Cristopher Hitchens Still Doesn’t Get It

Fear without wisdom: Christopher Hitchens

It is getting more than slightly pathetic to look how Christopher Hitchens, now rapidly approaching the day of the redde rationem, continues not only to ignore the fundamental issue his disease poses to everyone else’s attention, but is even peeved that people pray for his conversion.

Mr. Hitchens writes on the Washington Post:

the offer of prayer can only have two implications: either a wish for my recovery or a wish for a reconsideration of my atheism (or both). In the first instance, a get-well card – accompanied by a good book or a fine bottle – would be just as bracing if not indeed more so. (Also easier to check.) In the second one, a clear suggestion is present: surely now, at last, Hitchens, your fears will begin to vanquish your reason. What a thing to hope for!

This man’s logic is gravely flawed.

In the first instance, the invitation to send get-well cards and bottles of wine instead of prayers is, beside looking very tacky, utterly dismissive of the sincerity of those who pray for his recovery. Love is at work here, and the man doesn’t see it. By the way, this is in contrast with a previous interview of him, in which he had said he was fine with people praying for his recovery; apparently, it must now be wine instead.

In the second instance, Hitchens forgets a great truth, that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom”. It is obvious that a faith solely based on fear is far away from the ideal of Christianity, but it cannot be denied that if fear can move this man (or any other man) towards the Truth, then fear is a welcome and powerful instrument for the salvation of souls.

All this escapes Hitchens. He is so much in love with his own love for himself that the idea of having to give away a bit of it seems repellent to him. “Better to slowly die in the terrifying conviction that I am right and complete annihilation awaits me than to bow to something greater than my love for myself”, goes his reasoning.
Mind, he still can’t escape the fear; he’ll just do his very best to refuse wisdom.

After this priceless pearl or arrogance, Hitchens proceeds to write a piece of so unbelievably massive tosh that one has to doubt his oh so often celebrated intelligence.
An intelligent man generally knows what he’s talking about and when Mr. Hitchens talks about Christianity he is supposed to know the first foundations of it; alas, this doesn’t seem to be the case.

Let us read what the man has to say:

“The deity whose intercession is being implored is claimed to be omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. It is fully aware of the situation. It can make me a believer if it chooses, or wave away my carcinoma. Why should it be swayed by the entreaties of other sinners?”

The mental confusion here is astonishing, and not due to medicines. It is a basic tenet of mainstream Christianity (and one which Hitchens, who writes about it, is not authorised to ignore) that Hell is a choice God leaves to every individual.
It is a bit too easy to wilfully choose Hell (as Mr. Hitchens continues to do) and then to imply that an omniscient God would make of him a believer if he wanted. Yes he could; but he won’t, and that’s the entire matter.

Mr. Hitchens continue to dodge the fundamental point: it is his choice and his responsibility, and it will be his freely chosen Heaven or Hell. He has written books about God, but he still can’t grasp the basics.

The last part, the “why God would be swayed by prayer” one, is of such ice-cold cynicism that it could only come from a man whose mother has committed suicide. Still, such an affirmation goes to show the absolute nothingness of these “thinkers”, unable to even conceive the infinite power of love and the way Love decides everything, and can change everything.
Mr. Hitchens may have some extenuating circumstances. Still, the tragic occurrences of his life are no excuse for such appalling refusal of love and for such appalling spreading of scandal and perdition.

One may have doubts, and keep them for oneself. One may have hard tests and be unable to pass them. But the spreading of blasphemies on a planetary scale cannot be excused by any personal circumstance. His stance is, in the end, his choice and his responsibility. His brother was born of the same mother and suffered the same drama, but he reacted differently in the end. The one chose the redemption of love, the other the coldness of self-deification.

Mr. Hitchens is receiving the biggest grace of his life. On the wretched platform of his disgraceful existence the last train patiently awaits, the fruit of love utterly unmerited and still freely given.
This train will stay there for a long time, months or perhaps years, patiently wait for him to make the step that would save him. Alas, he seems resolute in refusing to board salvation and in wanting to lose souls with his last breath.

Mundabor

Posted on September 20, 2010, in Catholicism and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 26 Comments.

  1. “In the first instance, the invitation to send get-well cards and bottles of wine instead of prayers is, beside looking very tacky, utterly dismissive of the sincerity of those who pray for his recovery”

    I think it’s far more to the point.

    If one sincerely wants Hitchens to get better, at the very least a card and a bottle will serve to make him feel better, at least a little. All praying does is serve to make the person doing the praying feel better.

    “Love is at work here, and the man doesn’t see it.”

    Which is why he has said in other interviews that he’s touched that people do pray for him. But he still isn’t convinced the praying does anything.

    “It is a basic tenet of mainstream Christianity (and one which Hitchens, who writes about it, is not authorised to ignore) that Hell is a choice God leaves to every individual.”

    And this tenet is false. One cannot choose something they are not convinced exists.

    • 1) I do want a lot of people to feel better. Doesn’t mean I send bottles to them. That prayer’s only aim is to make the person praying better is nothing to do with what prayer does. You do feel better when you pray, but you can’t deny that a believer believes that his prayer is heard just because you happen not to believe in it.

      2) This is the contradiction. He is either touched, or he is not. If he were really touched he wouldn’t say “send me a card or a bottle of wine instead”. I think when he said that he was touched he was only saying it to feel better.

      3) The tenet is true whether he believes it or not. Whether one believes the Truth has no bearing whatsoever on the Truth being true.
      Hitchens must know that Christianity asks him to believe based on historically proven, intellectually understandable facts. Your typical sunday atheist may not know this and blame his atheism on the fact that he never saw the light as in the Blues brothers movie, but Hitchens must know better.

      Faith (as theological virtue) is the acceptance of intellectually achievable truths, not (only) the emotional, interior conviction that there is a God.
      He may never be blessed with the second; he is not excused for refusing the first.

      M

  2. “Hitchens forgets a great truth, that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom””

    I don’t think he forgets a great truth, I don’t think he believes that it is a great truth, and is therefore irrelevant.

    “He is so much in love with his own love for himself that the idea of having to give away a bit of it seems repellent to him. “Better to slowly die in the terrifying conviction that I am right and complete annihilation awaits me than to bow to something greater than my love for myself”, goes his reasoning.”

    I might question how you know so much of Mr Hitchens psychology. Another way of viewing things might be: “Better to face the reality of a situation than believe in comforting fairytales”. Not your view of things I suspect, but neither is your view of Mr Hitchens’ thought processes likely to be correct.

    “But the spreading of blasphemies on a planetary scale cannot be excused by any personal circumstance.”

    I don’t see anything wrong with a person voicing their non-belief. Just as the religious ought to be free to speak of, write about and praise their own particular God, non-believers should also be allowed to explain their thinking. Don’t you agree?

    Perhaps something that might be helpful for you to consider Mundabor: If you were gravely ill and very, very close to death and all around you were praying for you to the God…lets say Thor, how would you feel about it?

    Thanks for the read and have a lovely day 🙂

    • Lucy,
      the answers to you are the same given to the other poster yesterday: it is a logical fallacy to say that something is irrelevant because you don’t believe in it. It is extremely relevant whether you believe in it or not. Mr Hitchens simply refuses to do his homework and he does it because he has no will to believe.

      I know of Mr. Hitchens what he says of himself. I doubt, anyway, that the “fairytale” would be of any comfort to him unless he repents and converts. Exactly this is the problem: it is much easier to him to accept himself as God, than to accept God’s existence.

      You may find my thought process “unlikely” to be correct, but in this (in your mind) unlikely eventuality Hitchens is massively screwed for eternity. It is NOT rational to discard the possibility of eternal damnation merely because “unlikely”. The infinite nature of the punishment should move him to do nothing which might attract such punishment to him, however “unlikely” he may perceive it to be. Besides, if he really dealt with the matter he’d find (to his terror) that what he considers unlikely is terribly real.

      No homework and no intention of doing it, this is his problem and his undoing.

      On the “agree” part: it is not whether he should be allowed (which he is), but about the consequences of what he does. he is, in fact, allowed to be a blasphemer and allowed to suffer the consequences. He simply avoids this point.

      There is a difference between God and Thor. God exists, Thor doesn’t. God has given Hitchens a purely intellectual way to persuade himself of His existence, Thor hasn’t. God has proven that Jesus is God, Thor hasn’t.

      If someone would ask me, on my death bed, to pray Thor I’d say “No thanks, I believe in the Only God; out of intelligent reasoning before any other consideration”.
      Feelings have nothing to do with that. I would never rtisk eternal damnation in order to have my feeling not “hurt”. On the contrary, I’d rather have my feelings hurt ten times a day if this leads me to the Truth of God’s existence.

      You’re welcome and I wish a good day to you too.

      M

    • On the “forget” point: no, he truly ignores the point.
      His words: “surely now, at last, Hitchens, your fears will begin to vanquish your reason. What a thing to hope for!”

      It is clear to him that a faith based on fear, or which has fear as its starting point, is dismissed as absurd. This is not about him believing, this is about him not wanting to believe because of fear.

      M

  3. M,

    To be fair to Hitchens – he may have got a third class degree at Oxford, but this is someone whose views on fine (very strong) wines should be accorded the utmost respect.

    • Am I missing something here, Omvendt?
      Is the man a wine connoisseur of a friend of the bottle?

      I must say I like his stance on a couple of past wars, but seeing the bigotry of the man I avoid saying it out loud..

      M

  4. M,

    Hitchens has acknowledged in the past that he ‘enjoys’ a drink.

    George Galloway described Hitchens in rather blunter terms as “… a drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay.”

  5. “it is a logical fallacy to say that something is irrelevant because you don’t believe in it.”

    It’s only a logical fallacy if that particular thing is true. You believe it to be so, an atheist doesn’t. I think we could both go on for eternal circles with this one.

    “Exactly this is the problem: it is much easier to him to accept himself as God, than to accept God’s existence. ”

    I can’t speak for Mr Hitchens, but this isn’t the issue for myself. Simply: It seems far more likely to me that no Gods exist than any Gods exist. The idea of one particular God existing is an even greater stretch.

    “It is NOT rational to discard the possibility of eternal damnation merely because “unlikely”. The infinite nature of the punishment should move him to do nothing which might attract such punishment to him, however “unlikely” he may perceive it to be.”

    This sounds very much like Pascal’s Wager to me. Besides all the other arguments against it it does seem silly to concern myself with something which depends on firstly there being a God, and secondly that God being identical to the one in the Bible – Two massive jumps. Furthermore, pretending to believe to avoid hell seems an odd and not particular nice reason for being religious.

    “There is a difference between God and Thor. God exists, Thor doesn’t.”

    How you feel about Thor is how I feel about the Christian God. It’s probably how Mr Hitchens feels too, and quite probably the majority of Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc around the globe.

    “God has proven that Jesus is God, Thor hasn’t.”

    Here is maybe the major difference. I, and atheists generally I would suppose, see no proof that Jesus is a God. I know you think so, but not everybody thinks the same as you.

    Thanks for your reply and have a fab day 🙂

    Lucy

    • “It’s only a logical fallacy if that particular thing is true”.

      Not really.
      Until you can prove that it isn’t, even the smallest, remotest probability of an infinite punishment makes the issue infinitely important. Simple math.

      “It seems far more likely to me that no Gods exist than any Gods exist”.

      Fine, then this answer applies to you only: even the extremest unlikelihood that something brings eternal punishment should be enough to motivate one to think “what if”. Again, this is a purely logical argument, a simple mathematical reasoning. We are talking infinites here. To counter an infinite punishment with the category of likelihood is not a rational, but a purely emotional position.

      “This sounds very much like Pascal’s Wager to me”.
      This sounds very much like the fact that “the Fear of the Lord that is the beginning of wisdom” to me. I do accept that Pascal’s wager is suboptimal, but if you can explain to me why it would not make sense I would be grateful. Pascal’s position is, imperfect as it is, logical in a world dominated by the impossibility to be sure that God does not exist. Besides the fact that it does, of course.

      “pretending to believe to avoid hell seems an odd and not particular nice reason for being religious”.

      Pretending to believe to avoid hell is hypocritical. Covering oneself against the possibility of hell’s existence is – from the perspective of the non-believer – purely rational. But I agree with you that this can only be a starting point. Honestly dealing with the matter is what leads to acceptance of the truths of faith. Fear is the beginning, not the arrival. But if it helps one to start the journey, what a wonderful instrument it is.

      “I, and atheists generally I would suppose, see no proof that Jesus is a God. I know you think so, but not everybody thinks the same as you”.

      I must ask what effort have you ever made to seek for the proof. I can’t seem to often meet people who have dealt with the matter in the proper way (serious will, and serious research). What I seem to meet is people who have no faith and – as it is human in some way – seek selective information to validate this opinion, from people who have their opinion. This is why I wrote about the importance of the will. Honest search begins with a serious intent to understand. There’s too much at stake.
      Also consider that the God of the Christian is the only one whose belief can be based on reason. This is unique. It is like having a plethora of artifacts, of which only one has a certificate of authenticity. I will write about that in future, but the matter is truly vast, every good book (I mean: good book) will confront you with massive evidence.
      ——————————-

      A question I often ask to atheists is: if you were persuaded that there is a God, do you think that he would be on course for damnation? Not all, but many people are motivated in their atheism by the fact that they realise that the day they understand there is a God, they’ll have to change. And – th eego and our habits being what they are – they don’t want that. It is more comfortable to continue to say that Catholicism is “homophobic” (so one can continue to indulge his perversions) or “chauvinist” (so one can continue to cherish one’s feminist ideals) or “outdated” (so one can continue to live as one pleases).

      Doesn’t have to be the case for everyone of course and I know intelligent people who are atheist just because unable to open themselves to the possibility of faith. But this is an ego trap, too.

      Thanks for the discussion, Lucy

      M

  6. Until you can prove that it isn’t, even the smallest, remotest probability of an infinite punishment makes the issue infinitely important. Simple math.

    Pascal’s Wager. *YAWN* Can you prove that there isn’t even the smallest, remotest probability of you being struck by a bus while crossing the street? Better stay home then. There is not one shred of evidence to show that there is a life after death to be infinitely punished. Your statement is an attempt at a burden of proof shift. Demonstrate using evidence that there is this life after death, or even that there is anything which survives the body which can live on. I will continue to live my life based on that which I can conclude from available evidence, not on what it doesn’t show or that which I can not disprove. To do otherwise is irrational.

    I must ask what effort have you ever made to seek for the proof.

    Again, the burden of proof is on the claimant (i.e., YOU). There is simply no evidence whatsoever that Jesus (if the person actually existed, which is not at all a forgone conclusion, though it is the likeliest possibility) was at all god-like. The gospels are at best third-hand after playing the telephone game for at least four decades whose players were superstitious in the extreme. And even if there were eyewitness testimony – there isn’t, but let’s suppose – does the quality of that kind of evidence anywhere near reflect the extraordinary nature of the claim? I think not. Not by a long shot. So the Bible is out. It meets no evidential standard that is anwhere near acceptable. What eles is there? Weeping icons? Our Lady of Guadaloupe? Those don’t stand up to even cursory scrutiny.

    And what books? Like those written by Dinesh D’Souza? By “good”, I have a feeling you mean books you agree with. Suggest a “good” book and I will take a look.

    Hitchens forgets a great truth, that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom”.

    No. Hitchens doesn’t forget that. He rejects that, as I do. Demonstrate to me that it is a truth and my mind will be changed. All knowledge must be demonstrable, or else how can any confidence be attached to knowledge actually being knowledge? This seems to me to be mere assertion. Here’s a truth for you- “That which can be asserted without proof can be rejected without proof.” Guess where that bit of wisdom came from?

    Now, getting back to Pascal’s Wager… Let’s say we are talking infinities here. What kind of god would allow infinite punishment to occur while standing idly by watching? By all accounts the biblical god is all-powerful. No matter how many good deeds a non-beleiver does, the end result is eternal punishment? Step back from this a moment. How is this at all compatible with an omnibenevolent, loving god? Don’t bother answering that. There is no answer. If that is love, I want no part of it. What kind of monster do you worship? I tell you this- even if I were to believe that your god-concept had a basis in reality (I don’t), I would not worship it. I would SPURN it.

    Also consider that the God of the Christian is the only one whose belief can be based on reason…

    There is a difference between God and Thor. God exists, Thor doesn’t. God has given Hitchens a purely intellectual way to persuade himself of His existence, Thor hasn’t. God has proven that Jesus is God, Thor hasn’t….

    That which can be asserted without proof…. David Hume weighs in on such things-

    If we take in our hand any volume of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance, let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

    That I predict describes the books you label “good”. If you have nothing empirical to put forward (and I dare say you do not), then Hume and Hitchens carry the day.

    Honestly dealing with the matter is what leads to acceptance of the truths of faith.

    The only way any truth should be called a truth is if it can be demonstrated to be true. Otherwise it has no right to the label. Faith is not something that should be aspired to. It is not to be admired. Faith is for the credulous and is a fool’s errand.

    • Pascal wager’s.
      There is a concrete probability of my being struck dead by a bus. Therefore I do not cross the road thinking “there is no bus”, but I will carefully check that there isn’t one. I’ll not put my life in danger based on a supposition.

      “Demonstrate using evidence that there is this life after death, or even that there is anything which survives the body which can live on”.
      The God the existence of which is (logically; not mathematically) amply proved says to me that there is life after death.

      “the burden of proof is on the claimant (i.e., YOU)”.
      Not really. I can’t mathematically prove that there is a God more than you can prove that there isn’t. You are on a faith position as I am. But I can bring a logical proof of my claim, you can’t explain how something should come from nothing.

      Bible and Jesus.
      You obviously haven’t read either with the attention they deserve.
      The Gospel are the description of statements of facts, not even denied by those who would have interest in doing it. Not even Jewish sources contradicts the miracles, or the historical existence of Jesus, or his process and death. Roman sources confirm the Gospel events. The many historical coordinates spread within the Gospel are there just for that, and they prove the rightness of the claims of the Gospels.

      The Gospels confirms events (and I mean here: historical events) predicted by the prophets hundreds of years before Jesus’ birth. That He would be born in Betlehem; in a manger and assisted by an ass and an ox; a citizen of nazareth; a descendant of David; a doer of great miracles (healing of lepers; giving the sight to the blind, etc); extremely powerful, but whose reign was not of this world; insulted and not recognised; killed by his own people; all this was all foretold by various prophets several hundred years before Jesus appeared on the scene. There are many more correspondences, but these are just the first coming to my mind.

      All these facts are not contested. Not even the Jews contested these facts, the Roman sources confirm most of them. There is no record of the Jews even contesting the authenticity of the miracles, preferring rather to admit the evidence and attribute them to Jesus being an ally of Satan (funny that: Satan helping the Jews to reject Satan). These are historic facts, not depending on even the Gospels to be ascertained and in fact, Jewish sources would be more than sufficient on their own.

      “Suggest a “good” book and I will take a look.”

      Fulton Sheen, “Life of Christ”. No Our Lady of Guadaloupe here. Concordances between Old and New Testament, pure historic facts, and a rather elementary logic.
      But please don’t “give a look”. Read it. Attentively. There’s none so blind, and all that….

      Christianity is not like believing in Odin. It is a rational process. This is its biggest logical difference from all other religions. Mohammed woke up one day and said “an Archangel has dictated me a book”. No one asked “what proof can you give for that”. Christ came on emorning and said ” I am the one of whom the Scriptures have spoken”, and you can check that it’s true. Mohammed was not announced, Christ was. Mohammed had no proof of what he claimed, Jesus had.

      M

    • “Hitchens doesn’t forget that. He rejects that, as I do”.

      And you are both wrong.
      1) Hitchens is being taught as we speak how powerful fear is. So much so, that he has already said that fear might, well, move him to wisdom (thought he didn’t use these words). He seems to me much more aware of the power of fear (for obvious reason) than you are.

      2) Hitchens can reject whatever he likes. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. You can refuse the existence of love because not “proved” to you; the only thing you show is that you have no love in you. This thinking is logically flawed. If one is blind, this doesn’t prove that there is no sun.

      “That which can be asserted without proof can be rejected without proof.” Guess where that bit of wisdom came from?”
      It’s rather a piece of bollocks, so it must come from Hitchens.

      Axioms can be asserted without proof, but only Hitchens can say they can be rejected without proof. Therefore Hitchens is plain wrong.

      I’m afraid the one committed to the flames was Hume himself. I also wonder whether he has ever believed in love, or in any other kind of reasoning not concerning “quantity or number”. This is the kind of wannabe rational thinking that is really dumb.

      The book I label “good ” deserves to be read with attention, and the will to understand what it says. See above.

      “The only way any truth should be called a truth is if it can be demonstrated to be true. Otherwise it has no right to the label.”

      A demonstration can be mathematical, or logical. God can intellectually demonstrated to be true. It’s not 2+2, it’s keeping your eyes open and starting to think. As it is demonstrable, it has the right to be labelled true and, alone among all religion, is the oly true one. And I am merely talking about the intellect here. You are not ready for Fatima and Padre Pio, and St. Teresa of Avila or St. Dominic yet..

      M

  7. “No matter how many good deeds a non-beleiver does, the end result is eternal punishment? Step back from this a moment. How is this at all compatible with an omnibenevolent, loving god? Don’t bother answering that. There is no answer”.

    Oh come on, this is Christianity 101.

    Since man has existed, offences have been measured by the dignity of the offended person. To insult one’s own servant has always been different than to insult one’s own master; to insult one’s own master always different than to insult one’s own king.

    The benevolent and loving God is benevolent and loving in that **he leaves you free to take your own decisions** which is an act of supreme love; exactly like the mother who loves her children most is not the one keeping them prisoner, but leaving them free to live their own life and pay the price of their own mistakes.

    God doesn’t punish any finite offence with an infinite punishment. But a willed, infinite punishment will he punish (bar an act of inscrutable mercy, but I digress) with an infinite punishment. This is both loving (because He loves you and doesn’t want to you to arrive at such point; at the same time lovingly leaving you free to make your own choice) and just (because in the end it is just that you get the punishment you have freely attracted on yourself).

    What you must understand is that **God has died for you on the Cross**.
    He has clearly said (just read a Gospel, please) that those who refuse him commit the supreme offence, and will be punished even harsher than the Sodomites (make no mistake: this really meant that they will be deemed **worse than the worst**).

    If you think you can avoid dealing with the issue and get a get out of jail card just saying “I haven’t done anything”, think again. Until there is time.

    ——————————————————–

    On the good deeds: you are lacking in basic Christianity again.

    It is very typical of secular minds to think that good deeds would save one. They won’t. **Deeds don’t save**.
    What saves, is **deeds (we say: works) coming from faith**.

    If one rejects God, every good deed he makes is made from a perspective of rejection of the Supreme Good. There’s no salvation as a recompense for that; at most, a less harsh punishment in hell.

    Please think: you can’t refuse God and say you’ll be fine because you’re a regular chap. Your reasoning is like saying that if a genocide is a wonderful father and husband, he shouldn’t go to jail. The extent of the crime of refusing God completely escapes you, because you can only see things in a secular perspective.

    If you refuse God you refuse salvation, period.

    M

    M

  8. It seems very odd to me that so many people believe they have an obligation to change the god Jesus’s mind. If he is, as I presume you believe, the being who created the earth and made humans the way he wanted them, then it follows that the god Jesus prefers that Hitchens die of cancer. Why would he want his followers to try to change his mind? Isn’t that pretty presumptuous?

    I have been told that the god Jesus has a plan for the world, and that it is perfect. If that is true, then either Hitchens is supposed to die, or he is supposed to be healed. Likewise, either he is supposed to die an atheist, or he is supposed to change his mind. In any case, if things are going the way the god Jesus wants, then his followers are wrong to try to change his mind, since that would mean his perfect plan would be spoiled. If he wants things to change, then things would have to change regardless of the magic chants of his followers. If they didn’t, then his plan wouldn’t be perfect anymore. And if his plan is for his followers to say magic chants and then for Hitchens’ condition to change, that seems odd as well, since the magic chants are not causing anything to happen.

    I also think it’s possible that it is not the god Jesus at all. I think the god Allah might be interested in Hitchens’ health for his own nefarious reasons. Or perhaps it is the god Satan. Regardless of whether the god Jesus or the god Allah is the most powerful god, it is apparent that the god Satan has more followers than either one of them. (I can only assume that if Jesus and Satan are the only two gods that Satan is masquerading as Allah and Vishnu and Buddha.)

    Really, this is too confusing.

    • Hambydammit,
      like many atheists, things seem odd to you because you don’t understand or misinterpret them. Let us see all your objections.

      1) God created Earth. This is right.
      2) God made humans the way he wanted them. This is right too.
      3) God wanted humans free to love or reject him. This you don’t consider.

      The rest of what you have been told is, therefore, wrong.

      The plan for the world is that those who want will choose him and those who want will refuse him. But this doesn’t make his plan any less perfect of course.

      As for the magic chants, they must have told you of some strange superstition they have confused with Christianity.

      Same goes for Satan, who has far less followers than you think, though I am sure they are rather numerous among atheists.

      Really, things are confusing only when one doesn’t know or doesn’t want to see them.

      M

  9. I still don’t get it.

    Could you help me understand this Satan god and Allah god thing? I have been told that Catholics believe that there are only two magical beings, although one of them has something like a split personality. There is the god Father, the god Jesus, and the god Holy Spirit. They are the good god(s). There is also the god (or demigod?) Satan, who is the ruler of Hell and was created by god Father to deceive men into not following god Jesus.

    If these are the only gods, then god Allah and god Vishnu and god Buddha are false. But followers of each of these gods say their gods do the same things for them that yours does for you. At least god Allah does. He rewards his followers with heaven (nirvana?) and punishes nonbelievers with hell. But followers of all of these gods say that their gods heal them and give them magical powers and talk to them in secret in their heads. So if they are getting magical powers, then it must be god Satan who is giving them to them, right?

    • Do you first agree that those who have told you that if there is a God then he has a perfect plan and therefore they don’t get what is happening to Hitchens?
      Do you need some other explanations to get the point?
      Ask in confidence..

      M

    • For thw One God, you may want to digit “Creed of Athanasius”. It really explains everything beautifully.

      Satan is not a god, but an angel. A powerful being, nothing more than that.

      Allah is a child rapist.

      Those who follow strange deities and say that they have magic powers, don’t. They see the Truth only through a veil. They get something right, and a lot of other things wrong.

      Any further questions? But please do confirm that you have learned Lesson Nr.1. One step at a time, I’m confident you’ll learn something.

      M

  10. I think I get what you are saying. The Father god created humans so that they have the ability to make choices. The being Satan sounds a lot like a god to me, although perhaps not as powerful as the Father god. In the stories of Greek gods, it was not very uncommon for one god to create another god. In your god story, you have a father god and a son god as well. So it seems to me that if Satan has the powers of a god, then he is a god, but maybe Father god doesn’t like calling him a god because he is vain. You know the saying, “If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…” And Satan does have god powers, right? He can perform magic and speak to people in their heads, and he is not flesh and blood but god-body, whatever that is.

    But in any case, the Father god created Satan so that humans would have two choices. But what I don’t understand is why the followers of the god Allah would follow him without being granted magical powers or protection, or hearing the voice of a god in their heads. After all, the followers of the god Jesus get magical powers. So it only makes sense that followers of Allah are also getting magical powers, but they are being given by Satan. (How could so many people not notice that they don’t have magical powers?)

    Do you believe that the angel or god Satan has the power to perform magic? You said Allah is a child rapist, which means you believe the god Allah exists. Or maybe that he is the angel Allah? Is it possible that the angel or god Allah has been fooling people? Because it seems odd for a Catholic to say Allah is a child rapist in light of the number of priests who do the same thing.

    Maybe it is the angel Satan who has been fooling Catholics and telling them that he is the god Jesus. Aren’t we supposed to be able to tell that someone is following the right god because they are better than the people who don’t?

    • Albeit very slowly, you learn. I am glad to see that you are so willing to improve yourself.

      What You have learnt up to now is that:

      1) there is only one God. He is Father, Son and Holy Ghost at the same time, but still one God;
      2) God has created humans so that they can be with him forever or, if they really want, refuse him forever. The choice is theirs.
      3) Satan is a powerful angel trying to influence people not to choose God, but him instead. He tries to persuade people that he doesn’t exist so that he can work better on them. Atheists always swallow his lies whole.

      Not let us see what you still have to learn:

      1) Satan doesn’t have the powers of a God. This I have said already, but you weren’t paying attention. He is very powerful, though. Still, he can speak to people in their heads but it will lead to nothing if they don’t want to hear.
      2) Allah is a child rapist. No magic powers at all. You have been conned here. It happens.
      3) Priest raping children are atheists masked as priests. They listened to Satan and stopped believing in God. When people stop believing in God, they can become very very bad.
      4) We are able to tell that God is the right God because we can reach God through reason. No other wannabe-god can be reached through reason. Only the Only God can. How good or bad are those who believe in the Only God is not relevant to this question. They tend to be rather good, though.

      Four things to learn this time. But I see that you make an effort.

      M

  11. 1) Do you believe that Satan speaks to followers of Allah and tells them that he is Allah?
    2) If Allah exists, but has no powers at all, how does he manage to get away with raping children? Do followers of Allah bring their children to him to be raped, or does he sneak into their homes to rape their children? If he does not have magic powers, how has he lived for so long?
    3) These atheists masquerading as priests must be awful people, indeed. I am curious how you know they are atheists, though. Do you have magic powers to hear other people’s thoughts and know what they believe deep inside? I wonder, since I do not believe in any gods, why I have never had the desire to rape children. I am fairly certain that I have never heard any voices in my head other than my own, so perhaps Satan has not suggested child rape to me yet. The thing that seems especially odd to me is this: Atheists do not believe in any gods, but apparently they listen to the voice of Satan in their heads and obey him when he suggests they rape children. If they hear the voice of the god-angel Satan, would that not be proof that there are magic beings, and wouldn’t they no longer be atheists?
    4) I am very confused about how to reach the correct god through reason, but I think maybe I am still confused about how all of this works. Maybe we can wait and talk about this one later. I’d like to try to get one thing at a time.

    Thank you again for answering my questions.

    • 1) Satan speaks a bit to everyone, though atheists are among his most ardent followers. He has great success with fanatical Muslims. Ordinary, decent Muslims are probably more a case of invincible ignorance. I’ll go on that when I see that you are ready. It’s complicated.
      2) One doesn’t need any more magic powers to rape children than homos need to commit sodomy; it boils down to what those around the pervert allow him to do. Perhaps they thought it was just his genetic code and wanted to be inclusive of diversity. Satan again, you see. And they were Bedouins. Goat rapers at the best of times.
      3) I know they are atheist because it is self-evident that had they still believed in God, such an act would have been unthinkable.
      You see, Satan first takes one away from God. He whispers in his ear that there isn’t any. When he has achieved this first and most important goalpost, there’s no limit to what success he can achieve. Still, he often reaches the first goalpost and can’t go further. But he’ll hope (with good reason) that it is still enough to get the chap’s soul in the end. He’ll just have to whisper to his soul that to refuse God out loud is the thing to do. Clever chap, ey?
      But again, clearly no god. If a friend says something to you and you do what he says, do you call him god for that?
      See? It’s easy.
      4) As in our first lesson, you are confused because you have not been properly informed.
      Try this for a start:
      https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/fundamentals-of-faith/

      When you have absorbed it, you will be able to tackle this one:
      https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2010/08/14/the-crisis-of-faith-and-its-root-in-post-v-ii-thinking-part-one/

      One day I may write more in detail about that, but the best book I have ever read on the matter is this:
      http://www.amazon.co.uk/Life-Christ-Fulton-J-Sheen/dp/0385132204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1285367159&sr=8-1

      This is a big book, but with time and patience you can manage it.

      M

  12. Thank you for your time. I’m still stuck with a dilemma. I haven’t heard any voices in my head at all (except for my own, of course). Since I have never been tempted to rape children, I can only assume that either the angel Satan does not exist, or if he exists, he is not concerned with my sexual habits.

    Your god doesn’t sound any different to me than the god Allah, except that there are three of your gods and only one of Allah. Both of them say, “Follow me or I will send you to hell.” If I choose either god and the other is the correct one, I’m in a very bad place.

    If I ever hear a voice in my head that isn’t mine, I’ll be sure to consult you before doing anything potentially destructive. But I’m afraid if I don’t hear any voices at all, I won’t have any way to know if any of the gods are real or not. (I guess if I get magical powers, maybe that would be as good as hearing a voice, but so far I have had neither experience.)

    Thank you again. I hope you’re right, because you seem nice, and it would be a shame for you and I to be in Allah’s hell together when we’re both just trying to be good people.

    • Thanks for your kind words hambydammit. You are a good person, ready to learn, and in time there might be hope for you. I leave you with the last pieces of knowledge for your betterment.

      1) You do hear voices in your head. They tell you that there is no God. Of course they are no audible voices, but perceived nonethelesss. Think of when you were tempted to steal marmalade as a child. Did you hear a “voice”? No.
      2) Satan is very much concerned with your sexual habits, because they are one of the main ways he can ensnare you. Child rape and sodomy and two of his favourite ways. Recently he has even persuaded a lot of people that sodomy is fine. That will provide him with a fine harvest. Again, when people stop hearing the word of God, he has an easier job.
      3) You have not been paying attention again, but I won’t be cross because you have a lot to learn. One God, Three Persons. You should repeat it often.
      4) What child rapists say is obviously irrelevant. God doesn;t really say “follow me or I will send you to hell”. It is more like “reject me and you will consign yourself to hell”, as the judgment corresponds then to one person’s mentality and attitude towards God. Hell is full of people who felt very witty when they lived. You must give it to him, Satan is good ai his job (he is very powerful, as you say).
      5) In order to know that God is real, you must do your homework: read and digest the material given to you and apply yourself to it. Magical powers are not needed. Laziness is severely punished. Laziness united with arrogance is punished with hell.

      I am not sure that you should hope that I am right. You understand that if I am right (and make no mistake: I am absolutely right) you might have, as per today, a huge problem.
      But there might be hope.
      Farewell, live well and, so to speak, die well. Last is the most important thing.

      M

%d bloggers like this: