Hitchens: has some good arguments that I have discussed friends. Such as, if Christians aren't at least a little fundamentalist in their beliefs (like with, you know, simple stuff like Jesus' birth, death, and resurrection), then what is the point? Might as well be a humanitarian. I sort of agree, sort of disagree. Mostly, because I do see something different in the Christian narrative (or maybe I just want to see it that way?). Regardless, I might put him in a category of politics/economics/science, essentially being his "religion"... Which sometimes seems no different to me than religion, except less forgiving, less exceptions, and more pessimistic (for the most part).
Sewell: A little out there for me. Seemed like her and Hitchens had nothing to fight about, and were essentially the same (which was the annoying thing about the article). But she was less negative/harsh than he was about the whole Christian thing.
I don't really know what to make of it. I'm still trying to figure out the difference between an active, social justicey, non-evangelical, pacifist Christianity and humanitarianism. Is it just motivation and beliefs?
