I rediscovered a blurb that I had written back in 2014 as I was searching my computer today, and it seemed to resonate well with some of my thoughts recently. The original piece was written in response to the Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton debate from years before. A question was asked by an audience member which implied that Christianity's "offer" of salvation vs torture was an optional thing. Hitchens gave a great reply which resonated with me at the time, and after re-reading it today, that seems to still ring true. So I wanted to share that in this medium as well. Below is the response of Christopher Hitchens, followed by a few paragraphs of my own response to the question and his response.
Hitchens' Response:
"You're in the right church but the wrong pew. I mean, yes, of course I've emancipated myself from all that nonsense and I wish you would do too. I'm saying what is the belief, and when you say it's voluntary, it's up to you, it's entirely optional, I don't think it's any more optional than Abraham saying to his son do you want to come for a long and gloomy walk, because God seems to be telling me to do something that had better be moral. Otherwise, it would have to be said that God had taken a perfectly normal person and asked him to commit an atrocity. Now where else could that have come from? Millions of people every year celebrate this act of sadomasochism as if it proved that God loved us so much that he'd make us kill our own children and then he decides to love us so much he'll kill one of his own. You said in a debate with Richard Dawkins, I have it down, you said that the great thing about God is He knows what it's like to lose a son. Now I want you ladies and gentlemen to ponder that expression for just a moment. First, it's self-evidently—if the story is true, which I don't think it is—it's self-evidently not the case, even in the narrative. He doesn't lose a son, He lends one. He doesn't offer one because no one's demanded it. There's no problem that has so far been identified in the human species that demands a human sacrifice. For what problem, for what ill is this a cure? There's no argument, there's no evidence that there is. No, it's imposed upon you. I'm doing this because the prophets said I would and I'm going to have the boy tortured to death in public to fulfill ancient screeds of Bronze Age Judaism. But wait, I don't want it. I don't need it. I don't feel better for it. I feel very uneasy about it. Well that's a pity, because then you're going to be cast into eternal fire. This is no way to talk. I don't like to be addressed in that tone of voice. So, to all this I have to return a slight non serviam, if I may be so bold, and take my chances morally, that that's the more ethical thing to do. I don't want torture, don't want human sacrifice, don't want authoritarian blood lettings, smoking temples and alters, incantations of priests around, don't want it, can't think of a single thing it will make better about our veil of tears."
My Response:
Is it really optional? This cookie cutter religion ideology? Take the good parts and throw out the bad? Or even worse, keeping the horrible parts and pretending that they are good? I want no part of a religion whose iconic symbol of hope and love is a cross - a device soley for the torture and killing of other human beings - which, I dare say, is not that far off from the faith it represents. I want no part in any everlasting ideology which declares at it's core that human sacrifice is the only way to paradise and the ever after. This idea that you can just adhere to any part of these religions that you want and not the other parts is purely absurd, having come from the bowels of one of the most prominent religions in the world as a child. Nothing in the bible, nothing in the quran, nothing in the torah, or any of these abrahamic holy texts says anything even remotely close to "you can choose to believe what you wish". In fact it states precisely the opposite, that it is sinful and against god's will to do anything in contrast to the text. The more closely you adhere to the holy text, the better christian/muslim/jew or whatever you will be. It doesn't say that if you choose to believe in the crucifixion, then maybe you'll go to heaven. It states that "I am the way and the truth and the life. NO ONE comes to the father except through me." Very simple statement. You follow christ, or you don't. There is no choice. This new age idea that all of these things in the bible are just optional pieces that you can pick from and integrate at your choosing is born of ignorance. You adhere to the bible. All of it. It is the living word of god, and thus it is all true, and it is all accurate. You are forced to love a god who commits barbaric human sacrifice to allow salvation, even though he is all powerful. You are forced to believe that god's command to Abraham to kill his son Isaac was moral and not an absolutely horrible thing to do. You are forced to believe that all those who don't believe, or haven't heard the word, or die without making up their minds, will not only die but be purposefully tortured in agony for all eternity.
If you choose to not believe one part, then everything that you believe about all of it literally has no foundation. The reason people believe in god is because the bible says he exists and it is said that the bible is his living word. It is divine and holy and is god's commands to mankind. So for you to say that one part of it is invalid, is to say that it has been tainted, or changed, or even worse, the it has purely invalid parts. So if parts of it are invalid, what makes the parts that you DO believe valid? How do you determine which parts of it are divine words, and which parts are just utterly wrong? You use exactly the same faculties that religious and non-religious people have used for as long as we've been around - your reason. The reason that you throw out some parts of the bible is because our society has grown more intelligent than those who wrote these ancient texts. We know so much more about moral behavior and how people should be treated. We now abolish all forms of slavery because it is immoral to own another person as property. So why didn't the bible make this declaration? Why wasn't that part of the ten commandments along with thou shalt not commit genocide? Or thou shalt not commit sexual acts with a child? Or even better, when Jesus came and changed the covenant and had the opportunity to condemn slavery outright, why did he instead give people commands on how to TREAT their slaves? Because he was simply a man. He was simply a man who lived in a society that had not advanced to the point of understanding that no one should be owned as property. Plain and simple. It makes perfect sense if you simple say that this man, was just a man. He didn't know any better, because no one at that time knew any better. It was just a part of society back then just like denying gay rights is today. So of course it would make sense that a man born in that society would not give holy orders to condemn slavery and owning other people. He used his own morals of the day which were based on the society that he lived in, thus, slavery was not condemned.
Ultimately, you must conceed that there is nothing about religious commands that are optional. You don't get to pick and choose your salvation. Either an ideology right or it is wrong. Yes or no. One or zero. If you are a christian, then you must believe every word of the bible in order to be logically consistent with your beliefs.
Hitchens' Response:
"You're in the right church but the wrong pew. I mean, yes, of course I've emancipated myself from all that nonsense and I wish you would do too. I'm saying what is the belief, and when you say it's voluntary, it's up to you, it's entirely optional, I don't think it's any more optional than Abraham saying to his son do you want to come for a long and gloomy walk, because God seems to be telling me to do something that had better be moral. Otherwise, it would have to be said that God had taken a perfectly normal person and asked him to commit an atrocity. Now where else could that have come from? Millions of people every year celebrate this act of sadomasochism as if it proved that God loved us so much that he'd make us kill our own children and then he decides to love us so much he'll kill one of his own. You said in a debate with Richard Dawkins, I have it down, you said that the great thing about God is He knows what it's like to lose a son. Now I want you ladies and gentlemen to ponder that expression for just a moment. First, it's self-evidently—if the story is true, which I don't think it is—it's self-evidently not the case, even in the narrative. He doesn't lose a son, He lends one. He doesn't offer one because no one's demanded it. There's no problem that has so far been identified in the human species that demands a human sacrifice. For what problem, for what ill is this a cure? There's no argument, there's no evidence that there is. No, it's imposed upon you. I'm doing this because the prophets said I would and I'm going to have the boy tortured to death in public to fulfill ancient screeds of Bronze Age Judaism. But wait, I don't want it. I don't need it. I don't feel better for it. I feel very uneasy about it. Well that's a pity, because then you're going to be cast into eternal fire. This is no way to talk. I don't like to be addressed in that tone of voice. So, to all this I have to return a slight non serviam, if I may be so bold, and take my chances morally, that that's the more ethical thing to do. I don't want torture, don't want human sacrifice, don't want authoritarian blood lettings, smoking temples and alters, incantations of priests around, don't want it, can't think of a single thing it will make better about our veil of tears."
My Response:
Is it really optional? This cookie cutter religion ideology? Take the good parts and throw out the bad? Or even worse, keeping the horrible parts and pretending that they are good? I want no part of a religion whose iconic symbol of hope and love is a cross - a device soley for the torture and killing of other human beings - which, I dare say, is not that far off from the faith it represents. I want no part in any everlasting ideology which declares at it's core that human sacrifice is the only way to paradise and the ever after. This idea that you can just adhere to any part of these religions that you want and not the other parts is purely absurd, having come from the bowels of one of the most prominent religions in the world as a child. Nothing in the bible, nothing in the quran, nothing in the torah, or any of these abrahamic holy texts says anything even remotely close to "you can choose to believe what you wish". In fact it states precisely the opposite, that it is sinful and against god's will to do anything in contrast to the text. The more closely you adhere to the holy text, the better christian/muslim/jew or whatever you will be. It doesn't say that if you choose to believe in the crucifixion, then maybe you'll go to heaven. It states that "I am the way and the truth and the life. NO ONE comes to the father except through me." Very simple statement. You follow christ, or you don't. There is no choice. This new age idea that all of these things in the bible are just optional pieces that you can pick from and integrate at your choosing is born of ignorance. You adhere to the bible. All of it. It is the living word of god, and thus it is all true, and it is all accurate. You are forced to love a god who commits barbaric human sacrifice to allow salvation, even though he is all powerful. You are forced to believe that god's command to Abraham to kill his son Isaac was moral and not an absolutely horrible thing to do. You are forced to believe that all those who don't believe, or haven't heard the word, or die without making up their minds, will not only die but be purposefully tortured in agony for all eternity.
If you choose to not believe one part, then everything that you believe about all of it literally has no foundation. The reason people believe in god is because the bible says he exists and it is said that the bible is his living word. It is divine and holy and is god's commands to mankind. So for you to say that one part of it is invalid, is to say that it has been tainted, or changed, or even worse, the it has purely invalid parts. So if parts of it are invalid, what makes the parts that you DO believe valid? How do you determine which parts of it are divine words, and which parts are just utterly wrong? You use exactly the same faculties that religious and non-religious people have used for as long as we've been around - your reason. The reason that you throw out some parts of the bible is because our society has grown more intelligent than those who wrote these ancient texts. We know so much more about moral behavior and how people should be treated. We now abolish all forms of slavery because it is immoral to own another person as property. So why didn't the bible make this declaration? Why wasn't that part of the ten commandments along with thou shalt not commit genocide? Or thou shalt not commit sexual acts with a child? Or even better, when Jesus came and changed the covenant and had the opportunity to condemn slavery outright, why did he instead give people commands on how to TREAT their slaves? Because he was simply a man. He was simply a man who lived in a society that had not advanced to the point of understanding that no one should be owned as property. Plain and simple. It makes perfect sense if you simple say that this man, was just a man. He didn't know any better, because no one at that time knew any better. It was just a part of society back then just like denying gay rights is today. So of course it would make sense that a man born in that society would not give holy orders to condemn slavery and owning other people. He used his own morals of the day which were based on the society that he lived in, thus, slavery was not condemned.
Ultimately, you must conceed that there is nothing about religious commands that are optional. You don't get to pick and choose your salvation. Either an ideology right or it is wrong. Yes or no. One or zero. If you are a christian, then you must believe every word of the bible in order to be logically consistent with your beliefs.
Comments
Post a Comment