Spirituality
16 Dec 11
Originally posted by RBHILLWhy do you follow Jesus? Presumably to make sense of your own life. Why would Hitchens have "repented" when he clearly did not follow Jesus?
For if you don't then why follow Jesus?
Hitchens debated and rejected your religionist doctrines during his lifetime. Now he dies from cancer and then in some kind twisted eulogy - which seems to be, deep down, all about you rather than him - you express your superstitious "hopes" and make assertions about him, and the meaning of his life, that he is unable to respond to.
You trying to persuade Hitchens - to "repent" - in his lifetime is one thing, but pontificating about your partisan religious creed as you stand over his grave... well, surely, you realize that some people who might ordinarily respect you are going to not respect you on this matter?
18 Dec 11
Originally posted by PsychoPawnWhen he no longer exists,where is the question of his being at peace or not at peace ?
In what way would he not be at peace?
By definition, being at peace means that he is tranquil and deceased is also a definition of being "at peace" so it seems to me that he is by definition, at peace.
18 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoMany Christians believe that - because he had a different belief system from them - he is now burning in hell and will do so for eternity [i.e. "not at peace"] - one doesn't have to look far on the internet to find Christians wishing this upon him, for what it's worth. And there are a few here on this forum who have rejoiced at and/or welcomed his death, or - like jaywill - sought to smear him by comparing him to persecutors and gross violators of human rights - so perhaps they imagine him to be 'in hell' now, too. The opposite of this imaginary "not at peace" state, and having lived a life and then passed away, and therefore "no longer exist[ing]", could quite feasibly be described as "being at peace", wouldn't you agree?
When he no longer exists,where is the question of his being at peace or not at peace ?
18 Dec 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritPlease. Name one atheist who lived a selfless life of giving like Mother "T".
all the positive effects of religion in society can be gained without religion. on the other hand, all the negative aspects of society can be made worse by religion. ergo, religion is not beneficial enough to justify its negativity and it has largely become obsolete.
Just one.
18 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFAll that I really know about Hitchens is that he was a foul mouthed atheist who had Marxist leanings. As such, he devoted himself to attacking those of faith like Mother Teresa. He does this with the pretext of "caring for the poor". In doing so he elevates thugs like Lenin as the ones who have actually made a difference for the poor. However, when comparing the life work of Lenin and Mother "T" we see that this one sided historical view is a lie, and as such, Hitchens was simply an ideologue who was full of self deluded hypocrisy and self righteousness.
Why do you follow Jesus? Presumably to make sense of your own life. Why would Hitchens have "repented" when he clearly did not follow Jesus?
Hitchens debated and rejected your religionist doctrines during his lifetime. Now he dies from cancer and then in some kind twisted eulogy - which seems to be, deep down, all about you rather than him - you express your some people who might ordinarily respect you are going to not respect you on this matter?
18 Dec 11
Originally posted by whodeyI found much to admire in a lot of his writing.
All that I really know about Hitchens is that he was a foul mouthed atheist who had Marxist leanings. As such, he devoted himself to attacking those of faith like Mother Teresa. He does this with the pretext of "caring for the poor". In doing so he elevates thugs like Lenin as the ones who have actually made a difference for the poor. However, when compar ...[text shortened]... chens was simply an ideologue who was full of self deluded hypocrisy and self righteousness.
18 Dec 11
Originally posted by FMFLiving humans are at liberty to describe Hitchens being either at peace or burning in hell.The fact is that Hitchens is dead. To describe someone who is dead as " at peace " or " not at peace " is just to indulge our fancies, the fancies of living humans ! Hitchens has passed into history. Question of Hitchens being now at peace or not at peace simply does not arise.
Many Christians believe that - because he had a different belief system from them - he is now burning in hell and will do so for eternity [i.e. "not at peace"] - one doesn't have to look far on the internet to find Christians wishing this upon him, for what it's worth. And there are a few here on this forum who have rejoiced at and/or welcomed his death, or - li ...[text shortened]... t[ing]", could quite feasibly be described as "being at peace", wouldn't you agree?
Our usual reaction about someone-- respected/near and dear-- who is dead is to express a desire that his soul should rest in peace.Since our life here is so much fraught with unhappiness and strife, it is a perfectly natural and civilised reaction to wish that the soul of the respected/dear deceased should rest in peace. But to wish that the deceased should burn in hell is barbaric and vicious esp. since Hitchens was no cruel dictator or despot who had blood of millions on his hand.
Our Hindu book the Geeta simply says that it is the characteristic of the Living to die. This being so,the steadfast one is not moved by Death.
18 Dec 11
Originally posted by FMFI am not suggesting anything like that.My post-in-reply is a general reply and does not impute to you any bias or motive. All I am saying is that it is we living humans who give their reactions about someone's death and these reactions could be anything. While some reactions are civilised,others are not. But all reactions are pointless,since there is a finality about death that,at least,atheists should acknowledge.
I haven't proposed the curtailing of anyone's "liberty" to say what they want about anything. Are you suggesting that I have?
The Hindu theists will have to be be steadfast if they go by the Geeta.
Further, in the Geeta it is stated that we are reborn after our death in accordance with our actions whether meritorious or otherwise.Belief in Rebirth is one of the distinguishing tenets of Hinduism.
Take note that my replies have no personal bias,no ad hominem arguments.
18 Dec 11
Originally posted by whodeyI don't quite see how her life was "selfless"? She was extremely famous, a fact that she cashed in on in an almost amoral way; she wielded considerable power; she travelled the world repeatedly and dined at the tables of fascist dictators; and she did as much as she could to spread the corporate power tentacles of Catholic Church within which she was a high profile and influential figure. Perhaps some of the orderlies and nuns in some of her 'homes' might be described as "selfless", but it's a label that does not sit well with media icon Mother Teresa.
Please. Name one atheist who lived a selfless life of giving like Mother "T".
Just one.
18 Dec 11
Originally posted by FMFThis sounds very much like the charges the Pharisee accused Jesus of.
I don't quite see how her life was "selfless"? She was extremely famous, a fact that she cashed in on in an almost amoral way; she wielded considerable power; she travelled the world repeatedly and dined at the tables of fascist dictators; and she did as much as she could to spread the corporate power tentacles of Catholic Church within which she was a high pro ...[text shortened]... ed as "selfless", but it's a label that does not sit well with media icon Mother Teresa.
You probably don't think much of Jesus either, I would imagine.
