http://www.salon.com/2013/06/23/christop...singleton/
Now this is where the critic lost me, QUOTE ARTICLE "At one point he calls the story of Abraham and Isaac “mad and gloomy,” a “frightful” and “vile” “delusion,” but sees no reason to mention Kierkegaard’s complex, poetic, and deeply felt philosophical retelling of the story in “Fear and Trembling”. In this way, Hitchens is often as much a textual literalist as the fundamentalists he criticizes."
Typical tactic of the politically correct atheist. They point to the "rich history" and "beauty" in the words and the "poetry" of it all. Hichtens did not lie about a fucking thing about any religion. If alive today he'd argue "so what" pretty does not mean good. It is like pointing at the volcano when it isn't active and sticking your head in the sand and pretending it is not dangerous. That is what this author is doing. And as far as Hitchens being a literalist, no, he reads it through the minds of literalists because there are people who use holy books as weapons. This author is the deluded one. Hitchens wasn't ignoring anything or leaving anything out. His focus was on the dark side of religion, this author is the one chosing to ignore reality, not Hitchens. A pretty hand grip on a handgun does not make it safe or good.
Now this is where the critic lost me, QUOTE ARTICLE "At one point he calls the story of Abraham and Isaac “mad and gloomy,” a “frightful” and “vile” “delusion,” but sees no reason to mention Kierkegaard’s complex, poetic, and deeply felt philosophical retelling of the story in “Fear and Trembling”. In this way, Hitchens is often as much a textual literalist as the fundamentalists he criticizes."
Typical tactic of the politically correct atheist. They point to the "rich history" and "beauty" in the words and the "poetry" of it all. Hichtens did not lie about a fucking thing about any religion. If alive today he'd argue "so what" pretty does not mean good. It is like pointing at the volcano when it isn't active and sticking your head in the sand and pretending it is not dangerous. That is what this author is doing. And as far as Hitchens being a literalist, no, he reads it through the minds of literalists because there are people who use holy books as weapons. This author is the deluded one. Hitchens wasn't ignoring anything or leaving anything out. His focus was on the dark side of religion, this author is the one chosing to ignore reality, not Hitchens. A pretty hand grip on a handgun does not make it safe or good.
