Anyone still support Christopher Hitchens?

Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Anyone still support Christopher Hitchens?

Has anyone here heard of David Irving? Mr. Irving is basically the leader of modern anti-Semitism. He is the leader of the Holocaust Denial movement. He is absolutely infatuated with Hitler (see his book, Hitler's War). Irving minimizes the number of Jewish deaths in the Holocaust. He estimates 300,000 deaths, while most people estimate around 6 million. He also denies that anyone died in the gas chambers at Auschwitz. Here is a famous quote from Irving "More people died in the back of Ted Kennedy's car then the gas chambers at Auschwitz."Now, what does this have to do with Chris Hitchens? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMAAiS5Ljsw

Here is video documentation of Hitchens supporting the publication of Irving's anti-Semitic literature. Hitchens takes a strong stance against a major publishing company that refused to put out Irving work. Would any of you be angry at the Random House if they refused to publish an ignorant and hateful book that completely ignored historical reality? Especially in the face of survivors who can testify to the actual events (for example, Elie Wiesel). Who the hell does Hitchens think he is to support Irving? No one questions Irving's right to have his anti-Semitic opinions, but a private company doesn't have to publish Irving's views.

Anyone care to defend Hitchens? If not, he should be dismissed completely.(Ps- If anyone here is going to point out that Hitchens is racially Jewish, that is irrelevant. He didn't find that out until he was a grown man, and his brother Peter disputes their Jewish heritage. Hitchens has never had any significant religious or social ties to Israel or Judaism).

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Voltaire!

Holy crap... that Eric Breindel guy is WEIRD. If I was sitting next to him on a bus, I would be very creeped out. He acts like he's sick or something. =P

 

I agree with Hitchens that Irving should have the right to be published and the right to be read, despite how wrong he may be. Even if Irving did print obviously wrong facts, it would still be his right to present his opinion. It is up to the critics and the general public to decide that Irving is retarded, not so much the publishing company.

However, I also understand that a publishing company is a business and probably does not want to be known as the company that printed the book that everyone hated, epecially when it's in regard to such a serious historical event as this one.

At no point, though, does Hitchens say that he supports what Irving says, nor does he suggest that Irving is anything less than crazy for thinking so. He simply says that if Irving wants to write something that's batshit fucking insane, he should be able to do that. If Hitchens then wants to read the book that is batshit fucking insane so that he can come to his own conclusions about them rather than rejecting them on impulse, he should be able to do that. I don't really see how that's a problem. We print bibles, after all.

I understand what Hitchens is saying and I don't think he should be discredited simply for saying that even psychotic people deserve to be heard. In fact, it's good to know that he's so open to other opinions.  For him, publishing companies have a public role as presenters of ideas. I can see where he's coming from. After all, if the book is printed, who are people going to think is insane: Irving or the company that published him?

Probably Irving.

 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


evil religion
evil religion's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2006-10-20
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote: Has anyone

Christos wrote:
Has anyone here heard of David Irving? Mr. Irving is basically the leader of modern anti-Semitism. He is the leader of the Holocaust Denial movement. He is absolutely infatuated with Hitler (see his book, Hitler's War). Irving minimizes the number of Jewish deaths in the Holocaust. He estimates 300,000 deaths, while most people estimate around 6 million. He also denies that anyone died in the gas chambers at Auschwitz. Here is a famous quote from Irving "More people died in the back of Ted Kennedy's car then the gas chambers at Auschwitz."Now, what does this have to do with Chris Hitchens? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMAAiS5Ljsw

Here is video documentation of Hitchens supporting the publication of Irving's anti-Semitic literature. Hitchens takes a strong stance against a major publishing company that refused to put out Irving work. Would any of you be angry at the Random House if they refused to publish an ignorant and hateful book that completely ignored historical reality? Especially in the face of survivors who can testify to the actual events (for example, Elie Wiesel). Who the hell does Hitchens think he is to support Irving? No one questions Irving's right to have his anti-Semitic opinions, but a private company doesn't have to publish Irving's views.

Anyone care to defend Hitchens? If not, he should be dismissed completely.(Ps- If anyone here is going to point out that Hitchens is racially Jewish, that is irrelevant. He didn't find that out until he was a grown man, and his brother Peter disputes their Jewish heritage. Hitchens has never had any significant religious or social ties to Israel or Judaism).

Yes I defend Hitchins and I actually defend David Irvings right to publish his vile nonsense. I disagree with Irvine and find his views repulsive but freedom of speach is more important. Just as I defend Chrsitians rights to read publish and distribute the real sourse of ALL anti-semitism that book known as the Bible.


Conn_in_Brooklyn
Conn_in_Brooklyn's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2006-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Support Hitchens in what

Support Hitchens in what way exactly?  Many of his ideas resonate with me, esp. his stances on atheism and morality, the immorality of religious faith and holy texts, the separation of church and state and freedom of speech ... Hitchens is not a holocaust denier, but rather defended the right of someone who has unspeakable and offensive ideas.  I hate holocaust denial as I hate anti-semitism, but I would defend to my death a persons right, under the U.S. Constitution, to speak these lies - I would also challenge them with the facts of history, esp. with the gruesome figure that 12 million people died at the hands of the Nazi death machine and that the anti-semitism that move Hitler and the German people towards the 'final solution' was directly inherited from medieval Christianity ... I also find it a little troubling that you, as a Christian, with all its history of anti-Jewish violence, could, without any hint of irony, attempt to cast aspersions on someone for defending the freedom of speech of someone who has anti-semitic views ...

I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com


Tomcat
Posts: 346
Joined: 2006-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote:  Would

Christos wrote:

 Would any of you be angry at the Random House if they refused to publish an ignorant and hateful book that completely ignored historical reality?

The Bible and the Koran could fit that description, but I still want them printed.  I don't see how printing of a material endorses it.  It puts it out there to be read.  Hiding it away is an insult to the critical thinkers out there who can make a decision for themselves. 

The Enlightenment wounded the beast, but the killing blow has yet to land...


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13671
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Do not compartmentalize

Do not compartmentalize when there are two seperate issues going on. As stated by serveral people here, and I agree:

There is a HUGE differance between being right, and having the right to say something.

Hitchens DOES NOT SUPPORT HOLOCAUST DENIAL, neither do I. But someone does have the right say stupid disgusting things. People aslo have the right to believe that ouiji board work. People have the right to believe that homosexuality is an abomination while ignoring Lev later on calling eating shellfish an abomination. 

Supporting free speech does not mean that you support what the person says. It only means that they have the right to say it.

Voiltair, "I may vehemetly dissagree with what you have to say but will defend to the death your right to say it".

"Blashpemy laws are the first sign of tyrany"

For anti-semtimism, or any form of bigotry to be defeated can not be done through "thought police" laws inforced by government gunpoint. To change society you use your own voice.

If you want to prove to me that Hitchens hates Jews(absurd claim) you'd need to show me a statement like, "Jews are scum".

Nothing posted here would indicate anything but Hitchens support of the rights of a dick to be a dick. 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Lets see, where does

Lets see, where does Hitchens comdemn Irving as a hateful bigot acting like a real historian? Oh yeah, he doesn't say that. He actually treats Irving like a credible historian into facism. I'm sorry, but I don't see how you could really take any of Irving's historical claims seriously when he acts like the gas chambers never existed.

  This is not a freedom of speech issue. No one is saying that Irving can't write/think whatever he wants. Hitchens is claiming that a private publishing company should be disgraced for rejecting Irving's work. The fact that Hitchens does not applaud St. Martin's for rejecting Irving's anti-Semitic garbage should raise some serious eyebrows.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Conn_in_Brooklyn
Conn_in_Brooklyn's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2006-12-04
User is offlineOffline
To move on slightly,

To move on slightly, Christos, you seem to be under the (false, pernicious) impression that we atheists have to see in our "representatives" (I never chose Hitchens to represent me, but, as it were, we rarely choose the people who speak for us) the perfection you see in, perhaps, the image of Christ or the Prophets ... We do not hold that men can be perfect, and I do not require the perfection of a man in order to accept one or two or all of the man's positions.  

(And again that fact that a professed Christian can pass judgement on anti-semitism, without a hint of irony, is laughable ... Christianity is codified, packaged bigotry - and modern, evangelical Christianity's entire eschatology is based on the annhilation of the Jews and Israel in bringing forth the end-times.  I think as a new Christian your politics and theology are still in process to the extent that you should probably bow out of discussions like this before you get your ideas straight ...)

... & the fact that you can ignore most of our comments and then state that "this is not a freedom of speech issue", I think, disqualifies you from rational discourse - freedom of speech isn't just the "right to say and think what you want", its not being pruposefully and illegally excluded from the process.

I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote:  I'm

Christos wrote:

 I'm sorry, but I don't see how you could really take any of Irving's historical claims seriously when he acts like the gas chambers never existed.

I'm sorry, could you please point out where anyone here is taking Irving's claims seriously?  I can't find it. 

Christos wrote:
  The fact that Hitchens does not applaud St. Martin's for rejecting Irving's anti-Semitic garbage should raise some serious eyebrows.

Why? 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Hitchens's argument in that

Hitchens's argument in that debate seems to be that it's healthy to be exposed to different sources of research, regardless of the conclusions drawn by the researcher. At the end, he explicitely says Irving didn't change his view of the Nazis (which I'm presuming was a negative one). I don't disagree with the principles he's espousing here: that other opinions have the right to be heard, and that you owe it to yourself to hear them. There's a difference between listening to different ideas and simply adopting them wholesale because you've heard them. Note my sig:
"Americans read everything like Scripture: they grasp the book, shut their eyes and make a global decision to believe or not to believe, and once they've chosen to believe, all critical faculties are deactivated." ~John Dolan
If you want a point on which I can assuredly diverge from Hitchens, it's his support for the war in Iraq. This doesn't mean I can't read his essays on other subjects, indeed even on that subject, and draw my own conclusions and take from it what I as a (hopefully) rational, thinking person can.


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote: This is

Christos wrote:

This is not a freedom of speech issue. No one is saying that Irving can't write/think whatever he wants. Hitchens is claiming that a private publishing company should be disgraced for rejecting Irving's work. The fact that Hitchens does not applaud St. Martin's for rejecting Irving's anti-Semitic garbage should raise some serious eyebrows.

 

 I'll try again.

 

He's saying that it is a shame that the company rejected Irving's work because it is Irving's right to have his opinions published and it is the people's right to hear those opinions. In other words, it is a speech issue. It's a sort of censorship. He's saying that by rejecting Irving's opinions, the publishing company automatically enters the realm of politics in that it only prints the documents it approves of.

Why should we raise an eyebrow when Hitchens doesn't applaud them for rejecting the book? Read what what other posters have said earlier. He doesn't applaud because he thinks that it is the publisher's duty to offer the widest range of ideas possible. If there were some sort of business-related reason for rejecting the book, that would be one thing, but to reject the book solely on the basis of the fact that the content is offensive or even false is something entirely different. The book still has educational value and just because it's not an opinion we agree with is no reason for Irving to be refused publication.

I think the Holy Bible is full of historically and scientifically innacurate statements, but I'm not going to refuse the Christians their right to have those bibles printed. I don't have to believe a word the bible says, but I can still study it and attempt to understand why others believe that the events took place. I don't mean to suggest that Irving is some kind of a holy figure in making this comparison, but I think he deserves that same right.

In other words, he's completely insane. Sure. Yes. But it doesn't matter. He has the right for us to laugh at him for being that way.

 

I understand completely the objection to Irving's ideas. There is no dispute there. But people should be able to hear him out and make a decision. If a publishing company cuts off those ideas from the public, we simply have to accept that Irving is a lunatic without arriving at that decision by our own judgment.

I would be willing to say that the only reason people are in an uproar about it is because it is an emotionally sensitive historical event. If someone wanted to throw into the public circle a series of lies about events surrounding the Roman Empire, I'd be willing to bet there would not be an uproar like this one. They'd just say the author was an idiot and that would be the end of it.

 

People can publish whatever they want. A company can refuse them for business reasons, but not political reasons.

 

Seems simple enough to me. 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Well Conn, I should mention

Well Conn, I should mention that although a new Christian, I've been around the religion my whole life and I understand Christianity very well. Maybe you should check out some of my posts on other threads.

I agree that atheists are under no obligation whatsoever to follow Hitchen's example. However, Hitchens is held on a higher level among atheist activists along with Harris and Dawkins. Many times (mostly outside this forum) I have seen atheists defend every word that these three men speak/write (reminds me a lot of a fundie). I should also point out in response to the assertion that I hold Hitchens to Jesus standards: I doubt that Jesus of Nazareth was completely perfect throughout his entire life (but that discussion is for another time).

I again disagree that Hitchens has any grounds to criticize a private company for a business decision. Irving wrote other books that undermine the Holocaust. Not to mention the Institute for Historical Review (infamous for their Holocaust denial) has a magazine. No one is hidden from their influence. For example, in Europe, Holocasut denial is such a problem that people can serve jail time for it (Irving had to temporarily drop his views to avoid a 10 year sentence in Austria). Why should a major publishing company subject more people to Irving's ignorance? They have no legal obligation to publish his views.

Also, no one really responded to the fact that in the interview, Hitchens never condemns the work of Irving as an anti-Semitic bigot.  

I also see some hypocrisy here. If a major Christian leader criticized a private publishing company for not producing a book that denied American slavery, all of you would be up in arms.

Finally, I completely recognize Christianity's responsibility for anti-Semitism through a 2-thousand year history of oppression and pogroms. I would argue that hatred and violence demonstrated to the Jews was a result of Christians ignoring the message of Jesus, not following it (but again, that discussion is not for this thread). Nevertheless, Hitchens cannot come out a criticize a private business for rejecting ignorance and hateful anti-Semitism.

Why should a company publish a book that no one would buy, and would possibly ruin their reputation?

I think a rational response to this issue is to say that Hitchens fucked up big time, and move on.

 

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote: I also see

Christos wrote:

I also see some hypocrisy here. If a major Christian leader criticized a private publishing company for not producing a book that denied American slavery, all of you would be up in arms.

Christos, you do this a lot and it's annoying.  Don't assume what anyone on this forum would do.  First of all, I don't consider Hitchens to be my leader.  In fact, I haven't read any of his works and the only reason they are on my 'to read' list is because of the topics he covers.

Secondly, I honestly could care less if someone criticized a publisher for not putting out a book denying slavery.  It's their perogative.  If people want to read ridiculous nonsense like that, it's up to them.  What next, Christos?  Perhaps we should condemn publishing companies for putting out those trashy romance novels.

I think Hitchens has a right to criticize the publishing company.  If you'll notice, I never said whether I agree with Hitchens or not.  He still has a right to his opinion.  

If god takes life he's an indian giver


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote: ... I

Christos wrote:
... I agree that atheists are under no obligation whatsoever to follow Hitchen's example. However, Hitchens is held on a higher level among atheist activists along with Harris and Dawkins.

You contradict yourself: it's either about the man or it isn't. In the world of ideas, there are many despicable people who have demonstrated profound insight. That ideas can somehow be tainted by a person's actions is an emotional response one has to get over if they hope to have a conversation that doesn't disintegrate into ad hominem attacks. That's what you've set up with this thread, so don't dance around it.
Christos wrote:
Many times (mostly outside this forum) I have seen atheists defend every word that these three men speak/write (reminds me a lot of a fundie). I should also point out in response to the assertion that I hold Hitchens to Jesus standards: I doubt that Jesus of Nazareth was completely perfect throughout his entire life (but that discussion is for another time).

They don't concern me because there is no philosophy of atheism, let alone a standards body.
Christos wrote:
I again disagree that Hitchens has any grounds to criticize a private company for a business decision.

And you can argue that point, but that's not what you're doing here. You're trying to discredit an author of a book on atheism--based on an unrelated, eleven year-old interview--and glossing over his actual intent in that debate to do so.
Christos wrote:
... Also, no one really responded to the fact that in the interview, Hitchens never condemns the work of Irving as an anti-Semitic bigot.

Which leaves a silence. Should we speculate to our own satisfaction? Your whole premise is a red herring. You're fishing for anti-Semitism in a debate about publishing and censorship. You can't even do that right, cos you're stuck acknowledging the original point of the debate--whether the publisher is obligated to represent unpopular views--and the shameful history of your own adopted religion.
[...]


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Off topic, but I wanted to

Off topic, but I wanted to ask: what did you convert from, and are you under the impression that all Jews will have to convert in order to be "saved?"


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote:Off topic,

magilum wrote:
Off topic, but I wanted to ask: what did you convert from, and are you under the impression that all Jews will have to convert in order to be "saved?"

I converted from atheism. I've always been the "Christos" user because I'm a religion major.  

I do not think Jews have to convert, for many reasons. I guess all I will say here is that I think Heaven probably doesn't exist. Same goes for Hell. I could go in to more depth on another thread. Most of Christianity is at odds with the majority of scholars about what Jesus meant by "The Kingdom of Heaven/God." Jesus focused a lot more on the present then on an afterlife. Which makes sense because Judaism doesn't hold to a belief in Heaven, and Jesus came from that Jewish culture and faith. I also have always found Jesus' statement about the Kingdom in Thomas 25 to be very profound and eye-opening.

Concerning Hell, I was just there this afternoon. I can see it from where I live. Hell in the first century was a real place: The Valley of Gehenna outside the walls of Jerusalem (So yes, that means I live in Jerusalem). People used to practice anti-Jewish child sacrifice, as well as throw their trash in Gehenna. People would light fires to burn away the trash, and dogs used to fight for food in Gehenna. Hence, "weeping (child sacrifice) and gnashing of teeth (dog fighting)."

Jesus talked about Hell metaphorically. When you hate, lust, steal, refuse to give, etc, you create a Hell for yourself on Earth.

Oh crap, I rambled. Oh well, I hope this was insightful.

Peace!

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane

pariahjane wrote:

Christos, you do this a lot and it's annoying.  Don't assume what anyone on this forum would do. 

Honestly though Jane, you know that this website and the entire atheist community would go crazy if someone like Rick Warren came out and criticized St. Martin's for not publishing a book denying the Holocaust.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote: pariahjane

Christos wrote:
pariahjane wrote:

Christos, you do this a lot and it's annoying.  Don't assume what anyone on this forum would do. 

Honestly though Jane, you know that this website and the entire atheist community would go crazy if someone like Rick Warren came out and criticized St. Martin's for not publishing a book denying the Holocaust.

I can't speak for everyone else, but I could care less.  Seriously.  Religion isn't the issue here, anyway. 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
I never called Hitchens

I never called Hitchens anti-Semitic. I just find it curious that he criticizes St. Martin's for not publsihing a book about Holocaust denial when there are plenty of other mediums to read about Holocaust denial. It is not illegal to refuse to publish a book for any reason (political or economic). However, he never condemned Irving as an anti-Semitic bigot. Seems weird to me my friend.

 

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Conn_in_Brooklyn
Conn_in_Brooklyn's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2006-12-04
User is offlineOffline
I, in fact, don't agree

I, in fact, don't agree with Hitchens' criticism of the publishing house.  I don't think publishing houses should be compelled to publish anything they come across - and to a certain extent, they, as a private company, are protected by their right to self-determine their catalogue.  Hitchens was, in fact, wrong wrong wrong about that, as he has been about many topics ...

My issue, which enhanced the tone of my response, has more to do with the way you framed the issue:  "Ha, see, your prophet of atheism defended the freedom of a holocaust denier, the worst scum on earth ... aren't you just so ashamed? ..."  Christopher Hitchens is at times brilliant and at other times a pain in the ass - he is an iconoclast, a contrarian, a sonofabitch & (paradoxically) has dreadfully good taste - I do not have to defend every thing he does or is because I find his writing witty and many of his positions agreeable; I simply do not.

 (In fact, the only people I would defend in toto regardless if they break most taboos, etc. are members of my family & my closest friends - ... I accept the charge of irrationality with respect to that ...)

... & I'm not at all interested in your anecdotes about atheists proping up any popular atheist authors or thinkers despite obvious character flaws or flaws in their arguments ... I guess they should have known better, but that's not my problem.

I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote: I never

Christos wrote:

I never called Hitchens anti-Semitic. I just find it curious that he criticizes St. Martin's for not publsihing a book about Holocaust denial when there are plenty of other mediums to read about Holocaust denial. It is not illegal to refuse to publish a book for any reason (political or economic). However, he never condemned Irving as an anti-Semitic bigot. Seems weird to me my friend.

 


It was 1996 -- I don't think the tidal wave of novice users to the web happened until a year later. Now the line has blurred between fringe and mainstream because all kinds of information is available without a deliberate effort to find it. So it was a bigger deal back then for a publisher to reject a book. You may be right about their not being obligated to publish the book, but neither are we obligated to support censorship of ideas we don't like.

There aren't many reasons a person would be asked to condemn an author with wildly unpopular views, so let's not mince words here. This is a "with us or agin us" implication because Hitchens didn't make his stance explicitly clear (he implied a disagreement with the reasoning, but not the research data, of the author).


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote: magilum

Christos wrote:

magilum wrote:
Off topic, but I wanted to ask: what did you convert from, and are you under the impression that all Jews will have to convert in order to be "saved?"

I converted from atheism. I've always been the "Christos" user because I'm a religion major.  

I do not think Jews have to convert, for many reasons. I guess all I will say here is that I think Heaven probably doesn't exist. Same goes for Hell. I could go in to more depth on another thread. Most of Christianity is at odds with the majority of scholars about what Jesus meant by "The Kingdom of Heaven/God." Jesus focused a lot more on the present then on an afterlife. Which makes sense because Judaism doesn't hold to a belief in Heaven, and Jesus came from that Jewish culture and faith. I also have always found Jesus' statement about the Kingdom in Thomas 25 to be very profound and eye-opening.

Concerning Hell, I was just there this afternoon. I can see it from where I live. Hell in the first century was a real place: The Valley of Gehenna outside the walls of Jerusalem (So yes, that means I live in Jerusalem). People used to practice anti-Jewish child sacrifice, as well as throw their trash in Gehenna. People would light fires to burn away the trash, and dogs used to fight for food in Gehenna. Hence, "weeping (child sacrifice) and gnashing of teeth (dog fighting)."

Jesus talked about Hell metaphorically. When you hate, lust, steal, refuse to give, etc, you create a Hell for yourself on Earth.

Oh crap, I rambled. Oh well, I hope this was insightful.

Peace!


What texts/interpretations do you use to support this?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13671
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Conn_in_Brooklyn wrote: I,

Conn_in_Brooklyn wrote:

I, in fact, don't agree with Hitchens' criticism of the publishing house. I don't think publishing houses should be compelled to publish anything they come across - and to a certain extent, they, as a private company, are protected by their right to self-determine their catalogue. Hitchens was, in fact, wrong wrong wrong about that, as he has been about many topics ...

My issue, which enhanced the tone of my response, has more to do with the way you framed the issue: "Ha, see, your prophet of atheism defended the freedom of a holocaust denier, the worst scum on earth ... aren't you just so ashamed? ..." Christopher Hitchens is at times brilliant and at other times a pain in the ass - he is an iconoclast, a contrarian, a sonofabitch & (paradoxically) has dreadfully good taste - I do not have to defend every thing he does or is because I find his writing witty and many of his positions agreeable; I simply do not.

(In fact, the only people I would defend in toto regardless if they break most taboos, etc. are members of my family & my closest friends - ... I accept the charge of irrationality with respect to that ...)

... & I'm not at all interested in your anecdotes about atheists proping up any popular atheist authors or thinkers despite obvious character flaws or flaws in their arguments ... I guess they should have known better, but that's not my problem.

Quote:
, in fact, don't agree with Hitchens' criticism of the publishing house.  I don't think publishing houses should be compelled to publish anything they come across -

Who said anything about "compelling" anyone to do anything. Compell implys use of force. Hitchens isnt arguing that they should be forced to print anything. 

It is merely his opinion that it should be printed. Just like "Mine Kompf" should be printed. Not because disqusting crap like that should be taken seriously, but should be out there as a reminder as to what not to do. 

The publisher is a private company and does not have to print anything it doesnt want to. But people also have the right to apeal to the company. No one said anything about a private company being forced to do anything.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote:  What

magilum wrote:

 What texts/interpretations do you use to support this?

Well, lets see. Heaven and Hell are not concepts in the OT or in modern Judaism. Heaven and Hell were mainly Greek ideas. Concerning Heaven, you honestly could read lots of books by various authors talking about the subject. You could try David Wenham, Bart Ehrman, or Dominic Crossan (if you want a variety of beliefs behind the scholarship).  

For Hell, you could just go to Hell and ask almost any person and they would tell you what happened in Gehenna (refer to my last post if this is confusing). Seriously though, I've never read a book about it. Lots of professors have spoken to me about it. The word that the writers of the Gospels used the word Gehenna. In our english translation, we write it as Hell.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)