Christopher Hitchens on Having Cancer

Imperator Julius Caesar said:
Again, I don't think that is a valid comparison. A close examination of Christianity reveals that it is quite unique as far as religions are concerned. Many ancient stories contained within the Bible have been validated by archeological evidence -- evidence which continues to mount. Vivid prophecies written a thousand years prior to the actual event (e.g. Isaiah 53) were fulfilled. Non-Christian historians, such as Josephus, wrote accounts of Jesus' miracles. Furthermore, whereas the tombs of all other religious founders and prophets inevitably became shrines, it is not so for Jesus Christ. Surely, had Jesus not risen, His tomb would have become a place of pilgrimage. But the tomb is empty.

There are many other reasons why I believe Christianity is much more plausible than any other religion. Of course, you're correct that it is a matter of faith, but surely reason can operate within the context of faith, as I demonstrated above. Faith is required to believe that Jesus rose from the grave, but this faith is supported by historical accounts.
Click to expand...

Josephus was born after Jesus died and wrote all of his histories after 71 CE. This isn't a first hand accounting by any means, and it has been found that Josephus exaggerated much of what he wrote (describing walls of materials they clearly were not made of after they had been excavated). While he did describe very real places, it doesn't mean that Jesus actually was there any more than say the Iliad, describing actual places, means that the Greek Gods existed on Mt. Olympus.

As for "vivid prophecies" that later came true, there are myriad people who would say the same of the quatrains written by Nostradamus. It's extremely easy to write an account that matches a previous prediction.

It really isn't more logical to follow this religion based on a theory that if you don't you'll go to hell. It may be logical to select a religion if you fear eternal damnation, but there is nothing to suggest that this one is any more valid than simple Judaism or Islam, considering much of those same archeological findings are relevant to those religions.

As I said before, had The Druids held the same status of majority religion in the area at the time Pascal would be telling us to worship trees because if we don't we'll wind up in whatever version of hell those people believed in.
 
Emperor Trajan said:
I consider it quintessential cosmopolitan living. Growing up as a youth in a cosmopolitan setting (such as coffee-sipping Seattle), you slowly have many of your absolutist tendencies stripped from you by way of education, experience, mellowing out, drugs, etc. Snobbery is among the last absolutist tendency that we can get away with, and its difficult to rebut snobbery in any of those ways I described (for example, you cannot compare mass-produced hard water to quality microbrewed beer, or vended flavoured coffee to a good Starbucks espresso). Being better than other people can thus be both qualified and quantified, and that's how we snobs choose to live our lives.
Click to expand...

All I can say is "good" and "Starbucks" are oxymorons.
 
christiefan915 said:
Matthew 23:28 In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
Click to expand...
Damn Yankee 1:1 Shine the harsh light of truth on liberals wherever you find them, and if they smite you or other conservatives, torment them until they die, then they shall burn in the fires of hell for eternity.
 
Damocles said:
Josephus was born after Jesus died and wrote all of his histories after 71 CE. This isn't a first hand accounting by any means, and it has been found that Josephus exaggerated much of what he wrote (describing walls of materials they clearly were not made of after they had been excavated). While he did describe very real places, it doesn't mean that Jesus actually was there any more than say the Iliad, describing actual places, means that the Greek Gods existed on Mt. Olympus.

As for "vivid prophecies" that later came true, there are myriad people who would say the same of the quatrains written by Nostradamus. It's extremely easy to write an account that matches a previous prediction.

It really isn't more logical to follow this religion based on a theory that if you don't you'll go to hell. It may be logical to select a religion if you fear eternal damnation, but there is nothing to suggest that this one is any more valid than simple Judaism or Islam, considering much of those same archeological findings are relevant to those religions.

As I said before, had The Druids held the same status of majority religion in the area at the time Pascal would be telling us to worship trees because if we don't we'll wind up in whatever version of hell those people believed in.
Click to expand...

You exaggerate scholarly rejection of Josephus who was born 4 years after the crucifiction and would have grown up with all the accounts still fresh. It is postulated, not as fact mind you, that some of his writings regarding Christ were not his own words- But there is no real doubt that Christ lived and was crucified. Here is another Roman account- The Romans were noted for meticulous record keeping btw-

"Roman historian Tacitus, in his Annals (c. AD 116), mentions "Christos suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators"

Similarly, Greek satirist Lucian refers to Jesus as "the distinguished personage who introduced the rites of Christians, and was crucified on that account.

sourced from wiki
 
christiefan915 said:
Matthew 23:28 In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
Click to expand...

He would kill people, his fellow humans over political disagreements, he is twisted, and a psychopath, or is it sociopath?
 
icedancer2theend said:
You exaggerate scholarly rejection of Josephus who was born 4 years after the crucifiction and would have grown up with all the accounts still fresh. It is postulated, not as fact mind you, that some of his writings regarding Christ were not his own words- But there is no real doubt that Christ lived and was crucified. Here is another Roman account- The Romans were noted for meticulous record keeping btw-

"Roman historian Tacitus, in his Annals (c. AD 116), mentions "Christos suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators"

Similarly, Greek satirist Lucian refers to Jesus as "the distinguished personage who introduced the rites of Christians, and was crucified on that account.

sourced from wiki
Click to expand...
First Josephus, the historian, was born 31 CE and lived until 100 CE and began writing his histories that refer to Christ in 71 CE.

If a satirist (comedian) mentioned Santa Claus it certainly wouldn't mean he existed, especially mentioning him as "the distinguished personage who gave freely and wore red"...

Seriously? A comedian said it so it must be true?

And Roman historian Tacitus, circa 116 of the CE referred to Josephus' writing. It's absurd to claim a history that refers to the one we were already speaking of was more right because the dude was Roman. So was Josephus...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus

And absolutely none of this makes it any more logical to follow this particular religion over any other. Pascal's wager would make more sense if there was only one religion.

Add to that the impossibility of fooling God that you actually believe. The idea is preposterous. God would know whether you really believe or if you were faking it because you think it is "logical" because hell just might exist...
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
First Josephus, the historian, was born 31 CE and lived until 100 CE and began writing his histories that refer to Christ in 71 CE.

If a satirist (comedian) mentioned Santa Claus it certainly wouldn't mean he existed, especially mentioning him as "the distinguished personage who gave freely and wore read"...

Seriously?

And Roman historian Tacitus, circa 116 of the CE referred to Josephus' writing. It's absurd to claim a history that refers to the one we were already speaking of was more right because the dude was Roman. So was Josephus...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus
Click to expand...

He, Josephus, was born in the first century.. a mere 4 years after Christ was crucified. He grew up a very educated man. He would have had no problem hearing 1st hand accounts. Your premise that he was born after Christ was killed and therefore would be unable to verify accounts is silly. It would be like me, who was an infant when Kennedy was assassinated not being able to write an accurate history. As to Tacitus, who was known for his blunt style, and was born while Josephus was still alive...referring to some of the recorded writings of another historian was and still is a pretty standard practice.
 
It's not like I'm trying to convince you that your religion is wrong, I am only pointing out the holes in Pascal's wager.

It would be illogical to assume I could fool an all knowing Deity that I believed something that I didn't, even if I believed that there was a remote possibility that hell existed.
 
icedancer2theend said:
He, Josephus, was born in the first century.. a mere 4 years after Christ was crucified. He grew up a very educated man. He would have had no problem hearing 1st hand accounts. Your premise that he was born after Christ was killed and therefore would be unable to verify accounts is silly. It would be like me, who was an infant when Kennedy was assassinated not being able to write an accurate history. As to Tacitus, who was known for his blunt style, and was born while Josephus was still alive...referring to some of the recorded writings of another historian was and still is a pretty standard practice.
Click to expand...

Which, again, when he wrote them would be, at best (as I said before) a second hand account, and that is assuming that many of them lived to that ripe old age to give that account for him to write.

He did not spend the first 40 years of his life gathering these accounts, instead he fought in the Jewish-Roman war. He did not begin his historical accounts until 40 years after his own birth, and his most important works covered a time that had nothing to do with Jesus. He spent some of his time writing about Jesus after 71 CE.

It is even debated that he wrote some of the works attributed to him at all.
 
Old Answers to the New Atheism: An Interview with Peter Hitchens

Many Christians are aware of the hostile atheism of Christopher Hitchens. However, few Christians are aware that his brother, Peter, was also for many years antagonistic toward Christianity and a self-avowed atheist like his brother. Unlike Christopher, however, Peter is a prodigal son who has returned home. The story of the way God used simple beauties, such as architecture and painting, to draw Peter to faith is truly moving. Many Christians have wondered what is going on inside the heads of atheists to make them so angry. In this interview, Peter Hitchens gives us a glimpse into his life and thought as a Christian who was converted from atheism.

Tabletalk: Some of our readers will not have read your book, The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith, by the time this goes to print. Specifically, what are atheism’s three failed arguments? link
 
Damocles said:
Which, again, when he wrote them would be, at best (as I said before) a second hand account, and that is assuming that many of them lived to that ripe old age to give that account for him to write.
Click to expand...

What do actually think you are saying/claiming? Who claimed Josephus had a "fist hand account" of the crucifixion? And why would he need one if he had Christ's contemporaries to tell it? He was an historian. I think he knew how to write historical accounts.
 
Damocles said:
It's not like I'm trying to convince you that your religion is wrong, I am only pointing out the holes in Pascal's wager.

It would be illogical to assume I could fool an all knowing Deity that I believed something that I didn't, even if I believed that there was a remote possibility that hell existed.
Click to expand...

I was not arguing for my faith. I was arguing against your logic regarding Josephus ability to write an accurate account of the life and crucifixion of Christ.
 
Damocles said:
Which, again, when he wrote them would be, at best (as I said before) a second hand account, and that is assuming that many of them lived to that ripe old age to give that account for him to write.

He did not spend the first 40 years of his life gathering these accounts, instead he fought in the Jewish-Roman war. He did not begin his historical accounts until 40 years after his own birth, and his most important works covered a time that had nothing to do with Jesus. He spent some of his time writing about Jesus after 71 CE.

It is even debated that he wrote some of the works attributed to him at all.
Click to expand...

It is suspicious, no other historian or church father mentioned this statement by Josephus, either. Josephus was an Orthodox Jew, another thing that makes this account suspect.
 
icedancer2theend said:
I was not arguing for my faith. I was arguing against your logic regarding Josephus ability to write an accurate account of the life and crucifixion of Christ.
Click to expand...

Which you helped to underline as, at best, a second hand account. Which is exactly what I stated in the original post that you started getting defensive over. At least it "sounds" that way in your posts.

And Josephus wrote very inaccurate reports, at least according to the archeological evidence, he "exaggerated" much of what he "saw" let alone what he may have heard. Often they will find a place as reported by Josephus, only to find inaccuracies in what was supposed to be a first hand account.

The place existed, the report is exaggerated. As a witness I would consider him iffy at best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top