How wonderful;I think I will buy the book.
I hope people start moving away from the commercialization of Christmas and move towards the true meaning of Christmas: the Celebration of the Birth of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.
Yeah, Hitchens’ book is great.
Hey, this is one of the books I’ve given my husband for Christmas. As soon as he opened it, I said, “Can I read it next?” !!!
Quell, why don’t you read “What’s So Great About Christianity”? You’ll probably learn a whole lot that you didn’t know. Hitchens simply regurgitates every objection to Christianity since Time began, with no grace and very little wit.
Check out his brother, Peter Hitchens’, blog. Now there’s an intelligent Hitchens.
Jesus Christ is the greatest man who ever lived. He looked into the face of God, and saw something so wonderful, so great, and so overwhelmingly awesome that he willingly agreed to offer himself for the sins of the world.
When we stand before God, no one will deny his greatness. My biggest fear is that God may give those who in this life have rejected him a glimpse of his overwhelming love before He as Judge separates them from himself for eternity. What a hell that would be.
Before I head out to join family and friends for a feast in celebration of the birth of the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Almighty God, Prince of Peace, I feel the need to point something out to the Christian naysayers:
The problem with their arguments is that they are old, stale, unoriginal, and ineffectual against the Creator God who makes all things new, all the time.
The God of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, the God who came to us in human form as Jesus ben Joseph, is the God who makes harmony out of chaos, forgiveness out of shame and sin, peace out of enmity, life out of death.
There is nothing that this Mighty God and Everlasting Father cannot do, and just when the atheists think they’ve cornered Him, He jumps out of their teeny, tiny, little box by a life-changing Word, act, or miracle.
Perhaps atheists, and I mean those mean-sprited ones who wish to deny the existence of God or, if they in a niggardly way posit that He MIGHT exist and IF He does, He’s a nasty entity, need to open their eyes and hearts.
Seek and ye shall find.
Knock and the door will be opened unto you.
Ask and it shall be given.
Those are God’s promises to ALL men, women, and children, and He doesn’t break them.
Merry Christmas!
Richard Bell, (“He looked into the face of God, and saw something so wonderful”). Do you believe Jesus was merely a enlightened man? Jesus is God, at least according to the Bible.
He is the human manifestation by whom the Father inherits the world.
“He the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth…All things were created through Him and for Him…For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell.” – Colossians 1:15,16,19
God who in various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these least days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom He also made the worlds”
-Hebrews 1:1,2
“I will declare the decree: The Lord has said to Me, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten You. Ask of me and I will give you the NATIONS for your inheritance, And the ends of the earth for your possession.'” – Psalm 2:7,8
(NKJV)
I am not sure what is meant by “the true meaning of Christmas.” It seems to have actually been a pagan festival adopted by the Christians for propaganda purposes. In fact, even the meaning of the word propaganda comes from Christian sources.
A little Christmas gift for my openly and proudly Christian friends at sda:
Christopher God-is-not-great Hitchens being really dumb on slavery. Also read a good piece by Hugh Fitzgerald (jihadwatch or dhimmiwatch) on Hitchens being really dumb (and sickly sentimental) on Edward Said.
ENJOY Hitchens simply cannot be this stupid
Christian doctrine and teachings are not the problem…never were…this is a philosophy of heroic humanism anchored in love of mankind and the divine spirit.
There are many religious orthodoxies with similar non violent humanism.
The problem starts when we get “false prophets”…self serving dick heads who claim they speak for God or interpret divine will… some proclaim their God-anointed agenda through religion, other’s through political or military vehicles and others a mix of all three.
Some of the most murderous regimes in history claimed divine guidence…but none passed the simple test Christ left us to discern false prophets from divine inspiration:
False prophets want you to believe in lies…there is only one entity who rules the world with lies…THAT is their inspiration, not God.
“Do you believe Jesus was merely a enlightened man?”
Stephen: Certainly not.
Jesus Christ was God incarnate, the Word made flesh, the actual son of the living God. As such, he is to be believed, worshipped, and obeyed.
But I do believe that he was genuinely human, that he had to learn how to speak, how to read, etc., and that the Father revealed himself to Jesus as a lad, as a youth, as a young man, and that Jesus’ self-realization was probably progressive. Consider: would it make sense to believe that the infant Jesus “knew” that he was the Son of God and understood that he must die on the cross?
“I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own–a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism. It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we can dimly perceive, and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in nature.”
— Albert Einstein, column for The New York Times, Nov. 9, 1930 (reprinted in The New York Times obituary, April 19, 1955)
Richard:
Perhaps not as an infant, but at the age of 12 (Luke 2:49) Jesus knew that He was the Son of God. The gospel of John, chapters 8 – 10 for example, also make His relationship quite clear where in many places Jesus speaks of God a His Father: Jn 10:15: “As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father … ”
WL Mackenzie Redux says, “a philosophy of heroic humanism anchored in love of mankind and the divine spirit.
There are many religious orthodoxies with similar non violent humanism.”
The bible says…
“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26)
“But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” (Luke 19:27)
“And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.” (Luke 12:47)
I guess those lying false prophets must be the ones who take what they read in the Bible literally. Cause I really don’t feel the love, non-violence or any of those other warm fuzzies when I read this.
richard ball said
“””” My biggest fear is that God may give those who in this life have rejected him a glimpse of his overwhelming love before He as Judge separates them from himself for eternity. What a hell that would be.””””
if you could just understand what you said in that phrase, could start to grasp why I converted to atheism as a teen
With regard to the Christ-as-human issue, there were two early-Christian controversies regarding it. The first was settled at the Council of Nicea, which gave us the standard New Testament as sacred scripture and marked all other gospels as acryphocal. It was decided by an almost unanimous vote of the bishops that Arius’ claim that Jesus Christ was like God was wrong, and that Christ was God – specifically, of the same essence as God.
The second was decided in the Coucil of Calcedon. A group of then-Christians, called “monothelites,” claimed that Jesus Christ was not Man-as-God but fully divine, and thus above the human race but not of it. This interpretation was deemed heretical, and the monothelites were hunted down and even persecuted until Justinain’s empress Sophia put a (temporary) end to it.
These issues may sound like quibbles, but they had implications that would have changed Christianity forever, and would probably have weakened it. Had Arius’ doctrine (now known as the Arian heresy) prevailed, it would have made Jesus potentially appear as “just” another prophet, implying that another one may come along in the future.
The second one was more lethal to Christianity. Promoting Christ to beyond-human status makes him the equivalent of the Greek demigods. If that interpretation had prevailed, then anyone who got persecuted for living in Christ need not be honoured for doing so – (s)he could have simply been cast as someone whose hybris had impelled him/her to aspire to join the Gods…and whose Nemesis was simply deserved. Revering the persecuted would have been a mere option.
These things do matter, believe it or not.
One postscriptual note: theologically, Islam builds upon the Arian heresy by claiming that Jesus was just another prophet, and denying the Miracle of the Cross through claiming that Christ was [lucky/smart] enough to escape (crawl down) from his cross. Ironically, though, the areas where Islam moved in like wildfire were the old monothlite strongholds in the Middle East.
[The information in this post, though not the conclusions, come largely from A & E’s “Rise of Christianty: The First Thousand Years.” One more note: if you strip away the sacred status of the Councils, they were a lot like parliaments.)
richard ball said “””” My biggest fear is that God may give those who in this life have rejected him a glimpse of his overwhelming love before He as Judge separates them from himself for eternity. What a hell that would be.”””” if you could just understand what you said in that phrase, could start to grasp why I converted to atheism as a teen”
Response:
I have a very good understanding of what I said.
God both loves us, yet punishes sin — as the Cross makes abundantly clear. His punishments are just, and deserved. He has created us for himself, is not willing that any should perish, and has made a generous and costly provision for us, but he is still God; disobedience and rebellion cannot be tolerated forever; it will come to an end, and he honors the choices we his creatures make.
The fact that you may not like the terms that God lays down does not mean they are not true; and it certainly is not evidence that God does not exist. Your conversion to atheism was a choice you made. That choice has eternal consequences for you.
Herman: I agree with you. Still, let’s not discount the genuine humanity of Christ. We need to affirm that he was (is) both truly God and truly man. Athanasias’ creed is helpful in this regard.
Farmer Joe: “…the ones who take what they read in the Bible literally..”
Regarding ‘hate’ in the passages you quote, one needs to study the language in which the Bible was written. We cannot interpret in English and with the western mind set and not misunderstand much of what is in the Bible. Go to the Hebrew. It isn’t necessary yourself to learn it, but make sure you have consulted books written by others who have. One concordance isn’t necessarily sufficient, but certainly preferable to making judgments based more on emotion than fact.
See the context in which the Hebrew word has been used. It is possible that what is intended in these passages (spoken in a Jewish context by a Jew)is a matter of preference, rather than ‘love’ and ‘hate’ as we Gentiles understand it. The lesser preferred = the ‘hated’ one. The English language lacks the subtleties necessary for a more accurate interpretation. But, ‘lesser preferred’ does not mean ‘not loved’, even though the English word used is ‘hate’.
(Consult online The Westminster Theological Wordbook of the Bible)
There is no doubt Christianity gave birth to much that is good about Western Civilization; unfortunately in its core Christianity also holds the seeds of its own destruction. Of course this is just another tired argument,so it is must not be credible 😉
Re: Farmer Joe’s post -The bible says…
“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26)
“But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” (Luke 19:27)
“And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.” (Luke 12:47)
Come on there farmer Joe. By using these particular passages so far removed from any context you are only demonstrating that you really havn’t given serious study of the Christianity you criticize, and thereby draw an unsupportable conclusion.
Not one of these passages was ever used by Jesus, His disciples, the apostles or any writers of the early church, to support or promote any hateful, violent, or harmful action to anyone.
Remember, historically the early Christians were recognized for precisely the opposite, their non-violence and their unwillingness to take up arms, even against their own persecution. They understood clearly their master’s example of quiet suffering in the face of injustice.
The first verse, I think has already been clarified by Gellen – they are words intended to reflect the seriousness of following Jesu
s, not a call to cruel or callous behaviour.
Your second selection is not even a direct quote of Jesus, it is the words that He puts into the mouth of a character in a parable, or fictional story used to illustrate a lesson. It reflects pretty accurately how the potentates of that day would deal with political opposition, but doesn’t represent any form of a commandment or instruction by Christ to His followers.
Your third example is not much different. Making a point about the importance of faithfulness and obedience to God, Jesus provides an illustration relevant to the culture of his day, in which servants were little better than property of their Master who could and often did administer corporal punishment. There is nothing to suggest that Jesus intended to prescribe or condone such behavior while warning that disobedience always carries consequences. (Today, He might use an illustration of an employee being fired)Again, the historical example of the early church shows this with New Testament and extra-biblical examples of injunctions to treat slaves and bond-servants kindly, or even grant them freedom as brothers in Christ. It seems strange that you appear unable to give these facts an objective assessment.
Farmer Joe, if this out of context interpretation is what you mean by “literal” then I am afraid I don’t know any Christians now, or historically who have ever believed the scriptures “literally”. It is only the atheists and destractors of Christianity who I hear making all these literal quotes, and I must believe that if they are intelligent people that they are being ingenuous. Yes, most evangelical Christians do believe the bible is literally true – meaning that what it says is true, not what someone tries to make it say by playing a version of a naughty child’s word game.
Assorted religionists are attacking one another about their religion.
Christ said in one episode, ‘you who are without sin throw the first stone’.
And then he said to the woman, ‘go and don’t sin any more’.
He did not say ‘if you sin again, you will be in trouble’, did not say ‘if you sin again, there will be hell to pay’.
He said no such thing as much as some would like to tell us. He said ‘go and don’t sin anymore’.
Christ did not say anything after that, as much as some would like to put words in His mouth.
The punishment some talk about is not from the Almighty, it is more self inflicted than anything else.
Oh, so now it’s all those holy people who “translated” the bible that are the “false” prophets spreading all the lies. Riiiigggght.
I love it when people argue that what is written in the bible is not really what is written in the bible. What a nice way to open the door to -it can mean whatever I bloody well want it to mean. Including two totally different things all at the same time like Richard Balls “Jesus was truly man and truly God”.
By the way, the quotes I gave were from the -new testament- which was originally written in Greek not Hebrew. But nice try anyways. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament
Lets dive a little deeper into the Greek then shall we?
The word ‘hate’ here comes from the ancient Greek word ‘miseo’ which means hate (from the primary ‘misos’ [hatred]). If any synonym could substitute for this word, it would come from a word like ‘detest,’ ‘loath,’ or ‘despise.’ More to the point though, virtually all bibles translate the term as hate. To deny this intent means to deny the bible and the alleged word of Jesus.
But hey you guys keep arguing that the whole package is both true and false all at the same time. That’s a real winning strategy.
If I might weigh in here, Christianity is not about rules of conduct or even solely about beliefs. Christianity at its core is a transformation.
The Transformation began when the Reason of God (the second Person of the Trinity) took on human flesh, was killed and rose again immortal. That same Reason of God gave humanity both forgiveness and ultimately the Divine Nature that we too might become as He now IS.
Our challenge as human beings is to do the Will of God by following the Logic of God in the sure ability of the Nature of God. This at its core requires that we set aside our egos and agendas. Only when we fully humble ourselves we by His Grace (giftedness) fulfill His will.
The beginning,humility, is something the atheists among will never understand. I say this because as a former atheist my failure to realize there was a God came from my pride. It was only when I humbled myself or more precicely God humbled me that I came to realize there is One who has revealed Himself as Yahweh (I AM). As I came to realize, you can’t learn if you know everything already. You will never realize the existance of God until you truly admit you don’t know everything. Many make a faux confession of modesty saying with their mouths I don’t know everything but in their hearts say I don’t want to know.
There are two great dangers. One is when we seek to accomplish our will in this life and the other is when we seek to accomplish His will in this life without His Reason and without His Nature. Hitler and Stalin were prime examples of the former, the Protestant/Catholic religious wars of Europe are prime examples of the latter.
Thanks Kate
That was an excellent debate.
One of the other contradictions that gives me a chuckle is all the “peace on earth and good will towards man” stuff we get this time of year. When the man himself said…
” Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.”
-Luke 12:51-53
Must be another one of those out of context, translation\ lies put out by the false prophets who just can’t get “the logic of god”(whatever that is supposed to mean)because they have yet to be ‘humbled’.
Farmer Joe
You are half way there!!! You admitted you don’t understand. Now seek Him who is able to give you understanding. Since you have a Bible near you look up the Gospel of John 1 verse 1. In the beginning was the Word (Logos – Logic, Reason, Consiousness). You see now you have begun to humble yourself you can now ask Him who grants illumination so that you too might understand.
God Bless
I think theists and atheists need to (at least temporarily) bury the hatchet and focus on the more immediate philosophical debate: (forced) collectivism vs. individualism… but that could be the rum & eggnog talking… 😉
Cheers!
One of the arguments Dinesh made was that Hitler was an Atheist. Funny in this speech here(and there are many more examples) it looks like the opposite.
“We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls…. We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity… in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people.”
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Passau, 27 October 1928, Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall’s The Holy Reich]
I thought that when the debate was down to the hard slogging Dinesh D’Souza made the best argument against atheism that it is possible to make.
He quotes Christopher Hitchins line “the absence of evidence is evidence of absence”
Dinesh agrees that this statement does apply in the empirical domain, in the world of human experience. There are however many questions affecting our lives that are not in the empirical domain and he gives the example ” is there life after death”.
Dinesh admits that he cannot know the answer to that question. It is outside of the domain of verification. He says that in this point the believer shares the agnosticism of the atheist.
The believer however,in the absence of knowledge, choses to believe that there is life after death.
Dinesh asks why is it any more irrational for the believer to take this leap of faith than it is for the atheist to deny the possibility on an issue for which there is no empirical evidence on either side. The atheist’s position can be no more than a belief itself. In the end it comes down to a personal choice to hold one belief over another.
I think that Dinesh can’t go past this point without danger of a trimming by Occam’s razor. Dinesh’s Christian beliefs are elaboration and justification for his personal choice.
These elaborations and justifications, expressed as religious doctrine, created and implemented by imperfect and fallible humans, are what Christopher Hitchens is objecting to as an anti theist.
revelation 22, 18;19
One of the princlples of argument is to select something you both agree on, then show this leads automatically to something else you may agree on until you have a chain leading to your proposition.
A person who does not believe in God or Jesus obviously does not accept the Bible as authority so it is self-defeating to quote the Bible as authority in an argument.
It would help if Christians could show some evidence of God or Jesus rather than just quoting what is obviously ineffective.
Farmer Joe sez:
“I guess those lying false prophets must be the ones who take what they read in the Bible literally. Cause I really don’t feel the love, non-violence or any of those other warm fuzzies when I read this.”
Just exactly WHO is making negative interpretations of gospel here? I think I hear another false prophet, contorting the scripture to justify his own purposes.
Nobody can really know how we got here. (Not yet at least.) Athelists will admit that we don’t know. Christians make the choice to believe the Bible is the answer. Nevermind the utter implausibility of the events depicted in the Bible. I doubt Mr. and Mrs. Kangaroo made the hop up from Oz to the Middle east to secure a spot on the Ark. I would have welcomed Jesus when the booze ran out last New Year’s to turn water into wine, but no thinking person can think that really happened at Cana. I think Jesus was a real person, I believe he had excellent ideas, but the whole “Son of God” thing was pure marketing on the part of the disciples and St. Paul.
Q: How do Christians argue with Muslims when they say the Koran is the final word of God as revealed by Mohammed?
@Lev at December 26, 2007 1:15 AM
Either you haven’t read much of the New Testament or you have forgotten what it says.
Christ said, “except you repent, you shall all likewise perish”.
He said that he who was angry with his brother without cause was in danger of hell fire.
He said that it would be better to go into eternal life maimed if necessary rather than to enter whole into the fires of hell.
To one who had been healed of a disease he said, “go and sin no more – lest a worse thing happen to you”.
The consequences of sin are all too real — or Christ would not have had to suffer on the Cross.
I suggest you wander over to Biblegateway.com, enter in the word “hell”, and see what Jesus actually said about it.
“I am not sure what is meant by “the true meaning of Christmas.” It seems to have actually been a pagan festival adopted by the Christians for propaganda purposes. In fact, even the meaning of the word propaganda comes from Christian sources.”
To the smug atheists that came here to ridicule the faith of others…I have but one thing to say: I feel deeply sorry for you.
Your arguments are pathetic (or fallacious), your emptiness so apparent, and your NEED to wound those of faith reveals a deeply troubled psyche.
That said, I wish all of you would at least take the time to read of the historical frame in which Christ’s ministry and the gospels were written…at least be informed agnostics…and make some relevant arguments….at least be an knowledgable agnostic/atheist…know what it is that you condemn instead of offering wild conjectures that basically hinge on a condemnation made on faith alone…..which has to be the ultimate hypocrisy…faith-based atheism.
BTW: I’m not particularly religious, I subscribe to no organized church/denomination but I do read and think for myself. I personally take the teachings of Christ to be a good everyday philosophy for understanding the purpose of existence…..but this is my own belief and I have NEVER forced it upon anyone, nor do I need anyone to validate my personal faith with a seal of secular piety approval.
Coming to a spiritual realization and finding a faith is a personal thing and I really have never understood the dark hubris which would make someone feel the compulsion to attack a faith simply because they do not hold it.
Following Farmer Joe’s example of out of context quoting, I can quite clearly state that Farmer Joe is just being a prick, because he said:
“I love it when people argue”
Folks, Farmer Joe doesn’t want to be enlightened. He just wants to beat people down. There’s no point in “debating”.
The NT is written in Koine Greek, not classical Greek.
The word miseo, in the context of Luke 14:26 means love less. The writers of the NT wrote in Greek but were Hebrews.
If Farmer Joe were commanded by scripture to love his cat, would it mean in the same way as he loves his wife? Or would he automatically understand the nuances to the meaning of the word?
Anyway, scripture defines itself;
Luke 14:33 “So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.”
What colour were Adam and Eve ?
How many christians here are honest enough to admit to themselves that had they been born in a muslim land, they would be muslims.
Why don’t you believe in Zeus or Apollo ? Do you think the ancient Greeks built their temples cause they knew modern tourists would arrive ? No, this was their religion, one that you would have believed had you lived then.
“How many christians here are honest enough to admit to themselves that had they been born in a muslim land, they would be muslims.”
That statement defies reality.
There are, and were, many Christians in Muslim lands….and the godless realms of communism…they are an persecuted faith there….just as they were in the 1st-2nd centuries…not much changes where a true faith exists in the midst of errant orthodoxies.
From WL Mackenzie “keep the Jews out of Canada” King:
“To the smug atheists that came here to ridicule the faith of others…I have but one thing to say: I feel deeply sorry for you.
Your arguments are pathetic (or fallacious), your emptiness so apparent, and your NEED to wound those of faith reveals a deeply troubled psyche.”
……
And are you feeling the NEED to wound atheists using words like “pathetic”, “emptiness”, “deeply troubled psyche”? Good god what a hypocrite you are.
Atheists don’t want or “NEED’ to wound Christians. Most of us were brought up religious, so from a family point of view, we are often expected to defend our atheism with religious family members. It’s a debate, so let’s try to keep it that way.
-Sea Salt
I had a chance to listen to most of the debate yesterday and I am thinking of getting d’Souza’s book. Indeed, try to imagine a world without Christianity (oh too bad we aren’t all still pagans worshipping moon and sun gods and maybe doing some human sacrifice – wow those were the good old days).
Think of the Bible from God’s perspective – God wants to be known to humans and humans have Free Choice (you can choose not to know God). How will God make himself known to people? As Moses says in Deuteronomy, if you want to know God, study history.
Think of God moving in history. God made himself known at Mount Sinai. The nation of Israel was picked (chosen) to spread this message to the rest of the nations (people who hate Jews generally hate God and the idea of one Judge for all). God made promises to the Jews and for evidence that God keeps his promises, check out the existence of the modern state of Israel.
To further spread awareness of God, see Jesus and Paul (God moving in history, His Story). Thanks to Jesus and Paul, the entire world reads the five books of Moses, Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiates, etc. I think it is Paul who talks about being grafted on to the root. In today’s world, it is observant, Bible reading Christians who are the strongest defenders of the state of Israel (God moving in history).
There is no proof of God that one can present to atheists to convince them. But here is something that may help: http://www.aish.com/shavuotsinai/shavuotsinaidefault/Did_God_Speak_at_Sinai$_.asp
Who did God give the Torah to at Mount Sinai? Most people reply, “God gave the Torah to Moses.”
And what were the Jewish people doing while Moses was receiving the Torah? “Worshipping the Golden Calf.”
Correct answers — but NOT according to the Bible.
The above answers come from Cecil B. DeMille’s classic film, “The Ten Commandments.” Amazing the impact one movie can have on the Jewish education of generations of Jews. It’s a great film, but DeMille should have read the original.
The version found in the Torah is quite different. The Torah’s claim is that the entire people heard God speak at Mount Sinai, experiencing national revelation. God did not just appear to Moses in a private rendezvous; He appeared to everyone, some 3 million people. This claim is mentioned many times in the Torah.
…Could the revelation at Sinai have been a brilliant hoax, duping millions of people into believing that God spoke to them?
Let’s imagine the scene. Moses comes down the mountain and claims, “We all today heard God speak, all of you heard the God’s voice from the fire…”
Assuming Moses is making it up, how would the people respond to his story?
“Moses! What are you talking about?! Boy, you sure had us going there for awhile. We may have even believed you if you came down and claimed that God appeared to you personally. But now you blew it! Now we know you’re lying because you’re claiming an event happened to us that we know didn’t happen! We did not hear God speak to us from any fire!”
If the revelation at Sinai did not occur, then Moses is claiming an event everyone immediately knows is an outright lie, since they know that they never heard God speak. It is preposterous to think Moses can get away with a claim that everyone knows is lie.
…There are 15,000 known religions in all of recorded history. Given (the) inherent weakness, why do all of them base their claim on personal revelation? If someone wanted their religion to be accepted, why wouldn’t they present the strongest, most believable claim possible — i.e. national revelation! It’s far more credible. No one has to take a leap of faith and blindly trust just one person’s word. It is qualitatively better to claim that God came to everyone, telling the entire group that so-and-so is His prophet.
Why would God establish His entire relationship with a nation through one man, without any possibility of verification, and still expect this nation to obediently follow an entire system of instructions, based only on blind faith?
Yet, Judaism is the only religion in the annals of history that makes the best of all claims — that everyone heard God speak. No other religion claims the experience of national revelation. Why?
Furthermore, the author of the Torah predicts that there will never be another claim of national revelation throughout history!
‘You might inquire about times long past, from the day that God created man on earth, and from one end of heaven to the other: Has there ever been anything like this great thing or has anything like it been heard? Has a people ever heard the voice of God speaking from the midst of the fires as you have heard and survived?’ (Deut. 4:32-33)
Let’s consider the option that God did not write the Torah, and its author successfully convinced a group of people to accept a false claim of national revelation. In this book, the author writes a prediction that over the course of history no one will ever make a similar claim. That means if such a claim is ever made at some future time, the prediction will end up being false and his religion is finished.
How could the author include in the book he is passing off as a hoax the prediction that no other person will ever attempt to perpetuate the same hoax when he just made that exact claim? If he could do it, he can be certain that others will too, especially since it is the best possible claim to make. If you are making up a religion, you do not write something you know you cannot predict and whose outcome you would think is guaranteed to be exactly the opposite.
(read the whole thing if you find this interesting. also good on this subject and I have linked to it before in these types of conversations: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3007/jewish/How-Do-We-Know-that-We-Heard-G-d-at-Sinai.htm
“Why don’t you believe in Zeus or Apollo ? Do you think the ancient Greeks built their temples cause they knew modern tourists would arrive ? No, this was their religion, one that you would have believed had you lived then.”
He he …your timeline is a tad distorted and you knowledge of theology is also a tad distorted…
A)If you were born to an Israelite family between 2000BC and 22AD you would be Monothistic ( a belitver in the one spiritual God of creation) and reject polytheistic paganism (popular in the rest of the world)…naturally ypur true faith made you a repressed religious group and you would be persecuted as a “jew” in all the pagan nations of Europe and Asia. So after 2000BC there was a choice to reject pagan polytheism for spiritual monotheism….but it took faith and guts to do so.
B) After 33AD there was a spiritual enlightenment that came from Judea…a monotheist humanitarian sect of Judaism called Christianity…it was instantly adopted in pagan Greece but Rome took some centuries to reject pagan polytheism and the cruel social justice such orthodoxies promote…so after the 1st century there was a choice….but it took faith and guts to do so.
“One definite way to prove that we are half a chromosome away from being chimpanzees is to look at our religious practices.”-Richard Dawkins
@john at December 26, 2007 9:28 AM
“How many christians here are honest enough to admit to themselves that had they been born in a muslim land, they would be muslims.”
Although I was raised in a nominally Christian home, I studied 20th century existentialism, Buddhism, Islam, the Old Testament, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism and the New Testament prior to becoming a Christian.
The fact that we live in a country where Christianity has been the dominant faith does not mean it is untrue. The fact that many people believe it does not mean they lack critical thinking skills. How many people are atheists because they were raised in an atheistic family?
I’ve just watched the whole debate: many thanks, Kate.
Up front, I’m an observant Christian. In my day, as a proponent of traditional values—make that virtues—the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death, and the value of the natural family, I’ve had many debates with people like Christopher Hitchens. Although the comment I’m about to make doesn’t prove or disprove his arguments—though I reject most of what he said: he sure doesn’t speak for me!—I believe my observations provide a context for his credibility.
Christopher Hitchens comes across as an angry, self-satisfied, graceless prig. Of course, he’s altogether free—as I am—to believe what he wishes, but why can’t he present his ideas without the posturing, the put-downs, the prattling—what a lot of hot air!—and the preening? I found his certainty about what I believe—as a Christian, I’m obviously the worst kind of deluded idiot, liar, and hypocrite—and his obvious, very undisguised disdain for people like me most offensive.
And, from long, verifiable experience, this arrogant presentation appears to be the default position of many of those who reject traditional belief systems, e.g., Judeo-Christian teaching. If these people could present their arguments with a respectful attitude toward their opponents—they keep saying they’re all for freedom, tolerance and diversity—they would greatly enhance their credibility. But they seem incapable of doing so: once out of the starting gate—or even before: try making pleasant small talk with radical, pro-abortion feminists—their lips begin to curl and the ad hominems begin. (In a debate about the topless issue—women in Ontario now have the dubious “right” to walk bare chested in public—one of these “progressives” actually ended up publicly attacking my daughters, who don’t think much of the idea: “How stupid,” they both said, including the one with the [in those days] multiple earrings. “Your daughters are obviously ill adjusted and out of it,” the lawyer representing the “go topless” woman said to me. In the present debate, Christopher Hitchens filled this juvenile, unattractive bill to a “T”.)
I’ve defended the Judeo-Christian gifts to the West many times here. I believe that Dinesh De Souza did a fine job on that score, BTW, IMO, with more wit and grace in his presentation than Mr. H. Like some here, C.H. trots out his altruistic tendencies—I believe he has them—as if they arrived full blown out of his head, like the adult Venus out of the clam shell. Bollocks! As D.D. rightly pointed out, having been brought up in a culture strongly underpinned by Christianity, C.H. was bequeathed many of its attributes. To deny this—as some here do—but take the credit is, as D.D. pointed out “parasitic”.
On the issue of original sin and children, C.H. hideously misrepresents the issue. Even the Globe and Mail had it right: a couple of years ago, it asked the question, “Who are the most dangerous people on the planet?” Conclusion? Toddlers! Their utter lack of self-control, total self-absorption, and “live-only-for-me-in-the-moment” attitude, coupled with their blistering anger when things don’t go their way, makes them very dangerous indeed. The article pointed out that they haven’t destroyed the planet, only by virtue of their small size. C.H. seems to be under the impression that these “mini tyrants” just magically—I thought he rejected such things!—transform into responsible, caring individuals. No, Mr. H., the transformation takes the long term, dedicated love and discipline of committed, civilized adults. (These days, mature adults appear to be at a real premium. I’ve coined the term “adult toddlers” which, sadly, fits far too many so-called grown-ups these days. E.g., Check out the NDP, Green, Bloc, and Liberal parties!)
D.D. was absolutely right in pointing out the travesty—Mr. H. chose to avoid a response—of abandoning our children to the tender mercies of the atheistic public school system. (And C.H. thinks Christian formation was bad!) Our civilization is now in the unenviable position of abandoning a critical mass of our children to no discipline at all! I’ve been in public school classrooms for 36 YEARS and have personally experienced a precipitous decline in student behaviour: a critical mass arrives at school with no manners at all and the system hasn’t found a way to appease them that it won’t try. Those children who don’t act like actual barbarians, comport themselves with a self-referential entitlement, which is scary to witness. Altruism? What’s that? The spread of the selfish, me-for-myself attitude is making our society a less civilized place at an alarming rate. An observation: when Canada was a country where the tenets of Christianity were honoured by most people, even those who didn’t attend church, our society was more polite, more modest, more honest, more peaceful, and more safe. (Now, with the Charter dispensation, it’s more safe all right: for the bullies.) Maybe it’s just a coincidence, but, the more Christianity has been ridiculed and marginalized in the West, the less civilized we become. (Also, as I’ve pointed out many times—and it’s empirically verifiable—Christians give away by far the most of time, talent and treasure to others.) It would seem that a man, like Christopher Hitchens, who demands evidence, might be a little more observant.
But, C.H. doesn’t care to be observant if it doesn’t fit his thesis. As D.D. rightly pointed out, Mr. Hitchens is guilty of the very “crime” of which he accuses Christians: he’s a “true believer”! So, I’ll add “hypocrite” to my description of C.H.
Re his many utterly gratuitous insults directed at practising Christians: C.H. said that going to church more than once a week was “morbid and ritualistic”. How would he know? On the advice of my spiritual director, a wise and humble man, I now go to Mass at least once during the week. It is an oasis of peace, quiet, and contemplation of the Other/other (the first two Commandments: BTW, Hitchens’s comments about those were ridiculous.). Of course, I could be mistaken, but I believe that this time apart, where I learn, bit by bit, to humble myself to the Prince of Peace, is making me a better person. (This may be a figment of my imagination, but what does C.H. know of it? His arrogance at [mis]interpreting the motives and fruits of my actions are not only astonishingly arrogant, but smack of the totalitarianism he thinks he detects underneath every pew.)
From the arrogance, small mindedness, and “smelly little orthodoxies” (George Orwell) of such intolerant and misguided people as Christopher Hitchens, good Lord deliver us!
@ lookout 11:31 am
“Re his many utterly gratuitous insults directed at practising Christians:”
and in the very next paragraph:
“From the arrogance, small mindedness, and “smelly little orthodoxies” (George Orwell) of such intolerant and misguided people as Christopher Hitchens, good Lord deliver us!”
…..
Man, do you read your stuff? Are these not gratuitous insults on your part? Let’s get away from this garbage. My goodness, ad hominem shots like that are not a reasoned argument.
sea salt,
you can choose not to know God, but may I suggest that you might want to read the Bible (the Written Torah) with the commentaries
(the Oral Torah) – then you will be sure about what you are dismissing.
you might also want to check out Noahides
As Michael Coren says, it is atheists that help me see, God bless them.
lookout, Richard Ball, WL Mackenzie Redux – enjoying your comments
How wonderful;I think I will buy the book.
I hope people start moving away from the commercialization of Christmas and move towards the true meaning of Christmas: the Celebration of the Birth of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.
Yeah, Hitchens’ book is great.
Hey, this is one of the books I’ve given my husband for Christmas. As soon as he opened it, I said, “Can I read it next?” !!!
Quell, why don’t you read “What’s So Great About Christianity”? You’ll probably learn a whole lot that you didn’t know. Hitchens simply regurgitates every objection to Christianity since Time began, with no grace and very little wit.
Check out his brother, Peter Hitchens’, blog. Now there’s an intelligent Hitchens.
Jesus Christ is the greatest man who ever lived. He looked into the face of God, and saw something so wonderful, so great, and so overwhelmingly awesome that he willingly agreed to offer himself for the sins of the world.
When we stand before God, no one will deny his greatness. My biggest fear is that God may give those who in this life have rejected him a glimpse of his overwhelming love before He as Judge separates them from himself for eternity. What a hell that would be.
Before I head out to join family and friends for a feast in celebration of the birth of the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Almighty God, Prince of Peace, I feel the need to point something out to the Christian naysayers:
The problem with their arguments is that they are old, stale, unoriginal, and ineffectual against the Creator God who makes all things new, all the time.
The God of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, the God who came to us in human form as Jesus ben Joseph, is the God who makes harmony out of chaos, forgiveness out of shame and sin, peace out of enmity, life out of death.
There is nothing that this Mighty God and Everlasting Father cannot do, and just when the atheists think they’ve cornered Him, He jumps out of their teeny, tiny, little box by a life-changing Word, act, or miracle.
Perhaps atheists, and I mean those mean-sprited ones who wish to deny the existence of God or, if they in a niggardly way posit that He MIGHT exist and IF He does, He’s a nasty entity, need to open their eyes and hearts.
Seek and ye shall find.
Knock and the door will be opened unto you.
Ask and it shall be given.
Those are God’s promises to ALL men, women, and children, and He doesn’t break them.
Merry Christmas!
Richard Bell, (“He looked into the face of God, and saw something so wonderful”). Do you believe Jesus was merely a enlightened man? Jesus is God, at least according to the Bible.
He is the human manifestation by whom the Father inherits the world.
“He the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth…All things were created through Him and for Him…For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell.” – Colossians 1:15,16,19
God who in various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these least days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom He also made the worlds”
-Hebrews 1:1,2
“I will declare the decree: The Lord has said to Me, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten You. Ask of me and I will give you the NATIONS for your inheritance, And the ends of the earth for your possession.'” – Psalm 2:7,8
(NKJV)
I am not sure what is meant by “the true meaning of Christmas.” It seems to have actually been a pagan festival adopted by the Christians for propaganda purposes. In fact, even the meaning of the word propaganda comes from Christian sources.
A little Christmas gift for my openly and proudly Christian friends at sda:
Christopher God-is-not-great Hitchens being really dumb on slavery. Also read a good piece by Hugh Fitzgerald (jihadwatch or dhimmiwatch) on Hitchens being really dumb (and sickly sentimental) on Edward Said.
ENJOY
Hitchens simply cannot be this stupid
Christian doctrine and teachings are not the problem…never were…this is a philosophy of heroic humanism anchored in love of mankind and the divine spirit.
There are many religious orthodoxies with similar non violent humanism.
The problem starts when we get “false prophets”…self serving dick heads who claim they speak for God or interpret divine will… some proclaim their God-anointed agenda through religion, other’s through political or military vehicles and others a mix of all three.
Some of the most murderous regimes in history claimed divine guidence…but none passed the simple test Christ left us to discern false prophets from divine inspiration:
False prophets want you to believe in lies…there is only one entity who rules the world with lies…THAT is their inspiration, not God.
“Do you believe Jesus was merely a enlightened man?”
Stephen: Certainly not.
Jesus Christ was God incarnate, the Word made flesh, the actual son of the living God. As such, he is to be believed, worshipped, and obeyed.
But I do believe that he was genuinely human, that he had to learn how to speak, how to read, etc., and that the Father revealed himself to Jesus as a lad, as a youth, as a young man, and that Jesus’ self-realization was probably progressive. Consider: would it make sense to believe that the infant Jesus “knew” that he was the Son of God and understood that he must die on the cross?
“I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own–a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism. It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we can dimly perceive, and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in nature.”
— Albert Einstein, column for The New York Times, Nov. 9, 1930 (reprinted in The New York Times obituary, April 19, 1955)
Richard:
Perhaps not as an infant, but at the age of 12 (Luke 2:49) Jesus knew that He was the Son of God. The gospel of John, chapters 8 – 10 for example, also make His relationship quite clear where in many places Jesus speaks of God a His Father: Jn 10:15: “As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father … ”
WL Mackenzie Redux says, “a philosophy of heroic humanism anchored in love of mankind and the divine spirit.
There are many religious orthodoxies with similar non violent humanism.”
The bible says…
“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26)
“But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” (Luke 19:27)
“And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.” (Luke 12:47)
I guess those lying false prophets must be the ones who take what they read in the Bible literally. Cause I really don’t feel the love, non-violence or any of those other warm fuzzies when I read this.
richard ball said
“””” My biggest fear is that God may give those who in this life have rejected him a glimpse of his overwhelming love before He as Judge separates them from himself for eternity. What a hell that would be.””””
if you could just understand what you said in that phrase, could start to grasp why I converted to atheism as a teen
With regard to the Christ-as-human issue, there were two early-Christian controversies regarding it. The first was settled at the Council of Nicea, which gave us the standard New Testament as sacred scripture and marked all other gospels as acryphocal. It was decided by an almost unanimous vote of the bishops that Arius’ claim that Jesus Christ was like God was wrong, and that Christ was God – specifically, of the same essence as God.
The second was decided in the Coucil of Calcedon. A group of then-Christians, called “monothelites,” claimed that Jesus Christ was not Man-as-God but fully divine, and thus above the human race but not of it. This interpretation was deemed heretical, and the monothelites were hunted down and even persecuted until Justinain’s empress Sophia put a (temporary) end to it.
These issues may sound like quibbles, but they had implications that would have changed Christianity forever, and would probably have weakened it. Had Arius’ doctrine (now known as the Arian heresy) prevailed, it would have made Jesus potentially appear as “just” another prophet, implying that another one may come along in the future.
The second one was more lethal to Christianity. Promoting Christ to beyond-human status makes him the equivalent of the Greek demigods. If that interpretation had prevailed, then anyone who got persecuted for living in Christ need not be honoured for doing so – (s)he could have simply been cast as someone whose hybris had impelled him/her to aspire to join the Gods…and whose Nemesis was simply deserved. Revering the persecuted would have been a mere option.
These things do matter, believe it or not.
One postscriptual note: theologically, Islam builds upon the Arian heresy by claiming that Jesus was just another prophet, and denying the Miracle of the Cross through claiming that Christ was [lucky/smart] enough to escape (crawl down) from his cross. Ironically, though, the areas where Islam moved in like wildfire were the old monothlite strongholds in the Middle East.
[The information in this post, though not the conclusions, come largely from A & E’s “Rise of Christianty: The First Thousand Years.” One more note: if you strip away the sacred status of the Councils, they were a lot like parliaments.)
richard ball said “””” My biggest fear is that God may give those who in this life have rejected him a glimpse of his overwhelming love before He as Judge separates them from himself for eternity. What a hell that would be.”””” if you could just understand what you said in that phrase, could start to grasp why I converted to atheism as a teen”
Response:
I have a very good understanding of what I said.
God both loves us, yet punishes sin — as the Cross makes abundantly clear. His punishments are just, and deserved. He has created us for himself, is not willing that any should perish, and has made a generous and costly provision for us, but he is still God; disobedience and rebellion cannot be tolerated forever; it will come to an end, and he honors the choices we his creatures make.
The fact that you may not like the terms that God lays down does not mean they are not true; and it certainly is not evidence that God does not exist. Your conversion to atheism was a choice you made. That choice has eternal consequences for you.
Herman: I agree with you. Still, let’s not discount the genuine humanity of Christ. We need to affirm that he was (is) both truly God and truly man. Athanasias’ creed is helpful in this regard.
JESUS SAVES!
AND TAKES HALF DAMAGE!
I got a kick out of this story.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=503920&in_page_id=1770
You don’t believe in Jesus so no visit from Santa for you. Because celebrating the birth of christ is all about getting stuff from the Jolly old Saint Nick. LOL
Farmer Joe: “…the ones who take what they read in the Bible literally..”
Regarding ‘hate’ in the passages you quote, one needs to study the language in which the Bible was written. We cannot interpret in English and with the western mind set and not misunderstand much of what is in the Bible. Go to the Hebrew. It isn’t necessary yourself to learn it, but make sure you have consulted books written by others who have. One concordance isn’t necessarily sufficient, but certainly preferable to making judgments based more on emotion than fact.
See the context in which the Hebrew word has been used. It is possible that what is intended in these passages (spoken in a Jewish context by a Jew)is a matter of preference, rather than ‘love’ and ‘hate’ as we Gentiles understand it. The lesser preferred = the ‘hated’ one. The English language lacks the subtleties necessary for a more accurate interpretation. But, ‘lesser preferred’ does not mean ‘not loved’, even though the English word used is ‘hate’.
(Consult online The Westminster Theological Wordbook of the Bible)
There is no doubt Christianity gave birth to much that is good about Western Civilization; unfortunately in its core Christianity also holds the seeds of its own destruction. Of course this is just another tired argument,so it is must not be credible 😉
Re: Farmer Joe’s post -The bible says…
“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26)
“But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” (Luke 19:27)
“And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.” (Luke 12:47)
Come on there farmer Joe. By using these particular passages so far removed from any context you are only demonstrating that you really havn’t given serious study of the Christianity you criticize, and thereby draw an unsupportable conclusion.
Not one of these passages was ever used by Jesus, His disciples, the apostles or any writers of the early church, to support or promote any hateful, violent, or harmful action to anyone.
Remember, historically the early Christians were recognized for precisely the opposite, their non-violence and their unwillingness to take up arms, even against their own persecution. They understood clearly their master’s example of quiet suffering in the face of injustice.
The first verse, I think has already been clarified by Gellen – they are words intended to reflect the seriousness of following Jesu
s, not a call to cruel or callous behaviour.
Your second selection is not even a direct quote of Jesus, it is the words that He puts into the mouth of a character in a parable, or fictional story used to illustrate a lesson. It reflects pretty accurately how the potentates of that day would deal with political opposition, but doesn’t represent any form of a commandment or instruction by Christ to His followers.
Your third example is not much different. Making a point about the importance of faithfulness and obedience to God, Jesus provides an illustration relevant to the culture of his day, in which servants were little better than property of their Master who could and often did administer corporal punishment. There is nothing to suggest that Jesus intended to prescribe or condone such behavior while warning that disobedience always carries consequences. (Today, He might use an illustration of an employee being fired)Again, the historical example of the early church shows this with New Testament and extra-biblical examples of injunctions to treat slaves and bond-servants kindly, or even grant them freedom as brothers in Christ. It seems strange that you appear unable to give these facts an objective assessment.
Farmer Joe, if this out of context interpretation is what you mean by “literal” then I am afraid I don’t know any Christians now, or historically who have ever believed the scriptures “literally”. It is only the atheists and destractors of Christianity who I hear making all these literal quotes, and I must believe that if they are intelligent people that they are being ingenuous. Yes, most evangelical Christians do believe the bible is literally true – meaning that what it says is true, not what someone tries to make it say by playing a version of a naughty child’s word game.
Assorted religionists are attacking one another about their religion.
Christ said in one episode, ‘you who are without sin throw the first stone’.
And then he said to the woman, ‘go and don’t sin any more’.
He did not say ‘if you sin again, you will be in trouble’, did not say ‘if you sin again, there will be hell to pay’.
He said no such thing as much as some would like to tell us. He said ‘go and don’t sin anymore’.
Christ did not say anything after that, as much as some would like to put words in His mouth.
The punishment some talk about is not from the Almighty, it is more self inflicted than anything else.
Oh, so now it’s all those holy people who “translated” the bible that are the “false” prophets spreading all the lies. Riiiigggght.
I love it when people argue that what is written in the bible is not really what is written in the bible. What a nice way to open the door to -it can mean whatever I bloody well want it to mean. Including two totally different things all at the same time like Richard Balls “Jesus was truly man and truly God”.
By the way, the quotes I gave were from the -new testament- which was originally written in Greek not Hebrew. But nice try anyways.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament
Lets dive a little deeper into the Greek then shall we?
The word ‘hate’ here comes from the ancient Greek word ‘miseo’ which means hate (from the primary ‘misos’ [hatred]). If any synonym could substitute for this word, it would come from a word like ‘detest,’ ‘loath,’ or ‘despise.’ More to the point though, virtually all bibles translate the term as hate. To deny this intent means to deny the bible and the alleged word of Jesus.
But hey you guys keep arguing that the whole package is both true and false all at the same time. That’s a real winning strategy.
If I might weigh in here, Christianity is not about rules of conduct or even solely about beliefs. Christianity at its core is a transformation.
The Transformation began when the Reason of God (the second Person of the Trinity) took on human flesh, was killed and rose again immortal. That same Reason of God gave humanity both forgiveness and ultimately the Divine Nature that we too might become as He now IS.
Our challenge as human beings is to do the Will of God by following the Logic of God in the sure ability of the Nature of God. This at its core requires that we set aside our egos and agendas. Only when we fully humble ourselves we by His Grace (giftedness) fulfill His will.
The beginning,humility, is something the atheists among will never understand. I say this because as a former atheist my failure to realize there was a God came from my pride. It was only when I humbled myself or more precicely God humbled me that I came to realize there is One who has revealed Himself as Yahweh (I AM). As I came to realize, you can’t learn if you know everything already. You will never realize the existance of God until you truly admit you don’t know everything. Many make a faux confession of modesty saying with their mouths I don’t know everything but in their hearts say I don’t want to know.
There are two great dangers. One is when we seek to accomplish our will in this life and the other is when we seek to accomplish His will in this life without His Reason and without His Nature. Hitler and Stalin were prime examples of the former, the Protestant/Catholic religious wars of Europe are prime examples of the latter.
Thanks Kate
That was an excellent debate.
One of the other contradictions that gives me a chuckle is all the “peace on earth and good will towards man” stuff we get this time of year. When the man himself said…
” Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.”
-Luke 12:51-53
Must be another one of those out of context, translation\ lies put out by the false prophets who just can’t get “the logic of god”(whatever that is supposed to mean)because they have yet to be ‘humbled’.
Farmer Joe
You are half way there!!! You admitted you don’t understand. Now seek Him who is able to give you understanding. Since you have a Bible near you look up the Gospel of John 1 verse 1. In the beginning was the Word (Logos – Logic, Reason, Consiousness). You see now you have begun to humble yourself you can now ask Him who grants illumination so that you too might understand.
God Bless
I think theists and atheists need to (at least temporarily) bury the hatchet and focus on the more immediate philosophical debate: (forced) collectivism vs. individualism… but that could be the rum & eggnog talking… 😉
Cheers!
One of the arguments Dinesh made was that Hitler was an Atheist. Funny in this speech here(and there are many more examples) it looks like the opposite.
“We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls…. We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity… in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people.”
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Passau, 27 October 1928, Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall’s The Holy Reich]
I thought that when the debate was down to the hard slogging Dinesh D’Souza made the best argument against atheism that it is possible to make.
He quotes Christopher Hitchins line “the absence of evidence is evidence of absence”
Dinesh agrees that this statement does apply in the empirical domain, in the world of human experience. There are however many questions affecting our lives that are not in the empirical domain and he gives the example ” is there life after death”.
Dinesh admits that he cannot know the answer to that question. It is outside of the domain of verification. He says that in this point the believer shares the agnosticism of the atheist.
The believer however,in the absence of knowledge, choses to believe that there is life after death.
Dinesh asks why is it any more irrational for the believer to take this leap of faith than it is for the atheist to deny the possibility on an issue for which there is no empirical evidence on either side. The atheist’s position can be no more than a belief itself. In the end it comes down to a personal choice to hold one belief over another.
I think that Dinesh can’t go past this point without danger of a trimming by Occam’s razor. Dinesh’s Christian beliefs are elaboration and justification for his personal choice.
These elaborations and justifications, expressed as religious doctrine, created and implemented by imperfect and fallible humans, are what Christopher Hitchens is objecting to as an anti theist.
revelation 22, 18;19
One of the princlples of argument is to select something you both agree on, then show this leads automatically to something else you may agree on until you have a chain leading to your proposition.
A person who does not believe in God or Jesus obviously does not accept the Bible as authority so it is self-defeating to quote the Bible as authority in an argument.
It would help if Christians could show some evidence of God or Jesus rather than just quoting what is obviously ineffective.
Farmer Joe sez:
“I guess those lying false prophets must be the ones who take what they read in the Bible literally. Cause I really don’t feel the love, non-violence or any of those other warm fuzzies when I read this.”
Just exactly WHO is making negative interpretations of gospel here? I think I hear another false prophet, contorting the scripture to justify his own purposes.
Nobody can really know how we got here. (Not yet at least.) Athelists will admit that we don’t know. Christians make the choice to believe the Bible is the answer. Nevermind the utter implausibility of the events depicted in the Bible. I doubt Mr. and Mrs. Kangaroo made the hop up from Oz to the Middle east to secure a spot on the Ark. I would have welcomed Jesus when the booze ran out last New Year’s to turn water into wine, but no thinking person can think that really happened at Cana. I think Jesus was a real person, I believe he had excellent ideas, but the whole “Son of God” thing was pure marketing on the part of the disciples and St. Paul.
Q: How do Christians argue with Muslims when they say the Koran is the final word of God as revealed by Mohammed?
@Lev at December 26, 2007 1:15 AM
Either you haven’t read much of the New Testament or you have forgotten what it says.
Christ said, “except you repent, you shall all likewise perish”.
He said that he who was angry with his brother without cause was in danger of hell fire.
He said that it would be better to go into eternal life maimed if necessary rather than to enter whole into the fires of hell.
To one who had been healed of a disease he said, “go and sin no more – lest a worse thing happen to you”.
The consequences of sin are all too real — or Christ would not have had to suffer on the Cross.
I suggest you wander over to Biblegateway.com, enter in the word “hell”, and see what Jesus actually said about it.
“I am not sure what is meant by “the true meaning of Christmas.” It seems to have actually been a pagan festival adopted by the Christians for propaganda purposes. In fact, even the meaning of the word propaganda comes from Christian sources.”
To the smug atheists that came here to ridicule the faith of others…I have but one thing to say: I feel deeply sorry for you.
Your arguments are pathetic (or fallacious), your emptiness so apparent, and your NEED to wound those of faith reveals a deeply troubled psyche.
That said, I wish all of you would at least take the time to read of the historical frame in which Christ’s ministry and the gospels were written…at least be informed agnostics…and make some relevant arguments….at least be an knowledgable agnostic/atheist…know what it is that you condemn instead of offering wild conjectures that basically hinge on a condemnation made on faith alone…..which has to be the ultimate hypocrisy…faith-based atheism.
BTW: I’m not particularly religious, I subscribe to no organized church/denomination but I do read and think for myself. I personally take the teachings of Christ to be a good everyday philosophy for understanding the purpose of existence…..but this is my own belief and I have NEVER forced it upon anyone, nor do I need anyone to validate my personal faith with a seal of secular piety approval.
Coming to a spiritual realization and finding a faith is a personal thing and I really have never understood the dark hubris which would make someone feel the compulsion to attack a faith simply because they do not hold it.
Following Farmer Joe’s example of out of context quoting, I can quite clearly state that Farmer Joe is just being a prick, because he said:
“I love it when people argue”
Folks, Farmer Joe doesn’t want to be enlightened. He just wants to beat people down. There’s no point in “debating”.
The NT is written in Koine Greek, not classical Greek.
The word miseo, in the context of Luke 14:26 means love less. The writers of the NT wrote in Greek but were Hebrews.
If Farmer Joe were commanded by scripture to love his cat, would it mean in the same way as he loves his wife? Or would he automatically understand the nuances to the meaning of the word?
Anyway, scripture defines itself;
Luke 14:33 “So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.”
What colour were Adam and Eve ?
How many christians here are honest enough to admit to themselves that had they been born in a muslim land, they would be muslims.
Why don’t you believe in Zeus or Apollo ? Do you think the ancient Greeks built their temples cause they knew modern tourists would arrive ? No, this was their religion, one that you would have believed had you lived then.
“How many christians here are honest enough to admit to themselves that had they been born in a muslim land, they would be muslims.”
That statement defies reality.
There are, and were, many Christians in Muslim lands….and the godless realms of communism…they are an persecuted faith there….just as they were in the 1st-2nd centuries…not much changes where a true faith exists in the midst of errant orthodoxies.
From WL Mackenzie “keep the Jews out of Canada” King:
“To the smug atheists that came here to ridicule the faith of others…I have but one thing to say: I feel deeply sorry for you.
Your arguments are pathetic (or fallacious), your emptiness so apparent, and your NEED to wound those of faith reveals a deeply troubled psyche.”
……
And are you feeling the NEED to wound atheists using words like “pathetic”, “emptiness”, “deeply troubled psyche”? Good god what a hypocrite you are.
Atheists don’t want or “NEED’ to wound Christians. Most of us were brought up religious, so from a family point of view, we are often expected to defend our atheism with religious family members. It’s a debate, so let’s try to keep it that way.
-Sea Salt
I had a chance to listen to most of the debate yesterday and I am thinking of getting d’Souza’s book. Indeed, try to imagine a world without Christianity (oh too bad we aren’t all still pagans worshipping moon and sun gods and maybe doing some human sacrifice – wow those were the good old days).
Think of the Bible from God’s perspective – God wants to be known to humans and humans have Free Choice (you can choose not to know God). How will God make himself known to people? As Moses says in Deuteronomy, if you want to know God, study history.
Think of God moving in history. God made himself known at Mount Sinai. The nation of Israel was picked (chosen) to spread this message to the rest of the nations (people who hate Jews generally hate God and the idea of one Judge for all). God made promises to the Jews and for evidence that God keeps his promises, check out the existence of the modern state of Israel.
To further spread awareness of God, see Jesus and Paul (God moving in history, His Story). Thanks to Jesus and Paul, the entire world reads the five books of Moses, Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiates, etc. I think it is Paul who talks about being grafted on to the root. In today’s world, it is observant, Bible reading Christians who are the strongest defenders of the state of Israel (God moving in history).
There is no proof of God that one can present to atheists to convince them. But here is something that may help:
http://www.aish.com/shavuotsinai/shavuotsinaidefault/Did_God_Speak_at_Sinai$_.asp
Who did God give the Torah to at Mount Sinai? Most people reply, “God gave the Torah to Moses.”
And what were the Jewish people doing while Moses was receiving the Torah? “Worshipping the Golden Calf.”
Correct answers — but NOT according to the Bible.
The above answers come from Cecil B. DeMille’s classic film, “The Ten Commandments.” Amazing the impact one movie can have on the Jewish education of generations of Jews. It’s a great film, but DeMille should have read the original.
The version found in the Torah is quite different. The Torah’s claim is that the entire people heard God speak at Mount Sinai, experiencing national revelation. God did not just appear to Moses in a private rendezvous; He appeared to everyone, some 3 million people. This claim is mentioned many times in the Torah.
…Could the revelation at Sinai have been a brilliant hoax, duping millions of people into believing that God spoke to them?
Let’s imagine the scene. Moses comes down the mountain and claims, “We all today heard God speak, all of you heard the God’s voice from the fire…”
Assuming Moses is making it up, how would the people respond to his story?
“Moses! What are you talking about?! Boy, you sure had us going there for awhile. We may have even believed you if you came down and claimed that God appeared to you personally. But now you blew it! Now we know you’re lying because you’re claiming an event happened to us that we know didn’t happen! We did not hear God speak to us from any fire!”
If the revelation at Sinai did not occur, then Moses is claiming an event everyone immediately knows is an outright lie, since they know that they never heard God speak. It is preposterous to think Moses can get away with a claim that everyone knows is lie.
…There are 15,000 known religions in all of recorded history. Given (the) inherent weakness, why do all of them base their claim on personal revelation? If someone wanted their religion to be accepted, why wouldn’t they present the strongest, most believable claim possible — i.e. national revelation! It’s far more credible. No one has to take a leap of faith and blindly trust just one person’s word. It is qualitatively better to claim that God came to everyone, telling the entire group that so-and-so is His prophet.
Why would God establish His entire relationship with a nation through one man, without any possibility of verification, and still expect this nation to obediently follow an entire system of instructions, based only on blind faith?
Yet, Judaism is the only religion in the annals of history that makes the best of all claims — that everyone heard God speak. No other religion claims the experience of national revelation. Why?
Furthermore, the author of the Torah predicts that there will never be another claim of national revelation throughout history!
‘You might inquire about times long past, from the day that God created man on earth, and from one end of heaven to the other: Has there ever been anything like this great thing or has anything like it been heard? Has a people ever heard the voice of God speaking from the midst of the fires as you have heard and survived?’ (Deut. 4:32-33)
Let’s consider the option that God did not write the Torah, and its author successfully convinced a group of people to accept a false claim of national revelation. In this book, the author writes a prediction that over the course of history no one will ever make a similar claim. That means if such a claim is ever made at some future time, the prediction will end up being false and his religion is finished.
How could the author include in the book he is passing off as a hoax the prediction that no other person will ever attempt to perpetuate the same hoax when he just made that exact claim? If he could do it, he can be certain that others will too, especially since it is the best possible claim to make. If you are making up a religion, you do not write something you know you cannot predict and whose outcome you would think is guaranteed to be exactly the opposite.
(read the whole thing if you find this interesting. also good on this subject and I have linked to it before in these types of conversations: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3007/jewish/How-Do-We-Know-that-We-Heard-G-d-at-Sinai.htm
“Why don’t you believe in Zeus or Apollo ? Do you think the ancient Greeks built their temples cause they knew modern tourists would arrive ? No, this was their religion, one that you would have believed had you lived then.”
He he …your timeline is a tad distorted and you knowledge of theology is also a tad distorted…
A)If you were born to an Israelite family between 2000BC and 22AD you would be Monothistic ( a belitver in the one spiritual God of creation) and reject polytheistic paganism (popular in the rest of the world)…naturally ypur true faith made you a repressed religious group and you would be persecuted as a “jew” in all the pagan nations of Europe and Asia. So after 2000BC there was a choice to reject pagan polytheism for spiritual monotheism….but it took faith and guts to do so.
B) After 33AD there was a spiritual enlightenment that came from Judea…a monotheist humanitarian sect of Judaism called Christianity…it was instantly adopted in pagan Greece but Rome took some centuries to reject pagan polytheism and the cruel social justice such orthodoxies promote…so after the 1st century there was a choice….but it took faith and guts to do so.
“One definite way to prove that we are half a chromosome away from being chimpanzees is to look at our religious practices.”-Richard Dawkins
@john at December 26, 2007 9:28 AM
“How many christians here are honest enough to admit to themselves that had they been born in a muslim land, they would be muslims.”
Although I was raised in a nominally Christian home, I studied 20th century existentialism, Buddhism, Islam, the Old Testament, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism and the New Testament prior to becoming a Christian.
The fact that we live in a country where Christianity has been the dominant faith does not mean it is untrue. The fact that many people believe it does not mean they lack critical thinking skills. How many people are atheists because they were raised in an atheistic family?
I’ve just watched the whole debate: many thanks, Kate.
Up front, I’m an observant Christian. In my day, as a proponent of traditional values—make that virtues—the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death, and the value of the natural family, I’ve had many debates with people like Christopher Hitchens. Although the comment I’m about to make doesn’t prove or disprove his arguments—though I reject most of what he said: he sure doesn’t speak for me!—I believe my observations provide a context for his credibility.
Christopher Hitchens comes across as an angry, self-satisfied, graceless prig. Of course, he’s altogether free—as I am—to believe what he wishes, but why can’t he present his ideas without the posturing, the put-downs, the prattling—what a lot of hot air!—and the preening? I found his certainty about what I believe—as a Christian, I’m obviously the worst kind of deluded idiot, liar, and hypocrite—and his obvious, very undisguised disdain for people like me most offensive.
And, from long, verifiable experience, this arrogant presentation appears to be the default position of many of those who reject traditional belief systems, e.g., Judeo-Christian teaching. If these people could present their arguments with a respectful attitude toward their opponents—they keep saying they’re all for freedom, tolerance and diversity—they would greatly enhance their credibility. But they seem incapable of doing so: once out of the starting gate—or even before: try making pleasant small talk with radical, pro-abortion feminists—their lips begin to curl and the ad hominems begin. (In a debate about the topless issue—women in Ontario now have the dubious “right” to walk bare chested in public—one of these “progressives” actually ended up publicly attacking my daughters, who don’t think much of the idea: “How stupid,” they both said, including the one with the [in those days] multiple earrings. “Your daughters are obviously ill adjusted and out of it,” the lawyer representing the “go topless” woman said to me. In the present debate, Christopher Hitchens filled this juvenile, unattractive bill to a “T”.)
I’ve defended the Judeo-Christian gifts to the West many times here. I believe that Dinesh De Souza did a fine job on that score, BTW, IMO, with more wit and grace in his presentation than Mr. H. Like some here, C.H. trots out his altruistic tendencies—I believe he has them—as if they arrived full blown out of his head, like the adult Venus out of the clam shell. Bollocks! As D.D. rightly pointed out, having been brought up in a culture strongly underpinned by Christianity, C.H. was bequeathed many of its attributes. To deny this—as some here do—but take the credit is, as D.D. pointed out “parasitic”.
On the issue of original sin and children, C.H. hideously misrepresents the issue. Even the Globe and Mail had it right: a couple of years ago, it asked the question, “Who are the most dangerous people on the planet?” Conclusion? Toddlers! Their utter lack of self-control, total self-absorption, and “live-only-for-me-in-the-moment” attitude, coupled with their blistering anger when things don’t go their way, makes them very dangerous indeed. The article pointed out that they haven’t destroyed the planet, only by virtue of their small size. C.H. seems to be under the impression that these “mini tyrants” just magically—I thought he rejected such things!—transform into responsible, caring individuals. No, Mr. H., the transformation takes the long term, dedicated love and discipline of committed, civilized adults. (These days, mature adults appear to be at a real premium. I’ve coined the term “adult toddlers” which, sadly, fits far too many so-called grown-ups these days. E.g., Check out the NDP, Green, Bloc, and Liberal parties!)
D.D. was absolutely right in pointing out the travesty—Mr. H. chose to avoid a response—of abandoning our children to the tender mercies of the atheistic public school system. (And C.H. thinks Christian formation was bad!) Our civilization is now in the unenviable position of abandoning a critical mass of our children to no discipline at all! I’ve been in public school classrooms for 36 YEARS and have personally experienced a precipitous decline in student behaviour: a critical mass arrives at school with no manners at all and the system hasn’t found a way to appease them that it won’t try. Those children who don’t act like actual barbarians, comport themselves with a self-referential entitlement, which is scary to witness. Altruism? What’s that? The spread of the selfish, me-for-myself attitude is making our society a less civilized place at an alarming rate. An observation: when Canada was a country where the tenets of Christianity were honoured by most people, even those who didn’t attend church, our society was more polite, more modest, more honest, more peaceful, and more safe. (Now, with the Charter dispensation, it’s more safe all right: for the bullies.) Maybe it’s just a coincidence, but, the more Christianity has been ridiculed and marginalized in the West, the less civilized we become. (Also, as I’ve pointed out many times—and it’s empirically verifiable—Christians give away by far the most of time, talent and treasure to others.) It would seem that a man, like Christopher Hitchens, who demands evidence, might be a little more observant.
But, C.H. doesn’t care to be observant if it doesn’t fit his thesis. As D.D. rightly pointed out, Mr. Hitchens is guilty of the very “crime” of which he accuses Christians: he’s a “true believer”! So, I’ll add “hypocrite” to my description of C.H.
Re his many utterly gratuitous insults directed at practising Christians: C.H. said that going to church more than once a week was “morbid and ritualistic”. How would he know? On the advice of my spiritual director, a wise and humble man, I now go to Mass at least once during the week. It is an oasis of peace, quiet, and contemplation of the Other/other (the first two Commandments: BTW, Hitchens’s comments about those were ridiculous.). Of course, I could be mistaken, but I believe that this time apart, where I learn, bit by bit, to humble myself to the Prince of Peace, is making me a better person. (This may be a figment of my imagination, but what does C.H. know of it? His arrogance at [mis]interpreting the motives and fruits of my actions are not only astonishingly arrogant, but smack of the totalitarianism he thinks he detects underneath every pew.)
From the arrogance, small mindedness, and “smelly little orthodoxies” (George Orwell) of such intolerant and misguided people as Christopher Hitchens, good Lord deliver us!
@ lookout 11:31 am
“Re his many utterly gratuitous insults directed at practising Christians:”
and in the very next paragraph:
“From the arrogance, small mindedness, and “smelly little orthodoxies” (George Orwell) of such intolerant and misguided people as Christopher Hitchens, good Lord deliver us!”
…..
Man, do you read your stuff? Are these not gratuitous insults on your part? Let’s get away from this garbage. My goodness, ad hominem shots like that are not a reasoned argument.
sea salt,
you can choose not to know God, but may I suggest that you might want to read the Bible (the Written Torah) with the commentaries
(the Oral Torah) – then you will be sure about what you are dismissing.
you might also want to check out Noahides
As Michael Coren says, it is atheists that help me see, God bless them.
lookout, Richard Ball, WL Mackenzie Redux – enjoying your comments