follow and which part to ignore, then you are putting yourself in an authority position above the Word written therein,
and you might as well not bother with the bible at all at that point, because YOU are the authority, self defined, above that authority of the standard therein written.
Now, if this is an OT vs NT objection, the OT is interpreted in light of the NT. Case closed.
Hmmm...Where in the moral standard you’ve constructed for yourself does mocking your fellows without provocation fall?
And can you dispute his contention...which admittedly, Pacal first put forward? If so, let’s hear it. If not, why is he stupid for putting his money on a safe bet and you’re smart for rolling the dice on the ultimate catastrophic failure?
Can you help me understand what you mean by the OT as interpreted in light of the NT?
Don’t listen to that poor guy with his ostrich head in the sand and his butt in the air. You’re at least as smart as Blaise Pascal, and to say he was known for brains would be an understatement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager
Most objections by the (no slam intended) biblically ignorant is that the old testament has proscriptions on food, and advocates stoning of recalcitrant children, etc.
Jesus represents the new covenant, the fullfillment of the Law given in the Old Testament, and his teachings, where they “override” the OT, are what you follow.
He said, multiple times, “it is written... but I tell you...”
We don’t. The Bible as a whole makes it clear how one is to live.
Besides, have you not read where Jesus says there are only two commandments? Do you think following two commandments requires a lot of picking and choosing among rules?
Good answer.
Those “two commandments” were in answer to the Jewish leaders trying to trip Him up.
He essentially said, in response to “what is the greatest commandment”, “the first four, followed closely by the last six”.
`Paschal’s wager’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X94YffpUryo
Known in the real world as `covering your a**.’
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.