Christopher Hitchens on Real Time: The Pope is a Criminal

See the video below:

17 comments:

Marcus McElhaney said...

Hitchens seems drunk. He even has a bottle of something onstage with him. Look at the 22 sec debate. He didn't really seem all there.

Greg said...

Hitch, famously, (and supposedly) can handle the best of debaters completely hammered. I doubt that he is, however. It's just part of his brand. (It's also a bit of Cambridge debate tactic)

Dorian King said...

Hichens is always drunk, that's part of what makes him awesome!

Lee said...

I don't think he seems drunk at all. He was completely engaged, pretty charming and funny, actually.

Odd comment, Marcus. The fact is he was laying out the truth about the Catholic church . . . a bunch of criminals and others who protect them.

Jim said...

Whether Hitchens is drunk or not is completely irrelevant, Marcus. He is still spot on. Are you going to defend the Pope?

Marcus McElhaney said...

in no way would I defend the pope but 5this is my full response

Jim said...

Marcus, I read your post on your link and you seem to be saying that pedophila is on a par with homosexuality and adult infidelity, and that it will be accepted as normal eventually.
The difference is the same difference that exists between rape and consenting sex between adults. There is a huge power differential, and lasting psychological and physical damage is done to the victims, who have no choice in the matter.
The Old Testament actually advocates rape in several places, along with slavery.

Marcus McElhaney said...

@Jim, I agree that there is a power differential but what difference does that really make? Physical and psychological damage (just not as obvious) is a result of all sexual immorality that is why the Bible condemns it. The bible does not advocate rape...it describes that rape happened. If you believe that the Bible advocates rape, let's look at the text and see if that is true. What are you basing that claim on?

Jim said...

John can probably give you the exact quotes re rape in the Bible. I believe it is in Exodus where the Israelites were encouraged to kill their enemies and rape their women.
Also if a man raped a woman, he was told to marry her-as if that made everything OK!
What kind of psychological damage is done by two consenting adults having sex-homosexual or otherwise.Much more damage is done by some churches trying to cure homsexuals with exorcisms, electric shocks etc.
The ten commandments did not say that rape, pedophilia or slavery were bad things.
Do you think it is wrong to masturbate as well? It says so in the Bible (story of Onan)

You seem to be a Bible literalist. Are you also a young earth creationist? (I know that is off topic, but if you are, then there is no point in my discussing anything with you further)

Marcus McElhaney said...

@Jim

I'm not young earth creationist.

The israelites were not encouraged to rape anyone. And when you actually read the law concenring raope we see protections for the woman. You can't just treat a woman any kind of way.

There are around 613 commands through Moses. Rape, pedophilia is covered in those not in the 10 commandments. Of course pedophilia is outlawed because we are all require to only have sex with our spouses and we can't marry Children. The ten are just a subset.The Bible does not tell us to cure homosexuals. We have to let God cure them. Only Jesus can free us from our sins. This is what the Bible teaches.

Genesis 38, in context, has nothing to do with masturbation. Masturbation is whn you make yourslf experience a shadow of an orgasm. Onan was not alone when he spilled his semen on the ground. He was having sex with Tamar and using her, but refused to fulfill his obligation to her to impregnate her because of his won selfishness. He was only concerned about getting off. That is why God killed him. i would say Onan died because Her never let Tamr finish and was only concerned with himself.

I'm not asking you to proved passages because I know which ones are twisted to say things that the scripture does not say. Therefore I leave it to you to produce the scripture supporting your claims.

Jim said...

Marcus<

Here you are as requested:

In the Old Testament Moses encourages his men to use captured virgins for their own sexual pleasure, i.e. to rape them. After urging his men to kill the male captives and female captive who are not virgins he says: "But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves" (Numbers 31: 18). God then explicitly rewards Moses by urging him to distribute the spoils. He does not rebuke Moses or his men (Numbers 31: 25-27).

Marcus McElhaney said...

@Jim

Why would you assume that the scripture is saying that 6the men should rape the virgins? Where does it say that? Are you saying that the Hebrew tells you that the virgins were raped? It's not in the English translations. Saving the virgins "for yourselves" does not mean you get to rape them, only that you can marry them.

Clare said...

Marcus, I think your interpretation is a little naive!
What do you expect "take" the virgins means? I really doubt that the conquering forces would marry them! The virgins were the spoils of war.

Marcus McElhaney said...

@Clare. I'm not saying that Israelite men didn't rape...but the command from God did not involve rape. Read Deuteronomy 21:10-14 to get the full law.

Clare said...

"Read Deuteronomy 21:10-14 to get the full law."
Even if the aggressor marries the captive woman, that is still rape.
And God is giving this as a command. The woman has no choice. So what if he sets her free afterwards?
Don't forget that in those days, if a man had sex with a woman on a regular basis, she was considered to be his wife-no ceremony necessary

Marcus McElhaney said...

@Clare

"Read Deuteronomy 21:10-14 to get the full law."
Even if the aggressor marries the captive woman, that is still rape.
And God is giving this as a command. The woman has no choice. So what if he sets her free afterwards?
Don't forget that in those days, if a man had sex with a woman on a regular basis, she was considered to be his wife-no ceremony necessary


The law does not say that the man can force the woman to have sex with him if she does not want to. If she displeases him he has to let her go without penalty (And I'm sure that would be a sure way to displease him!) And I want to know where did you read that in ancient Israel "that in those days, if a man had sex with a woman on a regular basis, she was considered to be his wife-no ceremony necessary"? That isn't in the Bible. That is how we act today.

mdg583 said...

The law was written to an unredeamed people. It reflects God's charecter, but often doesn't outline the specific will of God. The easiest way to see this is that the law allows divorce, while Jesus forbade it. This is because it would have been unreasonable to expect of an unredeemed people to abstain from divorce - in the end you would get people who don't feel they can ever live up to the expectation. So the law was catered to a sinful people - while it still reflects the charecter of God. For instance with Deuteronomy 21:10-14, you can see that respect is to be given to the captured woman - she is given rights that can't be taken away. So it teaches people about the reality justice, while in the end it can't make people truly just.

Note: I think it still was expected that people obey the law of God specifically, simply because the Israelites were in a covenant of obedience on the basis of the law.