Video: Hitchens eulogizes Falwell in his own special way; Update: Hitchens blasts Falwell again at Slate
posted at 10:06 am on May 16, 2007 by Allahpundit
We all knew it was coming, but good lord. Even Mother Teresa got off easier than this.
Here’s the transcript in case you’re at work and can’t watch. The Hitchens segment begins about a third of the way down.
Update: Baseball Crank counters with one aspect of the Falwell legacy which “any man would be proud to leave behind.”
Update: If you can believe it, Hitchens’s anti-obit for Falwell at Slate is even harsher than the video.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
BUT if that man knew the punishment and still chose to do the crime, yes it would be JUST.
abinitioadinfinitum on May 16, 2007 at 1:49 PM
We’ll pass a law tomorrow that stealing an apple shall be punished by whipping. One thousand lashes a day, at regular intervals, every day, for as long as the man lives. Good enough? How about for eternity?
I appreciate your honesty, though, abi.
Allahpundit on May 16, 2007 at 1:52 PM
I did not say you had to become God. I said you had to strive to be more like Him
abinitioadinfinitum on May 16, 2007 at 1:53 PM
Yes, but the American justice system operates relative to the fact that we are all men, in the same condition. Yes, it punishes evil, but it is also mindful (at least it used to be) that we are all sinful.
With respect to man’s relationship to God, God is perfectly righteous, and we are not. Man’s debt is much, much greater than you are appreciating here. This debt then, is roughly analagous to the disparity between somebody walking and somebody traveling the speed of light. Yes, you haven’t murdered, but have you ever disobeyed your parents? Have you ever coveted your neighbor’s possessions? Compared to God’s righteousness, these sins are as black as murder.
PRCalDude on May 16, 2007 at 1:57 PM
Hmm, so Hitchens is capable (with some effort) of attacking someone who can’t fight back? Wow, he’s really tough, isn’t he?
I didn’t like the guy, I don’t agree with his viewpoints, but what gain is made from attacking a dead guy?
Unless you want to “look” tough, but don’t want a target that can, you know, defend themselves or fight back.
Sorry, that’s just a really sad kind of statement about Hitchens, isn’t it?
gekkobear on May 16, 2007 at 1:57 PM
I’m not being smug. I deserve hell also. I’m stating facts as laid out in the Bible.
PRCalDude on May 16, 2007 at 1:58 PM
Drum:
I just noticed that you brought up Bill Gothard.
Right after I got saved in 1996 my-now-in laws sed some of their tithe to send me to a Gothard video conference in Archbold, Ohio.
Even though I was quite fundamentalist when I first left Judaism, Gothard was too much for me.
According to Gothard even if your parents abuse you-God still requires you to obey them.
I was abused every which way from Sunday by my late father.
At the time my first marriage was in trouble and I was living with said parents and 2 y. o. son-and Bill Gothard said that I was required BY GOD to OBEY that monster?
That’s not the Jesus that I worship.
annoyinglittletwerp on May 16, 2007 at 1:59 PM
For what? Saying on CNN what most of the media is muttering under their breath? This was one of the safer things for him to say. It’ll probably get him invited to a few jet-set parties in Georgetown.
Hitch is an ass.
spmat on May 16, 2007 at 2:02 PM
Allahpundit,
You make the fallacious assumption that it is god who is condemning and forcing the eternal suffering on the unrepentant sinner. When in reality it is the unrepentant sinner who is rejecting God and forcing eternal suffering upon themselves. God is trying to pull the unrepentant sinner out of an eternal inferno; it is the unrepentant sinner who refuses to leave the fire. You say but I am not now in any eternal fire suffering. And I say to you that your natural senses are currently very poor, your sight is limited to a very narrow bandwidth likewise your hearing covers only a narrow hertz range, you perceive the universe much like a cripple. Upon your death this will radically change and the unrepentant will discover to their shock and horror that they have always been in a eternal fire and that they refuses to be pulled out of that fire time and time again.
doriangrey on May 16, 2007 at 2:06 PM
>That’s not the Jesus that I worship.
annoyinglittletwerp,
If I may be so presumptuous, nor should it be the Jesus you worship. Gothard has probably created more atheists (not to mention psychopaths) than any books by Hitchens or Dawkins ever could.
Peace.
Drum on May 16, 2007 at 2:11 PM
Yes, but a ballsy ass. I also believe him to be as much of a publicity hound as he says Falwell was. He makes some good points from time to time, including here, but sadly they are obscured by his extraordinary ability to be distasteful.
SouthernDem on May 16, 2007 at 2:14 PM
For what it’s worth Christian doctrine teaches that hell’s original intent was to be a place to punish the devil and his angels. They openly and with full knowledge of who God is rebelled against Him. The Bible indicates a new heaven and new earth will be created in the eternal state. Those who had saving faith will live in this place. The eternal souls of those without this faith need to be held somewhere. God’s chosen hell to be that place. Maybe not as satisfying an answer as you’d like but there it is.
AllahP, I don’t know all the reasons you have for not believing in God. The reasons you’ve shared with us (that I’ve seen) over the past year boil down to: you’d do things differently if you were God. I’m sure I don’t need to point out that this is not a logical argument but merely outrage.
jdpaz on May 16, 2007 at 2:17 PM
only me ?
?
abinitioadinfinitum on May 16, 2007 at 2:22 PM
abinitioadinfinitum ,
I know what you’re saying and what you mean and I’m sorry for being flippant. But really, no matter how hard I try I can’t play drums like Buddy Rich, so how the heck am I in my own power going to become more like God? I can’t. It’s not up to me. Nor should it be. It’s God Who calls us, and it’s Him who changes us. Yeah, there are moral decisions we must make, but this is not what makes us “good Christians” or what secures our peace with God. Otherwise, the guy who’s had it really really bad (been abused, etc.) might not stand a chance if he finds it hard to get out of bed in the morning and not yell at his wife or slug his neighbor.
We are already good in Christ, so far as God is concerned, and it is Christ’s goodness and Christ’s good works on our behalf that God sees. This is what is implied by the “free gift” of salvation.
Drum on May 16, 2007 at 2:23 PM
God’s justice is complete and thorough, and it is not subject to your definition of fairness. The standard of the Law is perfection. The price of violation is death, both in body and spirit. That price cannot be paid with good works any more than a debt of millions can be paid in rags. Human beings in and of themselves cannot be perfect, nor can they be “good enough.” The perfection required by the Law is an asymptotic boundary that mankind has been on the wrong side of since Adam.
If you see that as unfair, that’s your business. It is simply the truth. It is the express reason why Jesus had to die, and it is the reason why His death was both so tragic and so powerful. Jesus was perfect. He lived on that asymptotic boundary. He was the only man that could have paid the debt, because He was the only man that had the viable currency: perfection.
Also, Hell is not a place of torment because of God, except by the utter absence of His face. It is a place of torment because of the company. Ever read No Exit?
spmat on May 16, 2007 at 2:23 PM
SouthernDem,
How much courage does it take to attack someone who cant defend themselves? None at all that is the behavior of bullies and cowards.
doriangrey on May 16, 2007 at 2:24 PM
Drum:
you’re not being presumptuous.
I heard a similar line from the senior pastor at the LCMS that I was member of for a while.
He said that the Bible forbade a woman who was being battered by her husband to divorce him.
riiiiight.
annoyinglittletwerp on May 16, 2007 at 2:25 PM
Drum on May 16, 2007 at 2:23 PM
I’m not sure I am saved either. All I can do is pray
abinitioadinfinitum on May 16, 2007 at 2:26 PM
I have such mixed feelings about theological discussions on this site…but, this is just sitting out there.
AP – God does not punish for “not believing in God.” Orthodox views of sin state that humanity is judged for both original sin, in which all are born in a state of separation from God through inherited unrighteousness, as well as our personal sin, that is the instances in which we personally transgress God’s commands.
Each and every one of us, so Christian theology would state, is under judgment for these things. “Believing in God,” or maybe more specifically, faith in Christ, is the path to forgiveness, as Christ’s righteous death removes the enmity between me and God by forgiving my unrighteousness, both inherited and personal.
In short, we are not under judgment for our unbelief, we are under judgment for our transgression. And, we are forgiven in our faith in Christ.
For what it’s worth.
nailinmyeye on May 16, 2007 at 2:27 PM
>I’m not sure I am saved either.
Of course you’re saved. “All who call on me … ” and all that?
Drum on May 16, 2007 at 2:31 PM
We’re trying to show Christian love here. Saying someone is reserved a ‘special place’ is not helpful, nor does it adequately comprehend our own sinfulness outside of Christ’s righteousness.
PRCalDude on May 16, 2007 at 2:32 PM
Nice catch, nailinmyeye. the bible says that the demons believe in God and it does them no good at all.
…and no not just you, abi.
jdpaz on May 16, 2007 at 2:32 PM
Yet God is understood as omnipotent, and thus directly responsible to some degree for everything, from Earth to who qualifies for Heaven or is cast down to Hell (as He wrote the standards).
A crude analogy of such logic is to say that a father loves his son and doesn’t really want to punish him by kicking him out of the car and leaving him stranded in the middle of a horribly dangerous part of town, but the son has chosen that path by annoyingly switching the radio station. Even though the father has the power to take the son home, and might choose to contextualize such an indiscretion.
In a similar way, when a man who lives a good, let us even say “Christian” life, but is not sufficiently convinced (neither by empiricism nor revelation) to believe in the Christian God, that good man is cast into an eternity of torture and suffering.
You argue that God wants this man to enter heaven, but well, God’s hands are tied because that man chose not to believe in Him …
… even though one cannot necessarily “choose” honest belief, one must naturally “arrive” at such a position (again, by reasoning, indoctrination or honest revelation) and …
… even though God, being omnipotent, makes all of the rules and essentially has the power to do whatever is just or suits Him.
It’s a circular argument. “Fallacious” is the idea that God’s hands are tied in offering something other than eternal torture to a human who lives a good life but fails to acknowledge fealty to a specific God and undertakes concomitant, specific practices.
The real “fallacy” is that God is omnipotent yet somehow doesn’t have more discretion over the situation. Especially since a man cannot necessarily “choose” sincere beliefs, exemplified (as just one example) by cases where that man grows up in a region of the world ignorant of the Christian belief in God. (I believe Catholicism now has a limbo exemption for this ignorance their beliefs, though I could be mistaken)
In contrast, God, being omnipotent and omniscient, knows all, can affect all, and has the ability to dispense justice by whatever standards he pleases.
In your version, God is just a cosmic referee, helplessly standing by enforcing rules not of His creation, when in fact he ostensibly wrote the rulebook. It’s pretty hard to fathom.
BillINDC on May 16, 2007 at 2:35 PM
I know. Martin Luther somewhere said something like “sin boldly,” and by it he meant, you know, you’re gonna f-up big time, because that’s what living is all about and that’s why Christ redeemed us. LIving life fully is a robust endeavor filled with all sorts of moral successes and moral screw-ups. And if God is standing with a giant club hanging over our heads just ready to clobber us if we so much as fart the wrong way, then dang, Hitchens is right and who the heck wants to go to heaven anyway?
Drum on May 16, 2007 at 2:35 PM
Much Love
I just felt the teeth turn on me for what I thought was a misinterpreted reason.
God Bless
abinitioadinfinitum on May 16, 2007 at 2:37 PM
It’s a “mystery.” Zing!
Allahpundit on May 16, 2007 at 2:38 PM
annoyinglittletwerp,
What I meant above, but never got back to it, is that if divorce is going to save some woman’s life because her husband is out of control, then divorce, or at least get as far away from the dude as is realistically possible!!
Drum on May 16, 2007 at 2:38 PM
spmat makes a counter-argument (bolded part mine) -
This is why these discussions between those of faith and agnostics/atheists/empiricists/skeptics/etc. are often so fruitless: you declare it “truth,” take the ball and go home.
Those arguing from a position of faith can make many rational arguments based on logical resoning, within the bounds of certain essential presumptions.
But when challenged on those presumptions by an inherent skeptic for the proof or rationale behind them, the answer winds up as “it’s in [specific holy text],” or “it just is.”
And slepticism, by its nature, will inevitably not be satisfied by such certainty without greater justification.
Some folks see something as “truth,” others see it as “dogma.”
These discussions are almost always interesting, but rarely constructive.
BillINDC on May 16, 2007 at 2:41 PM
Back on the subject of Hitchens and Falwell. I don’t really care what Hitch says about JF, in fact I fully expected it of him. What I am preparing for is the inevitable turn he will take when his present comrades on the right no longer prove convenient, and he will go back to siding with those who see us as filthy little men who are to be dealt with and put away. And then many of us will say, “Hey wait, we thought you were one of us!” War makes for strange bedfellows.
Drum on May 16, 2007 at 2:45 PM
BillINDC,
God is constrained by his own perfection, he cannot be imperfect. He displayed the extent of his omnipotence in Christ’s death by proving that he could get around his own laws without violating those very laws. The fact that not only could he but that he did so renders your assert
null and void.
doriangrey on May 16, 2007 at 2:47 PM
No, it’s not that simple. I’m not saying “I’d throw parties and turn the oceans into beer,” I’m saying that the Christian concept of fairness and justice and righteousness when it comes to eternal punishment and disbelief seems anything but logical. Which is your cue to say, “None of us can comprehend God’s reasoning.” To which I say, an awful lot of you seem to think you’ve got the gist of it.
I’m honestly not sure what you mean here. Either you’re saying that I won’t be punished in the afterlife for my disbelief but will suffer for it here on earth because I haven’t known the joys of Christ’s forgiveness or you’re saying that I won’t be punished in the afterlife but also won’t know the joy of forgiveness in the afterlife, unlike Christians. But isn’t the absence of forgiveness key to the punishment?
Allahpundit on May 16, 2007 at 2:49 PM
I don’t recognize the Christian position in this statement.
God is sovereign over all, both good and evil, though he is not the author of evil. He is patient towards man and longsuffering with him despite man’s evil. Even though man is disobedient, God uses it towards good in the grand scheme.
Picture a mosaic, if you will. Individual tiles may appear ugly from up close, but when we step backward, the picture is beautiful. So it is with God’s sovereignity.
PRCalDude on May 16, 2007 at 2:50 PM
See the link I posted above.
PRCalDude on May 16, 2007 at 2:51 PM
You must understand how while sort of making sense, this reasoning might sound nonsensical in any other context than a discussion about God …
He’s so perfect and powerful, he is rendered impotent by the boundaries of this perfection. Even though, being omnipotent God, he is necessarily responsible for defining this perfection. Being bound by one’s own perfection necessarily negates omnipotence. So if God is omnipotent, to some measure, He makes a choice to adhere to standards defined as “perfection.”
Standards which, again, we cannot fully grasp because we are humans.
This tacks on another logical problem: some in the thread mention this; that because God’s perfection and will are so great, perfect and, well, divine, we as mere human beings lack the ability to fully comprehend the scale on which such standards are defined or judged …
Ok. Yet …
… men who assume representation of God’s will presume to outline such incredibly specific rules, even as we cannot possibly understand them. Because, again, we’re human.
I have to say, no snark intended, it’s a head scratcher.
BillINDC on May 16, 2007 at 2:56 PM
What does this have to do with Bill’s point about God being all powerful? People here are trying to excuse God’s punishment of nonbelievers — because they themselves feel intuitively that it’s unfair — by essentially arguing, “Well, God doesn’t make the rules.” But see, he does. That’s the thing. God doesn’t really get to float the “I was just following orders” excuse.
It seems to me a truly loving God would want to redeem all his creations in the afterlife and forgive those who didn’t know the joys of worshipping him on earth. That’s the punishment for nonbelieve: “suffering” during life by not knowing Christ’s love, or whatever. The problem is, disbelievers don’t seem to suffer appreciably more than Christians do, although I know many people of faith would like to believe we do thanks to their own doubts about cosmic justice. Hence the gratuitous comments here about how miserable Hitchens looks.
Allahpundit on May 16, 2007 at 2:57 PM
I am not saying either of those things.
I am saying that judgment is not the result of unbelief. Judgment is the result of transgression/sin, both inherited (original sin) and personal (the bad stuff I do).
I do not think the absence of forgiveness is the key to punishment. I think that one’s sin, original and personal, are the keys to punishment.
nailinmyeye on May 16, 2007 at 2:59 PM
So then, best guess — what’s a nonbeliever like me in store for in the afterlife? Abio seems to think I’m headed for the lake of fire, or something much worse: the total absence of God’s love, which in the Christian cosmology is infinitely more painful. You seem to be taking the “live a good life and don’t worry too much about belief” approach. Sounds good to me, but I must say, belief in God does seem to count pretty highly with most religious people as a key to redemption.
Allahpundit on May 16, 2007 at 3:03 PM
This is exactly why I, as a person of faith, who coincidently believes that “certainty” is not something within humanity’s grasp, would rather talk about those things which I believe, and attempt to provide “good reasons,” for those beliefs. I think that this is better than talking about “facts.”
But, that’s just me.
nailinmyeye on May 16, 2007 at 3:03 PM
This is a stronger (or shall I say, more clarifying) argument.
But I have problems with the idea that honest agnosticism, among a whole host of other specifics, is “evil.” So we’re at an impasse: God doesn’t author nor control evil, rather gives man free will to choose it, but he has a hand somewhere in deciding and/or communicating what is evil.
And again we arrive back at: Q: But “why is that evil?” Answer: “Because.”
And I personally can’t see non-belief in a specific religion as evil, especially since:
1. Occam’s Razor gives various religious leaders throughout history plenty of motivation to state as much, to gain worldly influence over fellow man.
2. When you consider #1 in light of the fact that man cannot fully fathom God’s will anyway, yet still attempts to do so via the man-made doctrine of various religions.
3. When so many people I know, including authors of popular conservative videoblogs, are otherwise such good people, in spite of being non-believers in a specific religion.
Again, hard to fathom.
BillINDC on May 16, 2007 at 3:04 PM
I don’t know, Allah. I don’t believe in the IRS, but I still have to pay taxes…
Tennman on May 16, 2007 at 3:13 PM
Sorry. Let me try to explain.
I do believe that belief is a necessary component of salvation. However, I believe that it is our sin, not our unbelief, that condemns us.
The emphasis may be one of responsibility. To say that God judges me for my actions,” is to admit that the responsibility is mine. To say that “God condemns me simply for my unbelief,” is to lay that responsibility upon God, not to mention a mis-statement of what orthodox Christianity believes.
As for the afterlife – I have no idea what it holds for you, or anyone. I don’t presume to have that insight.
If we are talking about the concept of “hell,” I don’t know what it is. I don’t happen to think (and, I am an Evangelical), that it is necessarily an eternal lake of fire, or a state of unending punishment, or, a place where someone is in a state of constant physical pain. The Bible is full of metaphors, and metaphors should not be taken quite so literally. What I do believe about “hell” is that it is a place of separation from God. What that means is anybody’s guess. But, I personally don’t think it involves fire.
Quite similarly for the other side of the coin. I don’t know what heaven is like, I have no clue. What I believe about it is that it is a place of eternal relationship with God, the creator, and with God’s people…
nailinmyeye on May 16, 2007 at 3:14 PM
Maybe I should also mention, AP, that I respect, very much, your unbelief.
nailinmyeye on May 16, 2007 at 3:17 PM
Allahpundit,
Yes he does want to, but he will not force you to do something that you do not want to do. He cannot forgive you if you refuse to be forgiven or even to admit that you need to be forgiven.
God is not going to punish anyone for not believing. It is not unbelief that damns a person to eternal suffering. The word sin is an old archery term which means to miss the target, in theological terms it means to fall short of perfection.
When Adam and Eve transgressed God’s laws they sold not only themselves into slavery to transgression but all of their future offspring. This is called original sin and the payment, the reward granted for that transgression was eternal separation from perfection and from God.
That original sin like money placed in an investment portfolio paid dividends, those dividends are your own personal sins, and it is a combination of these transgressions original and personal that damn a person not their disbelief.
You will not be damned for not believing, you will be damned for falling short of perfection. This is why Christ’s sacrifice is so important. God knew that you could never overcome your imperfections, imperfections that were passed on to your against your will. So he devised a method to circumvent his own requirements of perfection.
He did this by allowing someone who was both 100 percent human and 100 percent perfect to pay the penalty for your imperfections in your place, and for that payment to take place all you have to do is believe that the payment has been made.
If you don’t believe then the balance due on your failure to be perfect is due upon your death. And if you refuse to allow someone who can pay it do so then that leaves only you to make a payment that you can never make.
doriangrey on May 16, 2007 at 3:30 PM
AP, just a few things…Christian doctrine teaches that God does want all his creation to be saved. He has willed that we each be allowed to choose whether we’ll accept His Redemption or not. He’s given us the universe to examine which declares that He indeed must exist. He promises that everyone who truly seeks Him will find Him. We don’t get into heaven because we worship God. We’re not condemned for disbelieving in God. There’ll be plenty of people who believe in God who won’t make it into the eternal state. Obtaining forgiveness of sin is the essential ingredient—which is extended as a free gift to as many as would desire it. There is indication in Romans and the Revelation that there are degrees of punishment in hell.
From Job we find there is no “[Judeo-]Christian concept of fairness”.
There is nothing necessarily illogical about the Creator saying, “These are the rules. Follow them.”
AP, you’re still just arguing from outrage.
jdpaz on May 16, 2007 at 3:32 PM
Belief in the infallibility and irreducible veracity of scripture is an essential premise without which we cannot have any fruitful discussion on matters of faith. We can have discussions of worldly affairs and worldly considerations of justice, but how can we ever discuss the nature of God when we don’t even agree on the definition of what God is?
Additionally, skepticism is neither a substantive nor consistent worldview. At its best, it is a tool to be applied on fully rational (scientific) questions cluttered with contradictory evidence, a means of synthesis. Skepticism cannot reduce beyond the nature of Man, e.g. cogito ergo sum. How can it possibly reduce beyond that to the nature of God? If we cannot agree that Man has a soul, what use is there in discussing the nature of that soul or the destiny of it?
God is posited, not deduced, and even still the knowledge of His existence and essence are not, indeed cannot be, generated in the rational mind alone. God is the starting point, the “beginning of knowledge.” Those that do not start from that point do so by choice and in doing so have taken a position that prevents any agreement on issues involving God. There is no argument I can give you to prove His existence or to prove any statement regarding His design for creation in absence of a common agreement on a systematic theology.
“He that hath an ear, let him hear.”
spmat on May 16, 2007 at 3:37 PM
According to Scripture (Arminians please stay out of this argument), man does not have free will. Man’s free will was lost when Adam sinned. He was our federal (representative) head. Man cannot choose to believe in the Christian God one way or another.
Again, see the Wilson-Hitchens debate. We first have to establish that atheism is even a logically tenable position. There are certainly man-made religions out there, which can be refuted on their logical inconsistency. Christianity is the only one logically defensible.
PRCalDude on May 16, 2007 at 3:40 PM
Well, that’ll teach me about not looking down the page.
Finished Hitch’s latest book today after purchasing it yesterday. I think people should be aware, and painfully so, that Hitchens said much the same thing about Falwell when he was alive and he would be a hypocrite to say different things simply because Falwell was dead.
Hitchens was painfully and brutally honest. I don’t disagree with what he said, but I do think he might have waited until Falwell was buried. Why sugar coat the man’s many errors in judgement simply because he thought he was doing the work of God? Don’t get it.
Krydor on May 16, 2007 at 4:00 PM
Occam’s Razor is not a first class citizen in argumentation. It is a (generally) helpful suggestion, originally used in questions of aesthetics, and owes its genesis to Christian theology. It is a supplement to an argument, not a formal basis.
spmat on May 16, 2007 at 4:13 PM
Is the Pope
PolishGerman?I think Hitchens does believe in God–and hates His guts.
baldilocks on May 16, 2007 at 4:14 PM
csdeven, you couldn’t be more wrong. Whatever one thinks of Christopher Hitchens, agreeing or not with him, he is a courageous man. In fact, he has more courage than many of us bundled together. This assessment is not based on his writings only. It’s outside of the context of this thread to list all the items, with explanations.
I don’t defend his timing on CNN and in Slate. It’s always best to wait until the dead are cold and buried, or laid to rest according to their customs/desires, before speaking ill of them (unless they are the ilk of Zarquawi).
Phelps tops the list. No one else needs to follow. None of them, so far, have listed all the flaws in Mr. Falwell, including his stand on segregation. Those of you who claim the media destorted him are simply wrong. His statements stand for themselves. He functioned in front of modern technology. However, we should all give him and his family the decency of time, before yammering about him.
How do so many of you know that God is a “he”? If there is a god, he/she loves Christopher and AP, and all of us. There are many specimens out there with much worse traits than us, and with fewer talents.
Christopher has always claimed to be a recovered Marxist and a continuing drinker. No hypocrisy here.
On the Hitchens hygiene – I read an article once with a great deal dedicated to this topic – he looks, acts and talks gruff, but is in reality one of the cleanest (literally) people, mannered (with his circle and family), dedicated, moral, convicted, reliable, etc.
On the WoT and his courageous fight against jihadism, with risks to his and his family’s life, he is admirable. His fight began long before 9/11/01.
He said these things, and more, while Mr. Falwell lived – thus the “book selling” theory holds no water.
I disagree with him at times, but I’m happy he is a citizen of the U.S., that he lives in our time, and I defend his right to be who he is.
baldilocks, du bist wunderbar (ich habe dir elektronisch 2 Briefe geschrieben eine Weile her), but Mr. Hitchens does not believe in any gods. And in the U.S. wonderfully he is free not to.
Entelechy on May 16, 2007 at 4:35 PM
That aptly describes many atheists that I’ve met, but then they were usually so emo their wrists slit themselves.
I don’t think it applies to Hitchens, not exactly. I think he’s just a profoundly bitter, unhappy man who in his heart wishes the best for mankind. Like most honest atheists, the problem of pain and his own definitions of justice prevent him from accepting the reality of God.
spmat on May 16, 2007 at 4:36 PM
Well, damn*d foreigners…I meant that he has convictions, not that he’s “convicted” of any crimes or misdemeanors :(
Entelechy on May 16, 2007 at 4:41 PM
I can only speak for Christianity: He calls Himself a “He” although not actually male. Man and Woman were both created in His Image.
jdpaz on May 16, 2007 at 5:02 PM
I don’t understand this. I thought the point of HotAir was to provide a conservative prospective on current events, not to serve as a sanctuary where religious folks can be secure from having their beliefs examined. Michelle and Bryan often post post religious items and no one complains, even when, as with Bryan’s InstaPundit post, we respectfully disagree. Despite what you appear to believe, atheists can be intelligent, analytical, conservative, and witty as AllahPundit demonstrates everyday.
student on May 16, 2007 at 5:30 PM
I think that AP’s tone may come more from way we’ve personalized our theology and applied it to him. In several posts above I read explanations of judgement which I largely agreed with theologically, addressed to AP with the pronoun “you”. As in, “you will be damned because…” This is about as un-winsome as we can get, and comes across as a poke in the eye; whatever value there may have been in the discussion is lost after that.
I expect that most of thsoe who wrote those posts would agree that the points they made would apply to any and every one, and would read just the same using ‘we’ or some relative pronoun.
TexasDan on May 16, 2007 at 6:09 PM
TexasDan,
Don’t be ridicules, the “you” in question was never a personal pronoun but clearly and obviously an editorial pronoun. Furthermore AP has extensively displayed the intellectual capacity to differentiate the difference between personal and editorial pronouns. The arguments that AP has set forth are a combination of outrage and devils advocacy.
The outrage aspect of his arguments can be seen in his “failure to believe” suppositions. Believing that a failure to believe results in condemnation is equivalent to asserting, what gives God the right to reject me if I do not believe in him? This line of reasoning presupposes that it is God who is doing the rejecting and that the basis upon which God makes that decision is inequitable to the individual being rejected.
The Devils advocacy aspect of his argument can be seen in his “A truly loving God” supposition. This is more or less the same argument Satan, that old serpent used on Eve in the Garden of Eden, “Did God really say”. Both arguments by implication challenge the motives of God by suggesting that if God were really who he claims to be that he would not behave in this manner.
doriangrey on May 16, 2007 at 7:16 PM
dear GOD
Terrorists don’t get this sort of condemnation from people like him
Defector01 on May 16, 2007 at 7:30 PM
My “argument from outrage” reference is a bit of a debate term where the arguer scores rhetorical points by pointing out things he doesn’t like about a particular thing but doesn’t actually touch upon the issue at hand—in this case, whether God exists. This tactic is effective even though it is not logically valid.
jdpaz on May 16, 2007 at 7:30 PM
Extraordinarily well said.
SouthernDem on May 16, 2007 at 7:35 PM
Frankly, an awful lot of the “blithe contempt” posted in this site is directed at those of faith by you. I haven’t seen anyone here ragging on you because you are an atheist. Most of the comments directed at you are in response to your childish insults. You are truly broken dude. Consider getting some help with your issue.
MarkM on May 16, 2007 at 7:51 PM
Very few here appear interested in whether or not their position is logically consistent.
PRCalDude on May 16, 2007 at 8:18 PM
There seems to be some very good preachers here, also some very good philosophers. won’t even try to address all. One thing to remember, Hell was not designed for mankind, only the DEVIL. If a person chooses to follow that logic then he/she can follow the DEVIL. As I said earlier it each and every persons choice. God is not touched with mental accenting but with the heart. MAKE UP YOUR MIND. Personally it is sad if someone chooses the wrong thing but have at it if you so want. AP it is not reason or a head thing or what we saw someone else do. It is a heart thing and a personal decision.
mjkazee on May 16, 2007 at 9:12 PM
Sounds a lot like the same filth flung by Bush-haters.
One minute Falwell an evil genius swindler, the next minute he can’t read.
Get your story straight, man!
viking999 on May 16, 2007 at 10:27 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2