this post was submitted on
51 points (89% like it)
58 up votes 7 down votes

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own!

all 12 comments

[–]workbob 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

George Carlin did this schtick funnier and faster. I wish Mr. Hitchens to find new things, not re-address old.

[–]NuclearWookie 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm certainly not religious, but let me attempt to play the devil's advocate here. Some Christians believe that the Ten Commandments were superceded by the Golden Rule in the history of the God's relationship to man. Their theory goes that God chilled out at some point and decided to knock up Mary since he had decided that the old covenant with man needed to expand to all humanity. The essence of Jesus' message could be distilled to the Golden Rule, which is generally to not be a dick, and essentially covers the territory covered by the Commandments that didn't apply to non-Jews.

In terms of sociological game theory, I think one can arrive at the Golden Rule withou having to base it in superstition.

[–]Pilebsa 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The problem is, there really is no biblical basis for the notion that the OT rules no longer apply. There are multiple verses in the NT that say otherwise. The "new covenant" is another invention borne of interpretation, not unlike the "pro life" movement, which also has no direct scriptural support.

[–]critdragon 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Normally i love Hitchins, i mean i've read God is not Great and many of his articles in VF but for some reason i feel this one has lost his essence as it were. It was not his strongest piece despite being on a subject one would assume he feels passionately for, it was also not as engaging as his other pieces. Overall I feel that the article had the potential, but ultimately i feel something seems to have been holding Hitchins back from his usual standard of great work. Please disagree if you must, but compared to his previous work, i feel this is relatively poor.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I do agree, but I think the video version of it is much better; succinct, witty, and without the "fluff" I felt present in the article. There are undeniably some great thoughts in the article, but it could've sufficed as a blog post - it seems, to me at least, that he had to stretch it to article length. I do like Hitchen's "new commandments", though.

[–]cyantist 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well, yeah, the video is edited :D

He has said it well, from the perspective that it needs to be said and all points are reasonable.

Admittedly I am unfamiliar with his work. Thanks for the link.

[–]BevansDesign 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Is this a reprint? I think I've seen it before, or he's repeating himself in several places (which is fine).

It may not be his most fiery or witty writing, but it does a great job presenting his points without coming across as something that can just be written off as god-hating. We all know he's an atheist, but you wouldn't necessarily be able to judge that from this article if you didn't know who he was.

[–]cgoof6 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

i'm not sure if it's what your thinking of, but it's a less funny version of a george carlin stand-up routine.

[–]BevansDesign 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm pretty sure this isn't intended to be comedy.

[–]cgoof6 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

i don't either, but it's still similar to what carlin did. not a ripoff by any means, but reminiscent of it.

[–]zck 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

IX Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. ...Note, also, how relatively flexible this commandment is. Its fulcrum is the word “against.” If you are quite sure of somebody’s innocence and you shade the truth a little in the witness-box, you are no doubt technically guilty of perjury and may be privately troubled.

Somehow, Hitchens misses that it doesn't say you can't bear false witness for your neighbor -- "no, your honor, he couldn't have murdered anyone; he was with me the whole night".

[–]effigies 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This is a very astounding post. Not only do you make an incorrect assessment, you quote the very segment that disproves your assessment as evidence of said assessment.

A paraphrasing of your post follows:

Commandment IX says "against", not "for".

Hitchens failed to realize it doesn't say "for"!