Hitchens preaches to the choir

[Berkut]

Thousands of preachers get up every week and preach their version of the gospel, koran, whatever.

Why is it so odious when a non-believer gets up and does a little preaching?

I mean, most of what he says is absolutely correct. The idea that human (or demi-human) sacrifice as a means of salvation is in fact morally pretty tough to justify...isn't it?

It's not human sacrifice - it's self-sacrifice.  You know, the same kind of sacrifice you make for your kids, or your parents make for you.

Look - believe in Christianity or not - I don't care. (well I care somewhat, but it's a free country).  But as an attack this one is pretty lame.

I cannot expunge the sins of my children via sacrifice. Their moral obligation for their actions is not effected in any way by anything I do.

If my kid murders someone, there is nothing *I* can do to take away their guilt. There is no sacrifice, of self or otherwise, I can make that can expunge their guilt. The idea that someone killing themselves in order to atone for others sin is in fact morally reprehensible by an objective standard of morality.

I might agree that as an attack on the concept of god dying so he can forgive us of sins we never actually committed ourselves it is pretty weak - but only because the entire idea is so ludicrous that it does seem a little odd to pick on that one aspect of worth of attention.

You could plea guilty for the murder.  Claim you did it.

That would be more immoral, since it would be allowing the guilty to escape punishment or the consequences of their actions.

While it may not assuage guilt in the moral sense you could prevent your child from being punished.

Which would not reduce the child's moral guilt one bit.

Of course, maybe you could have this make sense...

What if the child was falsely accused by some morally unjust actor, and then the parent is simply accepting the punishment in order to save the child. That would, perhaps, even be noble. And since the basic concept of "sin" that presumably requires Christs fake murder is itself grotesquely immoral, this could work.

Of course, then you have a moral system where God has set themselves up as the false accuser. So that might have some few problems itself...

I can actually remember in confirmation class in 6th grade really struggling with the entire concept of huamn guilt and the idea that Christ was necessary to expunge that guilt. The entire story simply made no logical sense at all to the extent that each step simply did not follow from the step before it. I was very surprised everyone, including my pastor, simply accepted it without question.

[Slargos]

The idea that someone killing themselves in order to atone for others sin is in fact morally reprehensible by an objective standard of morality.

You're going to have to explain that one to me, because I do not follow at all how it is "morally reprehensible by an objective standard of morality".

and please - this is a serious question, and I will refrain from ad homs and the like.  I'm sure you can come up with some 'clever' quip to answer my question, but I am not interested in scoring points.  I would appreciate a serious answer, if you care to give one.

The basic story of Christ is that it was *necessary* for him to be tortured and murdered in order to atone for the sins of humanity (and even the idea of shared guilt for things one has not done is morally reprehensible). I am not sure how I can explain that a moral system that requires human sacrifice (even if it is fake human sacrifice since Christ was not actually human, and didn't actually die) to forgive the sins of others is not moral beyond the obvious.

Doesn't this tie in to a tradition of assuming debt at the time, even moral debt? Sons assuming the sins/debts of the fathers. Family members paying restitution for crimes committed etc. The family or clan unit being far more important to life than the individual.

Regardless, the reason I posted this was that I found the argument so inane. Some of my best friends are atheists, and while I worry for their souls (though frankly no more than for my own. Perhaps, indeed, far less given that as a nominal believer I have a far greater responsibility than a non-believer.) I have nothing against them for it. I just find it hilarious how people can worship at this man's altar when his rhetoric is not any more logically compelling than that of your average Mufti.

[Valmy]

It's not human sacrifice - it's self-sacrifice.  You know, the same kind of sacrifice you make for your kids, or your parents make for you.

Look - believe in Christianity or not - I don't care. (well I care somewhat, but it's a free country).  But as an attack this one is pretty lame.

I don't know man.  The story almost suggests that if the Romans and the Sanhedrin had decided to be cool with Jesus and he died peacefully in his bed surrounded by his followers then our sins would never be forgiven.  So should we therefore be cheering the Romans on?  I get the triumph of the spirit over the death and all that but the blood sacrifice element just seems like some traditional pagan mumbo-jumbo superstition thrown in there.

[derspiess]

Why is it so odious when a non-believer gets up and does a little preaching?

Because in certain circles it happens way too damned often.

[Slargos]

It's not human sacrifice - it's self-sacrifice.  You know, the same kind of sacrifice you make for your kids, or your parents make for you.

Look - believe in Christianity or not - I don't care. (well I care somewhat, but it's a free country).  But as an attack this one is pretty lame.

I don't know man.  The story almost suggests that if the Romans and the Sanhedrin had decided to be cool with Jesus and he died peacefully in his bed surrounded by his followers then our sins would never be forgiven.  So should we therefore be cheering the Romans on?  I get the triumph of the spirit over the death and all that but the blood sacrifice element just seems like some traditional pagan mumbo-jumbo superstition thrown in there.

It's certainly how I read it.

Both Judas and the Romans were necessary tools for the events to unfold in a desireable direction.

An argument could of course be made that despite being necessary conductors, the choices they made that placed them in those positions were still in and of themselves "sinful".

But then, the Bible is at first glance full of contradictions and it's certainly not easy to get a good picture of what the message actually is which is made very evident in the amount of dissent and sectarianism.

[DGuller]

Why is it so odious when a non-believer gets up and does a little preaching?

Because in certain circles it happens way too damned often.

Agreed.  If there is one problem in religious sphere, it's that atheist viewpoint gets crammed down our throats.

[Slargos]

Why is it so odious when a non-believer gets up and does a little preaching?

Because in certain circles it happens way too damned often.

Agreed.  If there is one problem in religious sphere, it's that atheist viewpoint gets crammed down our throats.

Well, I would say it's a pretty minor problem compared to the far more pressing issues of religious fundamentalism.

However, it is certainly irritating to have the atheist viewpoint pushed so hard in entertainment and especially so in a more or less completely secular country where actually saying out right "I believe in God" is almost as fruitful as declaring your love of carnal intimacy with babies.

[Razgovory]

Why is it so odious when a non-believer gets up and does a little preaching?

Because in certain circles it happens way too damned often.

Agreed.  If there is one problem in religious sphere, it's that atheist viewpoint gets crammed down our throats.

What I find funny is Berkut's knee Jerk defense of Hitch after he calls us all "tribal".

[crazy canuck]

All the mystery religions of around 100-50 BCE were a bit whacked.  One became a state religion of Roman empire and now we are still trying to figure out how somone who, according to Canon, was God, died, but stayed as God, somehow saved someone living 2000+ years later.

If you had not grown up with that as your faith BB, you have to admit, it would be a tough sell.

[grumbler]

The basic story of Christ is that it was *necessary* for him to be tortured and murdered in order to atone for the sins of humanity (and even the idea of shared guilt for things one has not done is morally reprehensible). I am not sure how I can explain that a moral system that requires human sacrifice (even if it is fake human sacrifice since Christ was not actually human, and didn't actually die) to forgive the sins of others is not moral beyond the obvious.

I think you simply don't understand the story, and so are re-writing it to fit your own purposes.

I would agree that the whole crucifiction* thing is overdone and more than a bit simplistic and even silly, but that someone had to fake their own death to pull it off isn't really a moral issue.  In the story, Jesus had to die so that the gates of heaven got unlocked, as I understand it.  No one got autoforgiven as a result; what happened was that the level cap was lifted and people could level into heaven, if they had enough karma points to do so.

* not mis-spelled

[Razgovory]

All the mystery religions of around 100-50 BCE were a bit whacked.  One became a state religion of Roman empire and now we are still trying to figure out how somone who, according to Canon, was God, died, but stayed as God, somehow saved someone living 2000+ years later.

If you had not grown up with that as your faith BB, you have to admit, it would be a tough sell.

Missionaries do a fairly good job.

[Slargos]

All the mystery religions of around 100-50 BCE were a bit whacked.  One became a state religion of Roman empire and now we are still trying to figure out how somone who, according to Canon, was God, died, but stayed as God, somehow saved someone living 2000+ years later.

If you had not grown up with that as your faith BB, you have to admit, it would be a tough sell.

Given how christianity has spread, evidently not THAT tough a sell, even if some salespeople did grantedly resort to rather violent methods of preaching. 

[grumbler]

That would be more immoral, since it would be allowing the guilty to escape punishment or the consequences of their actions.

That's not necessarily immoral.  I can think of many cases in which the moral outcome is that the guilty escapes punishment.

I can actually remember in confirmation class in 6th grade really struggling with the entire concept of huamn guilt and the idea that Christ was necessary to expunge that guilt. The entire story simply made no logical sense at all to the extent that each step simply did not follow from the step before it. I was very surprised everyone, including my pastor, simply accepted it without question.

It is a retcon of the Osiris story, and retcons seldom make much sense. 

[Razgovory]

Why is it so odious when a non-believer gets up and does a little preaching?

Because in certain circles it happens way too damned often.

And it's so fucking shrill and self congratulatory.  There is a very strong aspect of "I'm an Atheist and this is what makes me smarter then you".

[Razgovory]

It is a retcon of the Osiris story, and retcons seldom make much sense.

I thought you knew better then to read books recommended by Crazy Canuck.