Zone1 Can you find the Flaw in Atheist Speaker Christopher Hitchens' Logic Here.

[alang1216]

Why would you go to the pearly gates? Basically, you have made your decision. You prefer to be happy apart from God. We're given a choice, and we are justly awarded with our choice.

As I've written previously, if he existed, God doesn't give a whit if I believed in him and worshiped him or not so, if there is a heaven w/pearly gates, I have as good a shot as anyone.

 

[Meriweather]

As I've written previously, if he existed, God doesn't give a whit if I believed in him and worshiped him or not so, if there is a heaven w/pearly gates, I have as good a shot as anyone.

There are those who want to be in the presence of pearly gates and there are those whose desire is to be in the presence of God.

God values the faith the size of a mustard seed. Perhaps keep in mind your mustard seed is the thought God doesn't care if you believe in him or give him first place (worship) in your life. That's your faith. Think about letting it grow into a large plant. By the way, what do you mean by 'worship'?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The flaw is quite simple so I have to answer in a religious context. Hitchens who is very bright guy assumes that God is our controller.

Well that is 100% wrong.

 

[onefour1]

I say "the flaw," but no doubt there are more than one flaw to be found. Not a slam on him, but any talk about a controversial topic is bound to be full of flaws from the point of view of folks on the other side of the opinion given (or implied in this case).

I've heard the name Christopher Hitchens, but I'm much more familiar with the name Richard Dawkins, whose work I have debunked many times. Anyway, Hitchens claims to be both British and American, which is ironic considering he no doubt finds aburd the idea that Jesus was both man and God.



For those of you who don't like to watch videos of atheists smugly pontificating, I'll give you the briefest of versions: How likely is it, asks Hitchens, that obscure and illiterate people in the middle east suddenly were provided through devine intervention, the one true religion?

I assume he means the Jews, and later, the Christians. These type folks never have a negative word to say about Islam or Muslims.

It sounds as if Hitchens believes that we hold to some much lower belief of evolution. Genesis 1-3 tells us how man came about through the process of creation and not evolution. He then goes on disparagingly to speak of God as if God cannot get mankind to progress. What Hitchens fails to understand is that for mankind to progress, mankind need to learn to choose of his own free will and choice to be good beings. Only then does mankind truly become good beings. Hitchens expects God to have either created us as perfect as Himself or to force us to be good being beyond our free will. This what I see as his flaws in his less than 2 minute rant.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The OP was, essentially, content free. No points were made.

But anytime anyone wants to step up and answer the question, feel free.

"How likely is it, asks Hitchens, that obscure and illiterate people in the middle east suddenly were provided through devine [sic] intervention, the one true religion?"

Well, thats the OP's disingenuous misrepresentation of the question.

Hitchens asks which is MORE likely. That the above happened, or that it was made up?

 

[ding]

The OP was, essentially, content free. No points were made.

But anytime anyone wants to step up and answer the question, feel free.

"How likely is it, asks Hitchens, that obscure and illiterate people in the middle east suddenly were provided through devine [sic] intervention, the one true religion?"

Well, thats the OP's disingenuous misrepresentation of the question.

Hitchens asks which is MORE likely. That the above happened, or that it was made up?

The answer is neither. The transition from polythesitic beliefs to monotheistic beliefs occurred over thousands of years. The beauty of the ancient Isrealite texts is how remarkablly accurate their beliefs were and how much of a radical departure they were from the beliefs of that time. Much can be known about God by studying what God created. God can be known through the light of human reason. It is when man seeks God that God reveals himself.

 

[ding]

Hitchens asks which is MORE likely. That the above happened, or that it was made up?

Here's what I would tell Hitchens....

Pretty much everything from the beginning of Genesis 1 through the Patriarchal Age was an oral history. They weren't hearing about it for the first time from Moses.

The first eleven chapters of Genesis were ancient historical events - during a time when polytheism was the dominant religion of the land - that were crafted to teach lessons about the covenant, obedience, justice and Israel's relationship with God.

These early accounts are from Sumerian times when polytheism was the dominant religion of the land. The beliefs expressed in Genesis about a creator God that is moralistic and providential but did not control the affairs of men were a radical departure from polytheistic beliefs.

These accounts share notable similarities with older myths from other ancient Near Eastern cultures, leading many scholars to conclude they were adapted, rather than "stolen," to express Israelite monotheistic beliefs. The biblical authors reworked common literary motifs to convey their unique theological message.

Key examples of these parallels include:

• The Flood Narrative: The story of Noah and the Ark shares significant plot details with the flood account in the much older Epic of Gilgamesh and the even earlier Atrahasis Epicfrom Mesopotamia.
  • Similarities: In both, a divine figure or council of gods decides to send a great flood to destroy humanity; a chosen man (Noah/Utnapishtim) is warned and instructed to build a large boat; animals are brought on board to preserve life; birds are sent out after the flood to check for dry land; the vessel lands on a mountain; and sacrifices are offered afterward.
  • Differences: The biblical account features one all-powerful God acting for moral reasons (human wickedness), while the Mesopotamian versions involve a pantheon of squabbling gods who are annoyed by human noise or simply choose to wipe them out, with one god breaking ranks to save his favorite human.
• Creation Accounts: The Genesis 1 creation story has parallels with the Babylonian creation myth, the Enuma Elish.
  • Similarities: Both describe a primeval watery chaos before creation, the separation of waters by a firmament (sky), the creation of light before the sun and moon, and a similar sequence of events leading to a period of divine rest. The Hebrew word for the "deep" (tehom) in Genesis is linguistically related to the name of the chaos goddess Tiamat in the Enuma Elish.
  • Differences: Genesis is strictly monotheistic and portrays a sovereign, peaceful creation by divine command ("God said, 'Let there be...'"), while the Enuma Elish is polytheistic and involves a violent cosmic battle between the gods. Humans in Genesis are created in God's image and given dominion, while in the Enuma Elish, humans are created from the blood of a slain god to serve as the gods' slaves.

In essence, the ancient Israelites were part of the wider ancient Near Eastern culture and "breathed the same air". Their scribes used existing cultural and literary forms to present a revolutionary new idea: the existence of a single, all-powerful, and just God who created the world and humanity with purpose. The shared motifs help place the biblical texts within their historical context, but the theological emphasis remains uniquely Israelite.

 

[Robert W]

I say "the flaw," but no doubt there are more than one flaw to be found. Not a slam on him, but any talk about a controversial topic is bound to be full of flaws from the point of view of folks on the other side of the opinion given (or implied in this case).

I've heard the name Christopher Hitchens, but I'm much more familiar with the name Richard Dawkins, whose work I have debunked many times. Anyway, Hitchens claims to be both British and American, which is ironic considering he no doubt finds aburd the idea that Jesus was both man and God.



For those of you who don't like to watch videos of atheists smugly pontificating, I'll give you the briefest of versions: How likely is it, asks Hitchens, that obscure and illiterate people in the middle east suddenly were provided through devine intervention, the one true religion?

I assume he means the Jews, and later, the Christians. These type folks never have a negative word to say about Islam or Muslims.

He died in 2011 and my hunch is he then met Jesus in Heaven and was actually welcomed in.

Based on this former Muslims account.

 

[Robert W]

The answer is neither. The transition from polythesitic beliefs to monotheistic beliefs occurred over thousands of years. The beauty of the ancient Isrealite texts is how remarkablly accurate their beliefs were and how much of a radical departure they were from the beliefs of that time. Much can be known about God by studying what God created. God can be known through the light of human reason. It is when man seeks God that God reveals himself.

For evidence of GOD, there is much we already explore and seem unwilling on the part of atheists to admit GOD created the universe and populated it with things he created. Hitchens is fortunate that he met Jesus when he died.

 

[alang1216]

There are those who want to be in the presence of pearly gates and there are those whose desire is to be in the presence of God.

A distinction without a difference.

God values the faith the size of a mustard seed. Perhaps keep in mind your mustard seed is the thought God doesn't care if you believe in him or give him first place (worship) in your life. That's your faith. Think about letting it grow into a large plant. By the way, what do you mean by 'worship'?

Since your theology is in conflict with mine, you must be wrong. You see a mustard seed, I see a mighty oak.

'Worship' is what believers do, pray, go to church, follow the laws of their religion, burn heretics, etc.

 

[Meriweather]

A distinction without a difference.


Since your theology is in conflict with mine, you must be wrong. You see a mustard seed, I see a mighty oak.

'Worship' is what believers do, pray, go to church, follow the laws of their religion, burn heretics, etc.

There is a very great difference. An inanimate object vs a living presence.

Shrug. An analogy is an analogy. One gets the point across as well as the other.

Worship: Seeing God first in all one does.

 

[ding]

...if he existed, God doesn't give a whit if I believed in him and worshiped him or not

I think most major religions believe God is in need of nothing. So if that is what you are saying, sure. But if you are saying God is indifferent towards us then I would disagree. Belief and worship are not for God, belief and worship are for us. If you have no desire to progress in every aspect of what it means to be human (of which there are many), then by all means, worship yourself, worship created things. Maybe the problem is you don't understand the value of worship; the value it has on you and those close to you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Here in this thread we see the pratfall of magical nonsense, since there is no way to tell what is true and what is not.

 

[ding]

A distinction without a difference.

A hugh distinction. I can be in the presence of God now. Christinity is literally about being in God's presence NOW. It's not about the destination. It's about the journey. The kingdom of God is within you. ~Jesus

 

[ding]

Here in this thread we see the pratfall of magical nonsense, since there is no way to tell what is true and what is not.

God isn't magical. You mock what you do not understand.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

God isn't magical. You mock what you do not understand.

Oh, you understand god.

And so few do.

You're a very special boy.

 

[ding]

Oh, you understand god.

And so few do.

You're a very special boy.

What I have written about God throughout this forum aren't new concepts. They are actually quite old. Many great minds have spent a great deal of time thoughtfully contemplating the nature of God, and not one of them has ever described God as you do; a magical sky fairy. It's your lack of thoughtful consideration coupled with your irrational fears of Christians that leads you to mocking what you don't understand. Your arrogance is off the charts.

 

[alang1216]

There is a very great difference. An inanimate object vs a living presence.

I guess you believe the pearly gates are literally true. I don't.

Worship: Seeing God first in all one does.

Your definition is as good as anyone's but mine was more on what you physically do in church, e.g., pray, sing, etc.

 

[Muhammed]

Anyway, Hitchens claims to be both British and American, which is ironic considering he no doubt finds aburd the idea that Jesus was both man and God.

He had dual citizenship. He was an American citizen, but he was born a British subject, like Barack Obama.

 

[Meriweather]

I guess you believe the pearly gates are literally true. I don't.

You were the one who said you expected pearly gates and that you would be there. I thought it interesting that pearly gates were your idea of an afterlife, a kind of sight-seeing tour. On the other hand, I see the afterlife of existing in the presence of God. That's two views, but for me, I want to know what the author was thinking.

In Revelation, John describes twelve gates, always open, each made from a single pearl. In Judaism, pearls, and the number twelve, also had deeper meanings. Pearls represented spiritual wisdom and divine knowledge, and were often strung together to remind one of a particular piece of wisdom or knowledge. Twelve represents totality and divine authority, where all the people of God live in perfect social order. There was also a rabbi, in John's time, who imagined twelve gates around the Temple that were adorned with gems and pearls. He based this on the breastplate that was worn by high priests, representing divine direction.

When you mention 'pearly gates', are you presenting a literal picture of pearls, or are you presenting the reality they represent?

Your definition is as good as anyone's but mine was more on what you physically do in church, e.g., pray, sing, etc.

The worship you describe might be compared to dessert, while the worship I present is the meat-bread-vegetables part of the meal.