Are The Claims Of Christianity Valid?

[WinePusher]

Hitchens 1
Hitchens 2
Dennett 1

This thread is a spin off of a thread in the "Members Only Chat." There's alot of stuff in these videos, and I only watched the Hitchens videos. But here are some questions based off the videos:

1) The Hitchens 2 video deals with miracles. Hitchens repeats David Hume's Argument aganist miracles. If you believe violations of the natural order are possible, present reasons why. If not, present reasons why.

2) The Hitchens 1 video deals with substitutionary atonement, and Hitchens asserts that it is an immoral doctrine, is similar to scapegoating and wipes away personal responsibility. Agree or disagree?

3) Feel free to rebutt or bring up any other material from these videos that I left out.

[cholland]

?? I guess I'm not following. The claim is that an unbeliever is capable of making any moral statement that a believer also holds.

The statement is: God is good.
The action is: any acceptable worship of God.

Well, OK, an unbeliever would not make the statement or the action. However, it is not moral to say God is good, that is simply an opinion on the attribute of something. I also don't see how "any acceptable worship of God" can be considered a moral action, although it would not necessarily be immoral either.

This is a case where we disagree, hence why I asked "What if they disagree?"

To the Christian, unbelief is the greatest sin or immoral act a person can do. Others are blaspheming the Holy Spirit as the previous post says (Mark 3:29).

[flitzerbiest]

To the Christian, unbelief is the greatest sin or immoral act a person can do.

And this is precisely where Christian morality fails the giggle test. The idea that God would care more about what we think about her than about greed, murder, rape, hatred, etc. makes God into a petty, egotistical tyrant.

Salvation by faith is merely an ironic twist on the concept that many Christians find more heretical than all others: salvation by works. All the good things that you do in life are irrelevant to God, save one--belief. And through this single "righteous act", you are justified.

[cholland]

To the Christian, unbelief is the greatest sin or immoral act a person can do.

And this is precisely where Christian morality fails the giggle test. The idea that God would care more about what we think about her than about greed, murder, rape, hatred, etc. makes God into a petty, egotistical tyrant.

Salvation by faith is merely an ironic twist on the concept that many Christians find more heretical than all others: salvation by works. All the good things that you do in life are irrelevant to God, save one--belief. And through this single "righteous act", you are justified.

You did not describe the Christianity I profess to. Salvation is not some sort of intellectual mind game, but a complete change of heart that relies on nobody or anything but God. This is spelled out in the Westminster Confession Ch. 13 and 16 (esp. 16.2).

The cross does not give us a minor shift or two with regard to a few or our ethical and moral and religious values. The cross radically disrupts the very center and citadel of your life from self to Christ and if the cross has not done that you are not a Christian.
-Al Martin

[Flail]

cholland wrote:

The cross does not give us a minor shift or two with regard to a few or our ethical and moral and religious values. The cross radically disrupts the very center and citadel of your life from self to Christ and if the cross has not done that you are not a Christian.
-Al Martin

Could you be more precise in what you mean here? I am not certain about what you are saying.

[Furrowed Brow]

You did not describe the Christianity I profess to. Salvation is not some sort of intellectual mind game, but a complete change of heart that relies on nobody or anything but God. This is spelled out in the Westminster Confession Ch. 13 and 16 (esp. 16.2).

This does not ring true from making a cursory glance of the first three chapters of the Westmisnter Confession

• Chapter 1 basically you have to accept that approved scripture is inspired by God and that the reading material is decided by some humans who are thereby insisting that the authority of what they do approve and disapprove has nothing to do with them and they are only passing on rules.
  
  Chapter 2 you have to accept the projection of a state of perfection that has three aspects and that rewards those who completely submit to its authority.
  
  Chapter 3 you have to accept a celestial hierarchy that provides the means to save you from the downside of the celestial hegemony which because of Ch 1 and Ch2 and again repeated in ch3 you have to be grateful for because the very human authors of the Westminster Confession are seeking for you to submit to this conception of a celestial power structure, for which they insist the authority of this vision of how things hang issues.

This change of heart of which you speak depends very much on accepting the editorial control and the celestial ideology preferred by the kinds of minds that produced the Westminster Confessions. For any change of heart you first have to accept the ideology. An ideology that insists not just that God is perfect, but that divine likes and dislikes have to be mediated by approved reading material with the heroes promoted by this reading material. The change of heart, the commitment to faith, the ability to say "this relies on nobody but God necessitates reaching a state of complete lack of critical penetration and total submission of the promoted ideology. Which if you manage to achieve this blissful state the kinds of minds that buy into the Westminster Confession would applaud as being a positive thing for then you have faith in the regime.

But as Hitchens points out this signing off on the celestial dictator with its mechanism of submission and thankfulness is totalitarianism. To be happy the kind dictator might find you worthy of his kindness, is an immoral power structure.....and a celestial North Korea....according to Hitchens.

I'd say it is not that Christians are kind and love their neighbour or wish to love their neighbour any more than a non believer, The two groups are pretty much equal in this regard. The difference is the Christian buys into an ideology that demands they be thankful and offer their life as a propitiation to carry favour in the regime.

[cholland]

You did not describe the Christianity I profess to. Salvation is not some sort of intellectual mind game, but a complete change of heart that relies on nobody or anything but God. This is spelled out in the Westminster Confession Ch. 13 and 16 (esp. 16.2).

This does not ring true from making a cursory glance of the first three chapters of the Westmisnter Confession

• Chapter 1 basically you have to accept that approved scripture is inspired by God and that the reading material is decided by some humans who are thereby insisting that the authority of what they do approve and disapprove has nothing to do with them and they are only passing on rules.
  
  Chapter 2 you have to accept the projection of a state of perfection that has three aspects and that rewards those who completely submit to its authority.
  
  Chapter 3 you have to accept a celestial hierarchy that provides the means to save you from the downside of the celestial hegemony which because of Ch 1 and Ch2 and again repeated in ch3 you have to be grateful for because the very human authors of the Westminster Confession are seeking for you to submit to this conception of a celestial power structure, for which they insist the authority of this vision of how things hang issues.

This change of heart of which you speak depends very much on accepting the editorial control and the celestial ideology preferred by the kinds of minds that produced the Westminster Confessions. For any change of heart you first have to accept the ideology. An ideology that insists not just that God is perfect, but that divine likes and dislikes have to be mediated by approved reading material with the heroes promoted by this reading material. The change of heart, the commitment to faith, the ability to say "this relies on nobody but God necessitates reaching a state of complete lack of critical penetration and total submission of the promoted ideology. Which if you manage to achieve this blissful state the kinds of minds that buy into the Westminster Confession would applaud as being a positive thing for then you have faith in the regime.

Your response is a straw man to my response to flitzerbiest's straw man. I made no mention of Ch. 1-3. You are simply playing games with ordo salutis.

But as Hitchens points out this signing off on the celestial dictator with its mechanism of submission and thankfulness is totalitarianism. To be happy the kind dictator might find you worthy of his kindness, is an immoral power structure.....and a celestial North Korea....according to Hitchens.

This has been refuted here - Post 9. Piper is most influenced by Jonathan Edwards:
"God's respect to the creature's good, and his respect to himself, is not a divided respect; but both are united in one, as the happiness of the creature aimed at, is happiness in union with himself."

Can we get back to Hitchens' claim? No unbeliever can make the moral statement/belief and/or action myself and Adamoriens propose.

[Adamoriens]

Can we get back to Hitchens' claim? No unbeliever can make the moral statement/belief and/or action myself and Adamoriens propose.

I'm not sure if mine qualifies. Theoretically, a non-theist could object to blasphemy on the basis of danger to social cohesion or some such.

[Furrowed Brow]

Your response is a straw man to my response to flitzerbiest's straw man. I made no mention of Ch. 1-3. You are simply playing games with ordo salutis.

You pointed to Ch 13and 16 whilst I want to know a little but more about the ideology that informs those chapters. If you reject Ch 1-3 then maybe you have a point? You may also have a point if my attempt at an analysis misrepresents the conceits and power plays that went into the production of the Westminster confession.

Ch 13 and 16 dont change things much. 16.1 and 16,2 for example, in a nutshell: Good is what God commands and doing what God commands wins eternal life.
Another totalitarian conceit. Cant really see how the chapters you point us to do anything other than reaffirm the accusations regarding the totalitarianism that runs through the Westminster confessions as laid out in my previous post.

But as Hitchens points out this signing off on the celestial dictator with its mechanism of submission and thankfulness is totalitarianism. To be happy the kind dictator might find you worthy of his kindness, is an immoral power structure.....and a celestial North Korea.... according to Hitchens.

This has been refuted here - Post 9.

I went to post 9 and found this point

Because he is worthy of it. This not only brings joy to himself, but also to those who worship him - hence, not a case of megalomania.

The point here is that a totalitarianism issues from Christianity. To respond to the accusation that Christianitys mechanism of submission and thankfulness is totalitarianism by reaffirming God is worthy of worship, and he is kind and rewards those who worship and he is not a meglaomaniac seems a backfire. You do see how that just underlines the point?

Can we get back to Hitchens' claim?

Your answer to Hitchens question requires that belief in God be moral which requires submitting to the kind of ideology promoted in the Westminster confessions. The rest of the two clips in the OP are all about why that is really immoral. Sure unbelievers cant be believers but that is tautological. All that is going to happen with your example is a game of ping pong. You are not going to get general agreement that belief is the moral action an unbeliever cannot do.

[flitzerbiest]

To the Christian, unbelief is the greatest sin or immoral act a person can do.

And this is precisely where Christian morality fails the giggle test. The idea that God would care more about what we think about her than about greed, murder, rape, hatred, etc. makes God into a petty, egotistical tyrant.

Salvation by faith is merely an ironic twist on the concept that many Christians find more heretical than all others: salvation by works. All the good things that you do in life are irrelevant to God, save one--belief. And through this single "righteous act", you are justified.

You did not describe the Christianity I profess to. Salvation is not some sort of intellectual mind game, but a complete change of heart that relies on nobody or anything but God. This is spelled out in the Westminster Confession Ch. 13 and 16 (esp. 16.2).

The cross does not give us a minor shift or two with regard to a few or our ethical and moral and religious values. The cross radically disrupts the very center and citadel of your life from self to Christ and if the cross has not done that you are not a Christian.
-Al Martin

Oh help, Calvinism--the most tyrannical strain of Christianity. I cannot even opt in to the salvation of God. If God doesn't call me, too flipping bad. It's his sovereign choice to justify or to damn, and he apparently does the latter with a much higher frequency. Nor can I opt out (actually good news for me, as I was confirmed under Calvinist assumptions--"I'm still in! I'm still in!") once I'm in.