bierkergaard

Hitchens squeals, (sorry I couldn't resist). It is a joke and only a joke... How is it moral to.....persuade devils to infest the bodies of pigs? This is actually the hardest question to answer in his litany of complaints about Jesus Christ. There is this issue with two men possessed by demons. The demons plead a job transfer to possess pigs, drown in the sea, and Jesus approves it. The men return to sanity, and the two thousand pigs and devils drown. General observations: - God owns the cattle on a thousand hills. He also own two thousand pigs. We are merely stewards of what He gives. If he wants to kill them, so be it. - Pigs and the sea were symbols of the unclean Gentile world. This is a pig prophesy in part because the Gospel is for the whole world. Where the Curse is found, and the Curser (Satan himself), the Gospel has authority. The Gospel was not just for the observant Jew in Palestine, it is for the whole world. - Perhaps the pig herders were doing wrong by being swineste

Hitchens asks in his NY TImes review of the Pullman book: "How is it moral to claim a monopoly on access to heaven, or to threaten waverers with everlasting fire?" It is not the claim that is moral or not...it is whether the claim is true or not. The truth of the claim establishes the morality. If true, it would be decidedly immoral not to tell humanity of it. Sin is like a cancer. If a researcher, a diabolical one at that, invented a cure for cancer, but withheld it because he really like to see others suffer, then he would be a moral monster. Even if it was in his lab where the cure was created and he owns all rights to it legally. He has the credentials, the training, and the trials conducted on cancer victims in a country in the developing world. The cure works 100 percent of the time. Now, imagine a counter-situation. He has found the cure for cancer and wants to share it but no one believes him. In fact, he is ostracized by the medical community, pharmaceutical compani

Hitchens in his New York Times book review (go back to the original post ) expresses general admiration for Thomas Jefferson. Hitchens seems especially enamored with T.J. taking a razor to the New Testament and literally castrating it of its miracles and supernatural narrative. What was left, according to Jefferson, was the most sublime moral teaching ever. First things first, Jesus disavowed the "only a teacher" title. He was not only a teacher...instead He was and is God in human flesh....our prophet, priest, and king. The second piece of my reply to the Jefferson's, Hitchens and their ilk, is that you like to harp on the inconsistencies of Christians to live up to a morality that you don't even believe is true. How odd! The miracles back-up the morality. It is downright dishonest to write that you have great admiration for Jesus's moral teaching but then either disavow the miracles presented in the Bible or overlook that these supposed supernaturally-laden ev

At the beginning of the growing season, I was in K-Mart returning some goods and saw that K-M had some Pepper plants for sale. Well, they were labeled "Bell Peppers"...you know the one's that look like a bell and are a staple at every grocery store in the U.S. That's them. Turned out that the Bell Peppers are not. Before the actual pepper appears, pepper plants can look sort of the same to the untrained eye. It was cheap... Instead, they are these long Dr. Seuss-like fingers of royal burn-your-shorts peppers. I guess I should have suspected the K-Mart might screw-up. They are not exactly known for their market-savvy. Yet, it was convenient and I was not in the mood for shopping. When they began to grow, I wasn't sure what I was dealing with... Instead, I got a Franken-Pepper. We are thinking that the variety was cross-bred between a Jalapeño and a Bell in the jungles of Honduras. Here is the kicker. Originally, I wanted the Bell peppers for salsa as we also have t

"Give up on thrift and husbandry" I am not sure what Hitchens is referring to specifically here...my take on it is that he would say, for instance, that Peter leaving his fishing nets to become a fisher of men to be a fool's errand. Hitchens assumes preaching and teaching and ministering the Gospel to be a waste of time (at best), so he of course is going to frown on any transition of this nature. Peter gave up his fishing nets. Others surely moved in and took his place. The Apostle Paul made tents to pay his and others' bills so as to not give the enemies the Cross any place to stand is judgement of his motives as to why he was a missionary. He was the model of thrift and husbandry. These enemies still did question his motives mind you. It just goes to show that people see what they want to see and assume what they want to assume. Whose definition of thrift and husbandry is Hitchens using? His own. Clever but presumptive. And wrong. What gives Hitchens the moral auth

Hitchens writes in the review of Pullman's book: As an admirer of Jefferson and Renan and a strong nonadmirer of Lewis, I am bound to say that Lewis is more honest here. Absent a direct line to the Almighty and a conviction that the last days are upon us, how is it “moral” to teach people to abandon their families, give up on thrift and husbandry and take to the stony roads? How is it moral to claim a monopoly on access to heaven, or to threaten waverers with everlasting fire, let alone to condemn fig trees and persuade devils to infest the bodies of pigs? Such a person if not divine would be a sorcerer and a fanatic. Oh, this is much too easy. Does Hitchens really believe that a person unilaterally should never leave his or her family behind? Ever? Are there cases where such leaving is legit? Of course there are. Only an idiot would assert otherwise. Now that I have established that it can be a lawful and moral option to do so, at least the argument is on level ground. The probl

Christopher Hitchens is the anti-Christian du jour. He is a formidable opponent of the faith. I plan to address his points in his NY Times review of Phillip Pullman's book in this blog as I have time in the next couple of weeks and months. Christians should not fear intellectual lions like Hitchens. Someone so keen on Christian ineptitude and evil who glosses over the mendacity (that is far to mild a word for these evildoers) of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot--anti-Christs all--is fundamentally a dishonest person. If the gloves are off, let us truly decide who has done more evil in the A.D. era, the religious or the irreligious. Here is this review: Hopefully the NY Times keeps the link accessible for awhile. I will be quoting specific parts of Hitchens essay.