GENIUS FORUMS

First post, so Hello All. I found this podcast a few months back through the Sam Harris.org forum. Great stuff.

Basically, it's a question on the quote that David brought up on The World of Woman show thread, he says quoting Jesus in one response, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law — your enemies will be the members of your own household."

I've recently heard this same quote used by Hitchens in one or two of his interviews on youtube, but in a first degree manner - as if to descibe some depraved individual lacking any simple decency. Since David (or Dan, I'm not sure) cited it in a recent podcast (the one with the xtian guy) putting it in a context of wisdom and radical thinking, Hitchens' comments seem rather cheap and shallow, undermining his whole anti-theist argument. I find this unsettling since it only highlights my own ignorance in what's actually written in the Bible (I've never read it), and how powerful a voice writers like Hitchens can have in their otherwise admirable works.

My question is why do you think Christopher Hitchens uses this quote in a first degree manner without the least acknowledgment of a more radical reading? Doesn't he see it?

Hello Robert and welcome to the board. It's really a question you'd have to put to Hitchens himself. My guess would be that he doesn't get or, or that he's prepared to exploit any scripture he can to make his anti-theist, anti-Xian case, even if the quote in question can be removed from its "lets build a myth and a new religion" context and be viewed in a more philosophical manner. To be honest I don't especially care for Hitchens. Of all the atheist writers out there currently he is the most abrasive and arrogant. He's certainly not in the same class as Harris. I also can't stand his politics - but that's another matter perhaps. If you have not yet done so, I recommended a reading of the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas to get a more purely philosophical picture of Jesus as a figure. It's not really surprising that the so-called "Gnostic" gospels did not find their way into the "official" NT.

Here's a couple of pages which you can glean an insight into the "philosopher" Jesus:

The Horror of Jesus

Gospel of Thomas

Dan

Dan wrote:

To be honest I don't especially care for Hitchens. Of all the atheist writers out there currently he is the most abrasive and arrogant. He's certainly not in the same class as Harris.

Harris is definitely much more thoughtful, deep, and considerate, while Hitchen’s crass and raunchy nature reminds me of a comedy act the way he cleverly inserts one-liners into his speeches.

I don’t really see how their politics views differ all that much though. Perhaps you could share how you think they differ in political views Dan.

Robert wrote:

My question is why do you think Christopher Hitchens uses this quote in a first degree manner without the least acknowledgment of a more radical reading? Doesn't he see it?

Hitchen’s notion of freedom/morality only goes as far as examining the negative affects of religion, dictatorships, loss of human rights and that sort of thing. He is your classic contemporary secular British intellectual.

He doesn’t understand the profound significance of the Jesus quote because he still values things like family, wife, sex, community, and so on. He doesn’t see anything enslaving about these things, so Jesus’ statement is interpreted as barbaric because he takes the meaning literally.

I suppose that's what I had figured out myself, that he had just exploited the quote for his own ammunition and argument. It is quite revealing though how you guys (I mean the RS) as non-Xians can point out the wisdom in some of these citations, yet not one (as far as I know) of the Xian religious defenders in their counter attacks on Hitchens evoke this more radical perspective. I'm beginning to understand why that is.

I actually find Hitchens really funny, his abrasive and arrogant manner bring an appealingly refreshing attitude when cutting through some of the bullshit in the theist/atheist slagging matches that seem to be in fashion at the moment. Harris is in a different class though. Have you tried to get Sam as a guest? (I'm sure that question has been asked before).

Thanks for the links Dan. I'll be taking my time reading through them - I'm an apprentice genius.

Robert,

I can see a degree of sardonic humour in Hitchen's style, but when he starts to get political that effect starts to fade for me. But, well, he's speaking out against intellectual nonsense so it's not all bad. As for getting Sam as a guest, I was told that he's not doing any media for the moment as he's busy with other things, but I'll try again in the near future. I'm actually having trouble getting a reply from any atheist types (at least those with any profile).

Ryan,

It's Hitchen's support for the war on terror (in the form it now takes rather than just in principle) and the invasion of Iraq that especially turns me off. His analysis of it is no more sophisticated than that of most conservatives, really. He comes off as a medieval crusader type.

Meant to to reply to this paragraph also:

Robert wrote:I suppose that's what I had figured out myself, that he had just exploited the quote for his own ammunition and argument. It is quite revealing though how you guys (I mean the RS) as non-Xians can point out the wisdom in some of these citations, yet not one (as far as I know) of the Xian religious defenders in their counter attacks on Hitchens evoke this more radical perspective. I'm beginning to understand why that is.

For us it isn't necessary to do a baby/bathwater thing where Jesus is concerned; there's too much rich and useful material there to be doing that. It'd be almost as bad as tossing out the Buddha's teachings because of a certain amount of religious bullshit that grew up around him. When you read through the Gospel of Thomas you'll find a Jesus largely stripped bare of the story-line myth stuff. It's not easy going, but then no esoteric type of philosophy is. We essentially see Jesus as a Zen master type of teacher who speaks within his contemporary cultural and religious framework. He's a very interesting character when seen in this light.