• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Christopher Hitchens

McCragge said:
I believe Bill Maher wrote that. :P

And to echo everyone else I hope Mr. Hitchens gets well and fast.

McCragge
Click to expand...

It never ceases to amaze me how people like Maher can criticize religious belief till the cows come home and talk about how logical and scientifically minded they are, and then completely embrace woo like alternative/new age medicine/vaccine hysteria, etc.
 
And to add insult to injury, Robert Barron, some unimportant priest from Chicago, is now using Hitchens' disease to push his little delusional agenda about his little skydaddy fairytale, is asking to "pray" for him.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/...-should-pray-for-christopher-hitchens/?hpt=C2

Hitchens’ disease is indeed ingredient in God’s providence, since at the very least it was permitted by the one whose wisdom “stretches from end to end mightily.”
But what it means and why it was allowed remain essentially opaque to us. Might it be an occasion for the famous atheist to reconsider his position? Perhaps. Might it be the means by which Hitchens comes to think more deeply about the ultimate meaning of things? Could be. Might it bring others to faith? Maybe. Might it have a significance that no one on the scene today could even in principle grasp? Probably.
Click to expand...
OR

Might it be a random occurence like any other disease stricking anybody, and just a coincidence than it would fall on someone like Hitchens? Yes, most likely.


M. Barron, you are a filthy piece of ****, a little **** faced delusional little coward. I hope you die of Cholera, or some painful, long and humiliating disease, you stupid dirtbag. And I hope Hitchens survives this just to go and punch you in the mouth. :mad:

There, just needed to vent this out. Feeling better now.
 
Last edited:
Neither of the priests quoted on this page seemed to say anything nasty or smug. They talked about God's providence and gave possible reasons why He would allow this event -- just as they do for any event that happens. They didn't wish ill on Hitchens or call him names. They certainly weren't hateful the way you just were.
They explained things using their Christian perspective, and used it as an example of how God is in control of all things in all of our lives, good and bad. That's all.
Your vitriole is misplaced and unnecessary here, and the curse you gave is unmerited.
 
He could just as easily have shut his mouth and keep his "deep thoughts" to himself. Nobody cares about some priest from Chicago.

ETA: And about that "curse", since I don't believe in the supernatural i didn't mean it literally, of course.

Since he's a priest and doesn't have to work for a living and worry about anything, he'll probably die a nice and soft death, probably of old age.
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
He could just as easily just shut his mouth and keep his "deep thoughts" to himself. Nobody cares about some priest from Chicago.
Click to expand...

As could you. His, at least, were kind and thoughtful, saying many positive things about a man he clearly respects.

Writing an article on why Christians are wrong to view this misfortune as some sort of divine justice against Hitchens, and why Hitchens even as an enemy of religion should be loved and respected, certainly doesn't seem to merit your nasty response.
 
I didn't find his text kind and thoughtful, I found it dumb and pretentious, even arrogant.
 
Pardalis said:
M. Barron, you are a filthy piece of ****, a little **** faced delusional little coward. I hope you die of Cholera, or some painful, long and humiliating disease, you stupid dirtbag. And I hope Hitchens survives this just to go and punch you in the mouth. :mad:
Click to expand...

'Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that.'
 
Just an example of his arrogance, and of an insult to Hitchens:

"Might it be the means by which Hitchens comes to think more deeply about the ultimate meaning of things?"

Doesn't this imply that Hitchens is not thinking about the utlimate meaning of things?

How dare he imply that? Does he really think some 2 thousand year old zombie story is "deep" and "meaningful", compared to Hitchens clear and thought provoking books?
 
DC said:
i have seen nuns working, but never ever a priest, only saw them talking.
Click to expand...

So, what Hitchens was doing when he chose to undergo treatment... was that "working"? I'm pretty sure the thing that Dawkins, Hitchens, and Randi (among others) are known and admired for doing is the exact same category of thing that you think of priests as doing.
 
There are many fine and hard working priests. That we think their assumptions are nonsense does not change that. I daresay many Rabbis and Imams are nice people, too.

Hitchens , on the other hand, is not a very nice person. But (IMO) he's right more often than most priests.

I wish him well, as I would any priest , rabbi, imam or journalist with a nasty condition like this.
 
Pardalis said:
Just an example of his arrogance, and of an insult to Hitchens:

"Might it be the means by which Hitchens comes to think more deeply about the ultimate meaning of things?"
Click to expand...

Thrown out there along with a whole list of possible examples. Here's the context:

This was on my mind when word came out last week that Hitchens was suffering from esophageal cancer, a particularly aggressive and unforgiving form of the disease. I realize that certain believers couldn’t resist the temptation to see in this misfortune the avenging hand of God: the one who for so long blasphemed God was now getting his just reward.

But it’s always a very tricky business to interpret the purpose of the divine providence. After all, plenty of good, even saintly, people die prematurely from terrible diseases all the time, and lots of atheists and vile sinners live long prosperous lives before dying peacefully in their beds.

Hitchens’ disease is indeed ingredient in God’s providence, since at the very least it was permitted by the one whose wisdom “stretches from end to end mightily.”

But what it means and why it was allowed remain essentially opaque to us. Might it be an occasion for the famous atheist to reconsider his position? Perhaps. Might it be the means by which Hitchens comes to think more deeply about the ultimate meaning of things? Could be. Might it bring others to faith? Maybe. Might it have a significance that no one on the scene today could even in principle grasp? Probably.

But what struck me with particular power as I surveyed the Catholic media was that the vast, vast majority of Catholics reported Hitchens’ disease and then, with transparent sincerity, urged people to pray for him.
Click to expand...

So he's off-handedly addressing reasons that people are throwing out there for this event, each of which he backhands away before moving onto his point.
Not exactly an iron-tipped barb of an accusation when read in context, is it?
 
Here's another one:

"But it’s always a very tricky business to interpret the purpose of the divine providence. After all, plenty of good, even saintly, people die prematurely from terrible diseases all the time, and lots of atheists and vile sinners live long prosperous lives before dying peacefully in their beds."

Good, he's placing atheists and "vile sinners" in the same category.

What a ****.:mad:
 
AvalonXQ said:
So, what Hitchens was doing when he chose to undergo treatment... was that "working"? I'm pretty sure the thing that Dawkins, Hitchens, and Randi (among others) are known and admired for doing is the exact same category of thing that you think of priests as doing.
Click to expand...

educating people and telling fairy tales ain't the same thing exactly.
 
Pardalis said:
Here's another one:

"But it’s always a very tricky business to interpret the purpose of the divine providence. After all, plenty of good, even saintly, people die prematurely from terrible diseases all the time, and lots of atheists and vile sinners live long prosperous lives before dying peacefully in their beds."

Good, he's placing atheists and "vile sinners" in the same category.

What a ****.:mad:
Click to expand...

Okay, I think I'm understanding -- you're angry because this priest agrees with most Christians that atheists are sinners, and they're wrong because God exists. That's pretty much the extent of it, huh? It's wrong to mention that Hitchens has cancer and also that you disagree with him in the same article?
Because honestly, I'm having trouble seeing anything else to be upset about here.
 
DC said:
educating people and telling fairy tales ain't the same thing exactly.
Click to expand...

But in terms of deciding whether or not they're "work" I have trouble seeing the distinction.
Getting out an important mesage to people -- making your livelihood by talking and writing -- is either "work" or it's not, whether you agree with the message or not. If it's not work when priests do it, it must not be work when Hitchens does it.
Which means it's one guy who doesn't have to work for a living talking about another guy who doesn't either, right?
 
AvalonXQ said:
But in terms of deciding whether or not they're "work" I have trouble seeing the distinction.
Getting out an important mesage to people -- making your livelihood by talking and writing -- is either "work" or it's not, whether you agree with the message or not. If it's not work when priests do it, it must not be work when Hitchens does it.
Which means it's one guy who doesn't have to work for a living talking about another guy who doesn't either, right?
Click to expand...

they all make a living, but i have seen nuns work to make a living.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom