There are many Christians who aren't Creationists, aren't Calvinists, and who don't fuse their faith with their politics. I hope Hitch finds himself on stage with one of those one of these days.

I'd offer St. Paul, Minnesota's Greg Boyd as an example:

<link>

I'll follow Hitchens' teachings when he rises from dead. "Remember man that thou are dust and to dust you shall return."

But he did rise from the dead. As proof, I offer you this divinely inspired post.

I’d like to see Hitchens debate Armstrong so she can defend the ideas in her new book, “The Case for God” (Which I have not read except for some advance excerpts):

Religion was never supposed to provide answers to questions that lay within the reach of human reason," Armstrong concludes. "Religion's task, closely allied to that of art, was to help us live creatively, peacefully, and even joyfully with realities for which there were no easy explanations."

This is not an easy task. True religion "requires a great deal of effort and cannot succeed if it is facile, false, idolatrous, or self-indulgent."

Read more: <link>

That’s a debate I’d like to see. Maybe I could gain a greater understanding of this whole mythos/logos thing. (The Battle for God by Karen Armstrong, which I enjoyed by the way)

You clearly like to believe in what many others feel is a myth. Of course there is no reason to debate what someone feels is truth verses what someone else feels is a myth, but I wonder what you think of the other religion's so called truths?

Are their book gospel also? Why not? Why should anyone respect your myths if you don't respect theirs? As an agnostic I disrespect all of them but at least I do so openly.

Maybe an animist.

Armstrong wouldn't do all that well either because her arguement is ahistoric and presumes a positivist religion.

For example

This is not an easy task. True religion "requires a great deal of effort and cannot succeed if it is facile, false, idolatrous, or self-indulgent."

Why not? The Secret, Mormonism, Scientology all are facile and self-indulgent. That's why they were created - to justify that behaviour. And they are very succesful. And how are they "less TRUE" than Armstrong's beliefs?

Religion was never supposed to provide answers to questions that lay within the reach of human reason," Armstrong concludes.

Completely ahistoric. The desert religions (Islam, Jewish and Christian) all are very much about daily lives and daily practice and very much that which lays within the reach of human reason but which should not be indulged.

I don't see how non-creationism, non-calvinism gets you anywere but being unable to fend off the accusation of Cafeteria Christianity.

degsme:

I don't see how non-creationism, non-calvinism gets you anywere but being unable to fend off the accusation of Cafeteria Christianity.

If the only valid Christianity is creationist and Calvinist, then Catholics, Anglicans/Episcopelians, Methodists, Lutherans, and even a majority of Baptists are not Christian. In effect you're saying that the vast majority of people who self-identify as Christian are not, in fact, Christian. This hardly seems fair; either you're an unabashedly belittling those who do not share your faith as a creationist Calvinist, or you're grossly misrepresenting the beliefs of the larger community of Christian faithful in order to serve your anti-Christian agenda.

I don't believe that's what he's saying, I think degsme is referring to the original poster's suggestion that Hitchens should find a non-creationist, non-calvinist to debate and that it would not be likely to very fruitful, which is an assumption that I would agree with. For one thing, Hitchens doesn't just go around debating the crazier side of religiosity, which would make life much easier for him. Dealing with creationists is like shooting fish in a barrel, especially for someone like Hitchens. Instead he goes out of his way to try and find comparable intellects from the opposing side of the religious aisle that he can have conversations with. degsme's mention of not being able to fend off accusations of cafeteria christianity is valid, in terms of the mild-mannered christians who want to debate about how their faith is tolerant and relevant and a force for good. That may or may not be true and is certainly open to debate, but it is hard to deny that this view of their religion is nevertheless an evolution of christian faith, based on reinterpretations of scripture and doctrines to accommodate modern views. This perspective might seem more cuddly and less open to attack from Hitchens and other anti-religious people but in fact it only highlights the man-made nature of religion all the more and is easily refutable.

...[I]t is hard to deny that this view of their religion is nevertheless an evolution of christian faith, based on reinterpretations of scripture and doctrines to accommodate modern views. This perspective might seem more cuddly and less open to attack from Hitchens and other anti-religious people but in fact it only highlights the man-made nature of religion all the more and is easily refutable.

By recommending a Greg Boyd link, I did not turn anyone over to an "accommodating" and "modern" view of Christianity. In fact, Boyd looks back to the Early Church to justify his teachings.

Among those teachings is that to follow Christ is to live a life of non-violence and to not kill for your government. That belief alone will invite more persecution (and less "cuddly-ness") than almost any other Christian belief.

To wish that Hitch would find his way into a discussion with someone like Greg Boyd is to wish that Hitch would finally encounter what I believe is the true heart of Christianity. And not the nationalistic and idolatrous version Hitch butts heads against on his debate tours.

degsme: Armstrong wouldn't do all that well either because her arguement is ahistoric and presumes a positivist religion.

I beg to differ…

This is really why Hitchens does not debate Armstrong (and if a guy named Jeremy comes along, this is called satire, I am making this up, Hitchens and Armstrong did not really say this, again I repeat…this is called satire):

Moderator: Do you believe in Creationism?

Hitchens: No.

Armstrong: No

Moderator: Do you believe in a concept called “God”?

Hitchens: No.

Armstrong: Yes.

Moderator: Why?

Hitchens: Because it is unscientific in that as a hypothesis it is not falsifiable.

Armstrong: (Beaming) Exactly!

I just wanted to add that fundamentalism and creationism are actually newer versions of Christianity. Catholicism, for example, does not teach creationism or biblical literalism (I learned about evolution in my Jesuit-taught biology class). One is not a cafeteria Christian because one rejects versions of faith that pit themselves against science and common sense. And certainly theology changes over time--religion is not static, but is an ongoing connection to and relationship with God and the world around us. If we hadn't learned anything in 2000 years, we'd be a pretty sad lot.

But even the New Testament teaching on Righteous Anger (moneychangers in the temple) contradicts that absolute claim to non-violence. Jesus is perfectly violent, intolerant and even hateful in his dealing with those that are "desacrating" the sacred.

And that inherently (combined with Revelations, and Acts) gives succor to anything but Non-violence. Now you can argue these are abberational parts. You can recontextualize these stories, but in doing so, you are engageing in Cafeteria Chrisitianity (Thank you btw for the poster who more eloquently said what I had intended to say by invoking this).

But that IS Hitch's arguement, though you cut it off. The next two questions would be:

Moderator: Do you believe that if you put a pot of hot water on a hot stove it will boil

Hitchen's Yes

Armstrong Yes

Moderator - Reconcile this please with your views on God.

Hitchens: well statsitically its possible for the water to freeze but the probability is so infintesimal that its irrelevant and empiricism tells me there is no God and water will boil

Amstrong - well I use empiricism in 99% of my life but let myself be irrational WRT God.

Hardly a strong case made by Armstrong.