We End Up in the Same Spot

yeah, you’re absolutely right about that second line Hemant. I makes zero sense.

And, for the record, I don’t believe in the god that Christopher Hitchens doesn’t believe in either.

I think I get what he’s trying to say. That he doesn’t believe in big-old-meanie-god, but rather cuddly-wuddly-jebus-god… or something like that.

But his statement as said means he doesn’t believe in any god. Since any god he can think of is a god Hitchens doesn’t believe in, there is no god left for David to believe in.

That would be funny if he suddenly realized it and said “Oh shit… I don’t believe in god!”

Well, I’d laugh.

“I don’t believe in the god that Christopher Hitchens doesn’t believe in either.”

This is a line I used to see between liberal Christian theists and Agnostic theists for proselytizing purposes. It is also used by Michael Dowd as part of his Thank God for Evolution lectures.

First time I’ve seen it used in reference to an atheist…. I agree, it doesn’t make any sense.

David Hayward likely is a heretic under any standard Christian theological analysis, fundamentalist or otherwise. Hayward asserts that he is Christian yet “doesn’t believe in the god that Christopher Hitchens doesn’t believe in either.” Can Hayward articulate an understanding of the Christian god that falls within any mainstream Christian theology, yet outside Hitchens’ broad and general atheism? If so, then I’d like to see it.

But New Atheists…

Didn’t you get the memo? We now wish to be known as the gnu atheists.

I knew a Baptist pastor who also used that line. It is typically used in reference to the Old Testament God in which it is easy to find fault (unless the stories are treated with a lot of spin). The pastor I knew was of the mind that if only the “good news” of Jesus could be communicated, then people could love and believe in that God.

I find it actually more hard to believe in the “good news” Jesus-God than the Old Testament God. The Old Testament God just kills you (and maybe your kids, grand-kids, up to a few generations). Then He leaves well enough alone. Jesus, though, will torture you for eternity after you die unless you “accept him”. I can conceive of an Old Testament God much easier than a New Testament God.

As an analogy, I will kill ants in my kitchen, but I wouldn’t consider torturing them for eternity (even if I could). I can’t conceive of an eternally torturing God. I can only conceive of a killing God. But I believe in neither.

Of course if Christianity would drop its after-life clause, it would become a lot more conceivable (but still not believable at least for me).

Ummm…if I’m not mistaken, Christopher Hitchens is not so much an atheist but rather an “anti-theist.” He stated in a debate..I don’t remember with who…but said that he couldn’t say there was NOT a God, but that there had never been a convincing argument put forward that there WAS a God; that hadn’t been rebutted by a convincing argument. So, evidence without proof can be easily rejected. He states that he would hate it if it were true that there was a God. What Hitch says seem to be the safest ground to be on. And the position that is easiest to defend and to attack from.

If you really want to know David Hayward’s theology, go to his site and search for “z theory #”. http://www.nakedpastor.com/?s=z+theory+%23 will hopefully lead you to it.

I’d say it still falls within the category of “gods Hitchens does not believe in”, but reading what the Naked Pastor does believe might keep commenters here from having to guess.

I knew a Baptist pastor who also used that line. It is typically used in reference to the Old Testament God in which it is easy to find fault (unless the stories are treated with a lot of spin). The pastor I knew was of the mind that if only the “good news” of Jesus could be communicated, then people could love and believe in that God.

The whole Old Testament vs. New Testament God argument makes absolutely no sense. With the exception of a few, smaller denominations, Jesus and the OT God are considered to be one and the same being. It’s the whole “in the beginning was the word…” thing. It’s also the source of the Trinity conundrum – nearly 2000 years of theologians trying to wrap their head around what is obviously nonsense.

Among mainstream Christians, the OT’s reliability as a valid theological and historical document is never questioned, only its applicability with regard to Judaic law. One cannot question the OT’s reliability without calling into question the NT’s reliability. After all, the case for the latter is built entirely upon the validity of the former. Call any part of the OT into question and you call all of it into question. The consequence is that the divinity and messiahship of Jesus is immediatly called into question as well.

To put it bluntly, when God commands his followers to commit what are obviously evil actions, like genocidal warfare and sexual slavery, it is really Jesus doing it. Even if Jesus is God turning over a new leaf, he is still guilty of his past actions. So much for an unchanging and eternally consistent god. So much for the Prince of Peace. Turns out, Jesus has much more in common with Hitler than Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr.

Oops. I dropped the “H” bomb. I’ve done it now.

I am looking forward to my next life – I plan to be one of the crew on an intergalactic space ship – and while still in this life I can dream about what I would do if I won the lottery.

Neither dream is likely to come true, but so what? As long as it does not interfere with getting on with one’s life, it is relatively harmless and pleasant ways to pass the time while crushed on the subway to work.

But to actually believe that a god, who needs a few thousand people to point out to him that someone needs his help, is actually going to do anything, when he hasn’t before, is just OTT.

Put your faith in medical science, it produces tangible results.

As for the naked pastor, I believe he thinks he’s holier than thou and moi.

Thank you, Annie. The more he’s quoted here, the more I get that same impression and I am starting to wonder why we’re continually subject to him. First couple of cartoons were amusing, I’m starting to want to barf on them.

I’m also nonplussed at his wanting to align his beliefs with Hitchens. Seriously, wtf! It’s strange inside this man’s head. I don’t always find that a bad thing but this is just getting weirder and weirder and more and more out there. I believe in Jebus but I’m like this dude who doesn’t.

And I think nothing irritates me more than the mean god was the gawd of the OT not the new. As if gawd had a rebirth or something and was born again in Christ. It smacks of anti-Semitism frankly. The God of Christians, cool; The God of Jews, icky.

Roger Ebert is using that drawing in his journal entry about Christopher Hitchens:
Traveler to the undiscovere’d country
By Roger Ebert on August 13, 2010 12:45 AM

I think he meant:

i am more in agreement with hitchens than not. i am not always in agreement with the way he argues it. but i respect the man.

You know, because that’s what he said he meant.

Not really clear on how that relates to his original comment, but I’m willing to take his word for it.