bttt
Christopher Hitchens Interviewed by Unitarian Minister Marilyn Sewell
by leavingwt 36 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
besty
Why do they keep coming back for more with Hitchens/Dawkins et al - its like whack-a-mole. FAIL.
But, then, show me what there is, ethically, in any religion that can’t be duplicated by Humanism. In other words, can you name me a single moral action performed or moral statement uttered by a person of faith that couldn’t be just as well pronounced or undertaken by a civilian?
You’re absolutely right. However religion does inspire some people. You claim in the subtitle of your book that “religion poisons everything,” but what about people like the Berrigan brothers, the Catholic priests who were jailed over and over again for their radical protesting of the Vietnam War? Or Bishop Romero, the nuns and priests who gave their lives supporting…
They’re all covered by the challenge I just presented to you. I know many people who…
Yeah, but these people claim to be motivated and sustained by their faith. Do you deny that?
I don’t claim. I don’t deny it. I just don’t respect. If someone says I’m doing this out of faith, I say, Why don’t you do it out of conviction? I don’t like the Barogen brothers anyway. They’re fanatical and they’re pacifists who believe in the non-resistance to evil, which is itself an evil doctrine. And if Bishop Romero got as far as being an archbishop in El Salvador, he achieved the prestige carved out for him by an institution that has made El Salvador into an oppressive slave society.
That’s true, but he did change.
Well good for him. He needs to change a bit more. I know many, many, many people in El Salvador who have no religious faith of any kind who stuck up for human rights much longer, more consistently, and more bravely than he did. His prestige as an archbishop was meaningless to me.
Well, I can’t argue with that.
As it is for Martin Luther King. For example, he would’ve been much better off not invoking the nonsense story of Exodus, a story of massacre and the enslavement. He left us with a legacy where any clown or fraud or crook—Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, our new president’s favorite priest in Chicago—who has the word reverend in front of his name can get an audience.
-
Perry
But, then, show me what there is, ethically, in any religion that can’t be duplicated by Humanism.
Try Results
-
designs
That's the point Perry, believers in your particular system have been all over the board morally and ethically the same as any pagan, agnostic, or atheist.
What should an observer conclude when they study history about your group butchering each other and Muslims and pagans, or holding on to sl;avery until the "liberal progressives' within your movement pushed the moral issues and finally dismantled a cruel system of human mistreatment. In other words you not only don't have any bragging rights you actually have much to be ashamed of and all the while your group claimed 'Holy Spirit' was behind them............gee doesn't that sound familiar.
-
Perry
Designs....what on earth are you talking about? Christians have given the greatest example of sacrifice in the face of evil that the world has ever seen?
Where are you getting your information?
You must be confusing liberal Christians and fundamental Christians again.
-
villabolo
Bluesapphire:
"Hitchens is trying to lump all "Christians" together into a mold he defines. The Bible has been taken by 30,000 plus Christian sects and interpreted differently by most. So, it might be convenient to lump all Christians into one group but it's not factually correct to do so."
The distinction between Fundamentalist and Liberal Christianity is irrelevant. What is relevant is the comparison of both to the Christian Scriptures. The Christian Scriptures make it obvious that Jesus is "the way the truth and the life" and that none can come to the father except through him. He also condemned entire towns to Hades because they were skeptical of him. This was further reinforced by Paul who said that if anyone, even an angel, were to teach a different message than him, let him be accursed.
Based on this it becomes obvious that the Christian Scriptures were written by fundamentalists. Not quite the fundamentalists of today, which are doctrinally different, but fundamentalists nonetheless. In fact both Old and New Testament as well as the Quran are fundamentalist in nature and it appears that monotheistic religions are predisposed to it initially.
Liberal Christianity, or Liberal Judaism and Liberal Islam are later developments of their respective religious roots and they do require a lot of denial of the fundamentalist character of their original religions. Of course, they're nicer persons, usualy on an individual basis and certainly on a collective basis but they are deluded as to the implications of their religion. The fundamentalists of these three faiths are not.
It thus appear that Hitchens is right. I don't know if his opponents are misstating his position or if he is not explaining himself properly, although the above quotation by LeavingWT is a correct argument on Hitchens part. What is obvious is that the distinction between the liberals and fundamentalists is a false distinction. The proper distinction as I just stated is between both and their scriptures.
villabolo
-
Perry
it becomes obvious that the Christian Scriptures were written by fundamentalists. Not quite the fundamentalists of today, which are doctrinally different, but fundamentalists nonetheless.
villabolo,
How are Christian fundamentalists today different than the bible writers? Fundamentally () liberal vs. fundamental only means literal vs. allegorical understandings of the bible. Can you give an example of what you are taking about?
Thanks for the other parts of your post which are quite clear. I would just add that fundamentalism is at its core a military exercise. For the Christian this would include a militant view of showing love to the unloveable, a militant desire to engage others views, a militant model of suffering for righteousness, a militant-like acknowledgement that all this Christian warfare might cost you your life in its expression.
This kind of militancy of course is the exact opposite of say Islamic fundamentalism where their scriptures command them to kill the infidel as opposed to the Christian command to love your enemies. We all hope they allegorize those scriptures in the Quran.
The MSM would have the general public believe that fundamentalism is bad (not just of the islamic kind) when in fact Christian fundamentalism requires a militant love and selflessness....even sheep-like martyrdom at the hands of murderous opposers.
-
villabolo
Perry:
"How are Christian fundamentalists today different than the bible writers? Fundamentally () liberal vs. fundamental only means literal vs. allegorical understandings of the bible. Can you give an example of what you are taking about?"
Their interpretation of Revelation for instance (OK that may not be a doctrine per se but it's a major difference). They basically projected it as applying to the near future. So do current fundamentalists except that their near future is 2,000 years off mark.
"I would just add that fundamentalism is at its core a military exercise. For the Christian this would include a militant view of showing love to the unloveable, a militant desire to engage others views, a militant model of suffering for righteousness, a militant-like acknowledgement that all this Christian warfare might cost you your life in its expression."
My definition of Fundamentalism, which fundamentalists themselves will mostly agree with has to do with their attitude with outsiders. They are exclusivists to the extreme, claiming that salvation will only come to their particular religion or mindset. An example would be Pentecostals and hardcore, even moderate Baptists who don't believe that anyone outside their faith is likely to be saved. Not only because they haven't accepted Jesus but because even if they say they do they may be doctrinally different. Perhaps one religion accepts Jesus as their Savior but doesn't believe in the Trinity, instead believing that Jesus and God are equal, with the Holy Spirit being, I presume, a force like JW's believe (Worldwide Church of God--Yes I know, they're dead). Or how about Adventists who don't believe in an immortal soul but otherwise believe the same as other Christians?
This exclusivism is exactly what fundamentalist Muslims have. For example, the split between Shite and Sunni originally started centuries ago over a dispute as to how to pick the successor of Mohammed. Exclusivism, even over trivial doctrinal issues, is endemic to all fundamentalists. This is why fundamentalism has developed a bad name for itself.
The militancy you mentioned is a very personal and restricted definition on your part which simply does not fully describe the character of most Christians who refer to themselves as Fundamentalists, "born again", Evangelical, etc..
villabolo
-
Perry
They basically projected it as applying to the near future. So do current fundamentalists except that their near future is 2,000 years off mark.
Villabolo,
Well, that's just silly. They both thought it was near. Identical views.
My definition of Fundamentalism, which fundamentalists themselves will mostly agree with has to do with their attitude with outsiders. They are exclusivists to the extreme, claiming that salvation will only come to their particular religion or mindset.
Pretty broad brush here. You confuse the doctrine of separation with the doctrine of salvation. Regarding the former, Christ actually would rather have Christians separate over a doctrine rather than fight about it. Believers should be in general agreement over things. If they disagree on some minor points they can associate themselves together quite nicely within the body of Christ. Time will give testimony to the fruit and profitableness of the association. Jesus will judge the work of believers at the Bema seat....not at the Great White Throne for unbelievers. So if there will be a separate judgement for believers (salvation is secure and not determined here) then obviously there will be some variation withing teh family of God.
However, the latter charge I put in bold is entirely different. I have associated with a number of different kinds of churches and now go to an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church. I have never heard this doctrine you state outside of WT and atheist circles. So let me state the basic doctine of all Christians:
THERE IS NO SALVATION OUTSIDE OF THE BLOOD OF JESUS THAT IS OFFERED MY MEANS OF THE NEW COVENANT....REGARDLESS OF CHURCH AFFILIATION OR NON-AFFILIATION.
If anyone (notice I didn't say church) proclaims anything different, they are not Christian.
There, now you don't have to ever repeat that again.
The militancy you mentioned is a very personal and restricted definition on your part which simply does not fully describe the character of most Christians who refer to themselves as Fundamentalists, "born again", Evangelical, etc..
And, oh how sadly true that is!
However the military analogy is quite fundamentally taught in the NT.
Eph. 6
Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
18 Praying always ° ° with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;
19 And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open ° my mouth boldly °, to make known the mystery of the gospel,
20 For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak. -
villabolo
Villabolo's statement about Baptists and Pentecostals:
An example would be Pentecostals and hardcore, even moderate Baptists who don't believe that anyone outside their faith is likely to be saved.
Perry, in response to villabolo:
Perry quoting villabolo's general statement about all fundamentalists:
My definition of Fundamentalism, which fundamentalists themselves will mostly agree with has to do with their attitude with outsiders. They are exclusivists to the extreme, claiming that salvation will only come to their particular religion or mindset.
Perry talking about Baptists and Pentecostals.
"THERE IS NO SALVATION OUTSIDE OF THE BLOOD OF JESUS THAT IS OFFERED MY MEANS OF THE NEW COVENANT....REGARDLESS OF CHURCH AFFILIATION OR NON-AFFILIATION."
Perry, you seem to have transposed my two statements in your mind and treated both of them without realizing the nuance when I spoke of Baptists and Pentecostals. Not that they're different in spirit than Fundamentalists of all religions in general but that they are exclusivists within their own "faith". By faith, I was referring precisely to their beliefs in acccepting Jesus, not to their being exclusivists within their own denominations. I know full well that Baptists and Pentecostals don't damn each other to hell or even an unchurched believer but as I specified in my post, which you haven't acknowledged, that they will damn a non trinitarian even if he believes in the Atonement, and be at least extremely wary of an Adventist and of course, the rest of the un-Christian world is damned.
That is what I mean by exclusivism, dogmatism (don't tell me they won't damn a non-Trinitarian), and faith (not the same as denomination). I hope this clarifies the matter.
villabolo