This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comment

← God Sent Christopher Hitchens to Hell Because He Loved Him

achromat666's Avatar Jump to comment 268 by achromat666

Here is what Bryan Fischer is trying to get at. It can make logical sense if you actually think about it. Why would Christopher Hitchens want to be in heaven? It would not make any sense. He does not like God, in fact he probably hates him. So why would God bring him to heaven if Christopher does not even like God in the first place.

  1. You should either spend more time reading about the people you choose to comment about, or at the very least comprehend what it means to present a logical argument before posting at an evidence based site.

  2. Does it actually make sense to hate something you don't accept the existence of? Hitchens has routinely said he is quite glad there is no reason to believe any of the bible is true but has not stated he's hated what he considered to be a fictional character (and like every other deity has no evidence to demonstrate otherwise). I'm certain he has a great deal of disgust for the actions routinely done in his name, which he has spoken about extensively. Not liking the idea of the biblical god does not correlate to hating something you don't acknowledge as being real.

If I said I hated the idea of Zeus being a misogynistic, amoral, incestuous excuse for a deity it would not mean I hated Zeus. Zeus is not real. It means that as he has been written in the Greek myths, he comes off as being a bit of a lustful bastard.

It helps to understand the distinction.

Finally, Since when is wanting to be in a place of eternal reward a prerequisite for entry? If Hitchens were a practicing Christian and for some reason didn't want to go to Heaven but had done nothing but good works all his life, would that mean he doesn't go? How does any of that make any sense? Beyond the fact that Heaven itself makes no sense as an idea.

Heaven has been slightly misconstrued into a place that we modernly think is a place were we will frolic and skip together forever (without God). Heaven is where God is. God encompasses the whole place and for that matter is infinite. We cannot comprehend infinity, therefore we must think it does not exist.

If God encompasses everything, why would you have to wait to die to get to Heaven? Wouldn't that mean you're in Heaven all the time? And comprehending infinity doesn't enter into it. The are bits of description in Revelation describing aspects of heaven (or what he perceives as such) so frolic or not the idea you are describing is conjecture and not an authoritative account on the nature of Heaven. In fact there is no definitive idea of what either Heaven or Hell is like, much of it has been added and embellished over time. So what you're positing is an opinion with no evidence as neither (like any of the bible itself) have any evidence of existence.

That is a different question all together. To get back on the subject, I don't agree with what the guy is saying, but to say that he is illogical is wrong. Although the Doctrine is wrong, he is logically correct in saying that God loves him so he sent him to hell. God loves him, so to put Christopher Hitchens near him would make Christopher Hitchens upset so he leaves him alone. It would be like if you loved somebody who did not like physical touch. You would leave them alone to honor their wishes (unless your a being a jerk).

Once again, you seem to be at odds with what it means to be logical.

My recollection of the purpose of Hell was not the alternate place that people go to because God doesn't think they would like to be in Heaven. You seem to be insinuating, like the idiot in the OP, that because Heaven wasn't what Hitchens wanted he clearly wanted Hell. Does that actually sound logical? Can you demonstrate why precisely your willing to posit this ignorance with any modicum of authority, obviously knowing very little about Hitchens himself, and guessing about virtually everything else?

The very problem with Christianity and any other faith that preaches with certainty an afterlife and how to attain it is NO ONE can say what happens after death. Your whole position is predicated on having access to information that doesn't exists, as well as broad assumptions on people you know little about.

Facts over faith. The fact is people die, and people have to cope with it. Any faith based positions entered into the discussion are in no way logical as they are predicated on a lack of any evidence from which to draw a credible conclusion.

You're guessing, and doing a fairly bad job at it.

Mon, 17 Sep 2012 18:52:08 UTC | #951201