Comments (11) to “Hitchens is not great”

1. Charles Anthony wrote:

   I will drink to that!

   Posted on 06-Nov-07 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

2. Richard Romano wrote:

   Wow, served on a platter with all the trimmings…Hitchens is great on the war on terrorism, but boy oh boy does he stink on matters of faith.

   Posted on 06-Nov-07 at 9:25 pm | Permalink

3. Jim Pettit wrote:

   When Christianity replaced cannibalism, it was one superstition replacing another. when atheism replaces Christianity, it is reason replacing superstition.

   Posted on 07-Nov-07 at 6:40 am | Permalink

4. ruralrenegade wrote:

   Replaced with reason huh? Oh yes, look at how much better the public education system is now that Christianity has been removed. Not!

   Posted on 07-Nov-07 at 6:53 am | Permalink

5. Anonymous wrote:

   “Oh yes, look at how much better the public education system is now that Christianity has been removed.”

   This is actually quite untrue. All of the basic tennants of our society are still basically Christian in the West. Our laws, constitutions, and holidays are still almost all Christian. Children still get Christmas and Easter holidays from school systems, public or private.

   So give me a break and stop perpetuating the lie that Christianity is being killed by governments and that our children are the victims of a pernicious plot.

   Posted on 07-Nov-07 at 7:08 am | Permalink

6. Ryan R wrote:

   Jim Pettit - I’m afraid you have the second part backwards, sir. In those times when atheism replaces Christianity, that’s when you have superstition replacing reason. Atheism implicitly argues that the whole of existence is due to pure, unadulterated chance. Within atheism, chance (and, by extension, luck) is the most important driving force in the universe. Such a great emphasis on chance or luck is very much reflective of superstitious practices (such as believing that certain items make you lucky - that they give you greater chances to do well). It’s much more reflective of superstitious practices than Christianity is, as Christianity argues that our universe of intricate design quite clearly has a Designer, and that it is the searching souls of men, and not “lucky” trinkets that helps to determine the results of one’s existence.

   So, to reiterate, atheism has a lot more to do with superstition than Christianity does. Atheism basically makes chance or luck into a god, just as genuine superstition does.

   Posted on 07-Nov-07 at 7:12 am | Permalink

7. Ryan R wrote:

   Anon - Christianity is far from being killed by anybody, but it is under attack. Since you raise the issue of Christmas… when politicians engage in such silliness as refusing to call a Christmas tree a Christmas tree then that tells me that christianity is under attack to some degree.

   Posted on 07-Nov-07 at 7:17 am | Permalink

8. Anonymous wrote:

   Anyone who eats the body and drinks the blood of their god could quite easily be accused of cannibalism.

   I refuse to call french fries “freedom fries”, does this mean that I am attacking the United States to some degree?

   Posted on 07-Nov-07 at 7:34 am | Permalink

9. Ryan R wrote:

   Anon - Wow… are these the sort of incredibly pathetic arguments that anti-Christian bigots have been reduced to? Equating the obviously figurative eating and drinking of the body and blood of Jesus with cannibalism?

   Your analogy between Christmas trees and freedom fries is equally absurd. Christmas trees is the normal, time-honoured term for Christmas trees. Similairly, french fries is the normal, time-honoured term for french fries. The real analogy, as such, is between “holiday tree” and “freedom fries” - both are terms concocted due purely to political posturing. Both of these terms should be turfed, with Christmas tree and french fries being perfectly good, sensible terms that everybody should feel comfortable using.

   Oh, and Jesus is not “their god”, He’s the Son of God of all humanity.

   Posted on 07-Nov-07 at 9:07 am | Permalink

10. Anonymous wrote:

    Slow down there Ryan, I didn’t say I personally thought Christians were cannibals (I am not that superstitious), just quoting centuries of criticism between the learned Christian, Jewish and Muslim clerics on the topic of the Eucharist. So there is no need to get your panties all tied up in a knot, no one is persecuting anyone here.

    Next, the last time I checked, the largest Christian sect in the world still believed in transubstantiation, so most do not feel that it is the figurative blood and body of Christ, but indeed literal (thus the criticism of eating the body and drinking the blood of their god).

    Finally, in Christianity, the trinity is the doctrine that God is one being who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a mutual indwelling of three persons (not to be confused by “person”): the Father, the Son (incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth), and the Holy Spirit. So yes, and again, for the large majority of Christians, Jesus is INDEED God.

    Posted on 07-Nov-07 at 9:31 am | Permalink

11. Paul wrote:

    “Anon - Wow… are these the sort of incredibly pathetic arguments that anti-Christian bigots have been reduced to? Equating the obviously figurative eating and drinking of the body and blood of Jesus with cannibalism?”

    The eating and drinking of the Body and Blood of Christ is not figurative. The idea of a symbolic Eucharist is completely foreign to the early Church. The symbolic Eucharist is an invention of Berengarius of Tours which was later adopted by various protestant sects.

    That being said, however, the Church has always affirmed that consumption of the Eucharist is not canibalism. Early Christians were often accused of canibalism, but this view ignores the Sacramental nature of the Eucharist and confuses accident with substance. It is the substance of Christ’s very Body and Blood which we consume in the Eucharist, under the accidents of bread an wine - with all their properties.

    Posted on 07-Nov-07 at 11:58 am | Permalink

Post a Comment