I watched the video and thought it was ok. I did not find Hitchens to be angry and attacking- he seemed pretty even keeled. However, as CrazyHelloDeli noted, Hitchens is either ill-informed regarding the contents of the bible, or was setting up a strawman. Here are my responses to the first half of the video. I have to go to bed so I will post responses to the rest of it tomorrow.
1. Hitchens first argument is that the sacrifice of Christ is essentially morally bankrupt b/c the individual responsibility of a person for their sin is completely wiped out- one can take the punishment of a crime for another but this does not cause the person to be "wiped clean" from the responsibility of the crime- there is no forgiveness through the act of another. --- If you committed a crime against me, could I not forgive you? If you insulted me or punched me or took my lunch from me, can I not choose to forgive you? If we sin against God, can He not choose to forgive us in the same way I can forgive you for committing a wrong act against me? And if it is such that God's holy character demands that a penalty be paid, and for the sake of humanity puts the penalty on His Son, can He not choose to put the penalty on His son? If the sin is against Him and His holy character demands that the sin must be punished, can He not offer up His Son as the sacrifice for our forgiveness? It seems to me that the power to forgive lies in the hand of the offended and not the offender.
2. Hitchens speaks of Christ's execution as something that humanity as indeividuals are reponsible for in terms of , we as individuals are responsible for the act itself; Hitchens claims unfair b/c:
A. most of humanity was not there to stop it - whether or not we tried to stop the act, we would still be guilty b/c it is not the act itself we are held guilty for- we are held guilty for our Sin that Christ was sacrificed for;
B. We were not consulted when God decided to Sacrifice His son in our stead- since when does the judge ask the condemned what His sentence for them should be?
3. Totaliarianism? No matter who you are, you are born under authority. Until the day you die, you are under authority and have limited independence, be it parents, teachers, government, Boss, etc. This is no different with God. Why would anyone think any differently? So if there is a God we would not be under his total authority b/c it isn't "nice"?
4. SAying the belief is based upon wishful thinking is an assumption completely of Hitchen's own making. This assumption is forced upon those who believe merely through his force of words, and nothing more. His argument seems to rely upon hearing the "religious" saying "It may or may not be true- the main thing is that it makes me feel better." So we are to rely upon his heresay in order to validate his point?
5. Hitchens claims that the Bible teaches that people do not have am understanding of the concept of right and wrong innately. He obviously does not know the Bible as the bible teaches that God put His law into man- in fact, this was part of the Fall of Man- to become like God and know right and wrong.
6. Compulsory love? You don't have to love or even obey God in this life. It is very clear in the Bible that people are given the choice to love Him and obey Him. He does not force either on anyone. Also, to fear God is not to be terrified- it is to be in Awe of Him- this is much different than terror.