Hitchens / McGrath – Religion: The Center vs The Fringe, Pt 3

admin November 28th, 2009

25 Responses to “Hitchens / McGrath – Religion: The Center vs The Fringe, Pt 3”

  1. mentelle48on 28 Nov 2009 at 5:07 pm

    @billy2bob HIs mother committed suicide I think.

  2. mentelle48on 28 Nov 2009 at 5:07 pm

    Not really. Hitchens sees the intervention in Iraq though a prism of the liberation of the Kurds from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, with whom he has expressed solidarity since before the invasion. Through personal contact with the Kurds, he saw how the west had a moral duty to come to their aid and liberate an educated, yet barbarised, people from repression. There are those on the left who see Iraq in that way. Afghanistan is a different matter altogether.

  3. Gliktchon 28 Nov 2009 at 5:07 pm

    “Does that “fundamentalism of any kink can be harmful” maxim apply to the NeoCon “War on Terror” fundamentalism which Hitchens supports?” – billy2bob

    If this alleged fundamentalism prevents him from acting rationally, or in any way stops him from basing his motivations on reality, then yes it is harmful and should be opposed or tempered with relevant objections. You would first of course have to demonstrate that he is ignoring reality and not simply (passionately) pursuing a legitimate cause.

  4. Gliktchon 28 Nov 2009 at 5:07 pm

    “So which is it? Is Christianity too violent? Or not violent enough?” – billy2bob

    Both.

    The biggest problem with something like the bible is that it’s vague enough that it can be used to justify any position no matter how deluded & harmful. Women married to wife-beaters who ‘love their enemy’ and ‘turn the other cheek’ are thus harmed by those tenets, while anyone who acts on the ‘kill the unbeliever’-style passages is obviously causing much harm as well, but both are following the scripture.

  5. ospTubeon 28 Nov 2009 at 5:07 pm

    Christopher has it buttoned up. I’m hoping he’ll come round on the Iraq thing. As of this date 11/09 he’s beginning to see the futility of the middle east debacle. Thank God. (not)

  6. billyboy630on 28 Nov 2009 at 5:07 pm

    I probably have never agreed with any comment on youtube more then this one.
    I beleive at some time Hitchens will come full circle, there is something lurking down deep with him, I like Hitchens and I like the challenges he makes to me especially as a Christian. He is known to be a heavy drinker and i think he was hurt some how. He not only isnt a beleiver but has alot of venom for religion.
    One other point should be made for Hitchens fans, he lumps all religion together, 2 who defines morals?

  7. billy2bobon 28 Nov 2009 at 5:07 pm

    Does that “fundamentalism of any kink can be harmful” maxim apply to the NeoCon “War on Terror” fundamentalism which Hitchens supports?

  8. billy2bobon 28 Nov 2009 at 5:07 pm

    So which is it? Is Christianity too violent? Or not violent enough? What is Hitchen’s charge? He can’t seem to make up his mind.

  9. billy2bobon 28 Nov 2009 at 5:07 pm

    Poor Hitchens. He sits there like a schoolboy at detention. Really. He never seems to be very happy or have much love of life.

    His body language is very disconnected, nervous and uncomfortable. Never making eye contact, etc.

    He has some very emotional scars driving him for some reason. Did he have terrible experiences in church or something? I think I would be more interested in Hitchen’s personal story than what he thinks about everyone’s religion.

  10. SoSaCA100on 28 Nov 2009 at 5:07 pm

    4:51 McGrath just showed the superiority of Christians worldview,although Hitchens wanted to condemn Christianity as a violent belief his belief is much more violent and at the end he contradicted his own contention just by saying that Christianity is extremely peaceful while his first contention was that it’s a violent belief

  11. 0932486509on 28 Nov 2009 at 5:07 pm

    I love listening to Christopher Hitchens. Music to the ears.

  12. themecon 28 Nov 2009 at 5:07 pm

    Dear! What tone of voice is this?! Listen er love, Hitchypoos has committed a fashion faux pas whether you like it or not. I bet he wore Doc Martin shoes when he was a Trot darling.

    Anyway, where the hell is Al? Anyone seen him lately?

  13. mystismeon 28 Nov 2009 at 5:07 pm

    tanks

  14. WolfmanJoeHunteron 28 Nov 2009 at 5:07 pm

    @mystisme i thought precisely the same thing!

  15. mystismeon 28 Nov 2009 at 5:07 pm

    the body language of mc graph seem to transpirate a guay personnaity i wonder if he is out of the closet or because of his reigious belief he is capable to kept it secret and lye to himself

  16. macsmon 28 Nov 2009 at 5:07 pm

    Hitchens sometimes sound as a Neocon…

  17. wormdrink414on 28 Nov 2009 at 5:07 pm

    Easily one of Hitchens’ most articulate enemies. Nevertheless, his arguments are ridiculous and Hitchens wins (again).

  18. vivalaletaon 28 Nov 2009 at 5:07 pm

    I think that’s just his pale Anglo-Saxon skin, dear. Besides, Hitchens knows that the ladies aren’t gazing at his ankles.

  19. themecon 28 Nov 2009 at 5:07 pm

    Hitchens wears WHITE SOCKS alert! Oh my god! That is like SO 80’s!!
    On the other hand the other guy wears a far more sober sock.
    Probably from Marks and Spencers. They do great socks at affordable prices. I bought 10 for ten pounds the other day. They had circles on the heel and toes. Classy they are.
    Hitchens is the Al Kiyeda (Who’s he FIND HIM!) of socks.
    Im going with the M + S sock guy.
    All hail Marks and Spencers!!!
    For it came to pass that all men who wore white socks: the devil made…

  20. BratvaTVon 28 Nov 2009 at 5:07 pm

    I love when people try to make the argument that without relgious consequences people would run amock.

    Despite the fact that I feel most people are inheritly good…

    ..The last time I checked there was still a thing called jail. And Id be willing to bet more people fear that over an imaginary hell.

  21. itcanbecheezcaketimeon 28 Nov 2009 at 5:07 pm

    2

    But it is possible that people would kill without a second thought if they thought there were no divine punishments… then again, clearly that doesn’t seem to stop people from killing anyway. Please reply. I’d like to see where you would go with this.

  22. itcanbecheezcaketimeon 28 Nov 2009 at 5:07 pm

    1.

    That’s an interesting point but I’m not sure if I agree or disagree. The only way I know to refute that comment is by saying that you’re assuming people would be out of control. Possessing logic and a persons personal, and often instantaneous, need for violence are two separate things. How little faith you have in your fellow human (sarcasm). I would be willing to bet not near as many people would be dead by now if there had been no religion to begin with.

  23. itcanbecheezcaketimeon 28 Nov 2009 at 5:07 pm

    I have to admit, I seriously will be saving that quote by Hitchens:

    “About as useful as the Popes balls”

    LOL! That was greatness.

  24. c3066521on 28 Nov 2009 at 5:07 pm

    Its incomptenece that is dangerous, not necessarily pacifism.

  25. OrmEmberon 28 Nov 2009 at 5:07 pm

    I meant verses can be found, not versus……;P

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply