Why Is THis?

**quodlibet** · 05-30-2011, 06:06 PM

Re: Why Is THis?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">On numerous occasions I have posted the Christopher Hitchens debate segment in which he argues that accepting Christ's dying for OUR sins is immoral and IMO with dead-on
irrefutable logic.

I have asked several believers to watch it and get back to me on how they would debate Hitchens' points and no one seems willing to do this.

Would any believer in the crucifixion of Christ for our sins please just watch this 12 minute piece and come back and say you've watched it.

Nothing else.

I am not looking for a debate. No arguments. No exchanges between those who read it and me.

If you'd just watch it and post an "I watched it" that would be just fine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo82sgrSAYg </div></div>

"Would any believer in the crucifixion of Christ for our sins please just watch this 12 minute piece"

Does this mean that you require some kind of profession of belief for the person to watch?

**johnnycakes** · 05-30-2011, 10:38 PM

Re: Why Is THis?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo82sgrSAYg [/quote]

"Would any believer in the crucifixion of Christ for our sins please just watch this 12 minute piece"

Does this mean that you require some kind of profession of belief for the person to watch? [/quote]

Quodlibet,
I am looking for someone who believes in accepting that Christ died for our sins to get their reaction to what Hitchens has to say about it.

I think I'v already said but it bears repeating that there were many times in the not-too-distant past when what Hitchens is saying would have gotten him burned at the stake or ostracized at the least .
I have never in my many years heard those arguments used before.

Even as the atheist (now antitheist) that I am, I could never have imagined such a
hard -to-refute argument.

I would really like to hear a believer in "vicarious redemption" answer the questions implicit in what Hitchens states as unambiguous logic and fact but would settle for knowing that any believer had sat through, listened and understood all that Hitchens had to say in that 12 minutes.

I guess I'm looking for something, anything that can top Hitchens' argument.

**quodlibet** · 05-30-2011, 11:57 PM

Re: Why Is THis?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
...
I am not looking for a debate. No arguments. No exchanges between those who read it and me.
...
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
...
I guess I'm looking for something, anything that can top Hitchens' argument. </div></div>

can we reconcile these two statements please?

**johnnycakes** · 05-31-2011, 01:19 PM

Re: Why Is THis?

I'd LIKE someone to address the issues as Hitchens presents them BUT no one seems willing to take him on on these specific points.

So I will absolutely, and with no questions asked, settle for some one who believes in the crucifixion and death/sacrifice of Jesus for our sins and the other things that are centered on that event to just come back and say that they listened (really listened) to the entire twelve minutes of that video. No applause or criticism necessary.

Since I've never gotten a single response I have assumed several possibilities for why this is so but would rather hear from someone and KNOW what this phenomenon, this lack of response on a very controversial subject is caused by. .

I do not personally know very many churchgoers whom I would ask to watch this video because as a known and staunch atheist/ anti-theist my motives would be suspect but if you or anyone else reading this would show someone they know (not a boardite) the Hitchens "vicarious redemption" You-Tube video and get their thoughts and opinions and post them, that would be an antiseptic way of getting some answers.

**mountaingal** · 05-31-2011, 01:50 PM

Re: Why Is THis?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I guess I'm looking for something, anything that can top Hitchens' argument. </div></div>

why?

**johnnycakes** · 05-31-2011, 05:21 PM

Re: Why Is THis?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MGee</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I guess I'm looking for something, anything that can top Hitchens' argument. </div></div>

why? </div></div>

Always question authority.
Hitchens' argument SOUNDS very solid but there may be a way to gainsay what he claims.
What he has to say is novel and since it is a new approach, it could possibly be flawed somehow or in some way that no one has seen SO FAR.

**Pepper** · 05-31-2011, 06:38 PM

Re: Why Is THis?

Cakes, if I remember I will watch this when I have time.

**rudemonk** · 05-31-2011, 07:50 PM

Re: Why Is THis?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Always question authority.
Hitchens' argument SOUNDS very solid but there may be a way to gainsay what he claims.
What he has to say is novel and since it is a new approach, it could possibly be flawed somehow or in some way that no one has seen SO FAR.

</div></div>

there is not, without modifying some of the givens.

the only room left for the possibility of there being a god, is that he is not either of or one of the following- omnipotent, omniscient, or omnibenevolent.

i have yet to see anyone come at hitchens from that standpoint of slightly adjusting the framework of the argument, and he would be forced to concede that such an entity would be plausible...

some apologists, who I also have never seen debate hitchens, as a trying work around, seek to adjust the definitions of the granted premises of god's nature, by saying he is indeed omnipotent, but that does not mean he is capable of the logically absurd- such as making a rock so large that he could not lift it. this makes that angle of attack slightly obsolete but it's far from convincing.

**johnnycakes** · 05-31-2011, 08:19 PM

Re: Why Is THis?

Thanks Pepper.

It's about twelve minutes long and just a segment of a much longer debate.
Please do let me know when you have watched it through .

**jaith** · 06-04-2011, 10:12 PM

Re: Why Is THis?

i watched it.

**jah_yout** · 06-05-2011, 11:06 AM

Re: Why Is THis?

the problem with hitchens is that his scope is limited...his arguments against certain concepts of christianity is seen by him & his fans as a refutation of religion...
not so- it is mainly attacks on christian doctrine...i always remind people that religion is far broader than christianity, judaism & islam;
hitchens arguments are good in terms of challenging over-simplified interpretations of scripture...but he makes the same error that those who over-simplify scriptures make---
he is unable/unwilling to go on a deeper level...
he thinks that by challenging flawed creation & interpretations of religious scripture that he has challenged "god" or the universal order of creation...
not to mention the concept of someone dying for us (so we won't have to) is nothing new & is practiced by our own gov't to this day---easily seen in the diefication of our military troops

**johnnycakes** · 06-05-2011, 12:54 PM

Re: Why Is THis?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the problem with hitchens is that his scope is limited...his arguments against certain concepts of christianity is seen by him & his fans as a refutation of religion...
not so- it is mainly attacks on christian doctrine...i always remind people that religion is far broader than christianity, judaism & islam;
hitchens arguments are good in terms of challenging over-simplified interpretations of scripture...but he makes the same error that those who over-simplify scriptures make---
he is unable/unwilling to go on a deeper level...
he thinks that by challenging flawed creation & interpretations of religious scripture that he has challenged "god" or the universal order of creation...
not to mention the concept of someone dying for us (so we won't have to) is nothing new & is practiced by our own gov't to this day---easily seen in the diefication of our military troops </div></div>

jah_youth,

I've watched just about all the Hitchens' debate segments I could find as well as having read "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything".

He tears up Judaism in the "vicarious redemption" video and for certain tears up Islam in his book. He has corrected people who call him an atheist pointing out that he goes beyond not believing in a God but is an anti-theist: someone who actively works against the evils that come with belief in a totalitarian God.

That his argument against accepting vicarious redemption is untouchable points out that that concept, though so central to Christian belief is not valid.
If there were an argument that would work against the logic of Hitchens on this major point, this cornerstone of Christianity, it would have been presented by the believers long ago.

Your conflating Christ's metaphorical death with the death of soldiers for us does not hold water.

If there is a service person who actually believes that he or she is risking their lives for our freedoms of speech or the vote, that person needs a massive IQ transplant stat.

People join the armed forces to make a living.
There is no existential threat to the United States and anyone who believes otherwise has been sold a bill of goods.

God killed Christ (his son) for our sins. (nonsense)
U.S soldiers are dying to protect the wealth and privilege of the wealthy (truth) freedomsS

Why Is THis?

Why Is THis?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

ads