Silent no More: The Rise of the New Atheists

[Jagella]

I read some very good news in the April 2018 Scientific American. Michael Shermer writes in his Skeptic column "that 23 percent of all Americans have forsaken religion all together." The 23 percent figure is based on a 2013 Harris Poll and corroborated by a 2015 Pew Research Center poll. It is a "dramatic increase" from 2007 when only 16 percent of polled Americans said they were affiliated with no religion.

Why these poll results are so important to me is that the real good news is that America has a chance to lead the world with a new sense of social responsibility. We atheists can succeed where religionists have failed. As religion and superstition decline; science, critical thinking, and true morality can increase. We can level the playing field for all Americans granting everybody a chance to make something out of themselves. Let's leave religion and all its "bad fruit" behind forever!

Our efforts to turn the tables on Christianity appear to be working. Do you agree?

[tam]

Peace to you!

This does not answer the question put to you. Also - assuming then that the OT GOD said that all adulterers should be stoned to death, what do you make of the story where the crowd tested Jesus and he told them that those without sin could cast the first stone, and when no one did cast the stones, the adulterous was spared?
It appears to me that either Jesus was not representing the OT idea of GOD, or if he was, then he has changed his mind.
Assuming also that Jesus was without sin, even his allowing for that anyone without sin could throw the first stone, Jesus himself did not throw a stone at the adulterer.

With all that in mind, it does appear that your reasoning above is faulty.

Why not simply answer my question and bring the actual quotes that Jesus orders Christians to murder others?

Or - failing that, admit that you are misleading/mislead.

Nonsensical ramblings devoid of any logic in order to defend contradictions in the Bible.

Yet you won't answer the questions that William has asked. Why is that?

My reasoning is not faulty.

The conclusion : " Therefore they would be following Jesus’s orders." follows logically from the premise that Jesus is God, part of the triune God along with Yahweh.

First, the premise is faulty (there is no trinity).

Second, "your" reasoning renders Christ as being absolutely meaningless. He may as well never have come or spoken or taught or done anything at all, because according to your reasoning, nothing He said or did matters at all.

So never mind that Christ rebuked His disciples when they though to commit violence. Never mind that Christ said (as is recorded in that very book), that HE is the Truth and the Word of God. That if one knows Him... THEN... one knows God. Because He is the Image of God. Never mind that He said that HE came to testify to the truth; and that no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the SON chooses to reveal Him (the Father).

And what about all those times when Christ said, 'you have heard it said, but I tell you now..." where He is correcting something that has been taught in error? And do you not recall where He said to the people concerning a particular law, that 'Moses gave you this law because your hearts were hard, but it was not this way from the beginning." Showing that allowances had been made in the law, to compensate for the hard hearts of the people?

The fact the Jesus words contradict Yahweh words it is not my problem. This is Bible's problem.

So what makes you so sure that you should not be looking at things in reverse (compared to what you are currently doing)? That you should be looking at Christ to know God, rather than at God (or rather the description given in the OT or in various religions) to know Christ? If you had an accurate image with which to look at God, you might be able to do it your way... but the accurate (truthful) image of God is Christ!

You can't refuse to even look at Christ, and expect to be able to see God.


Have you not considered that one of the reasons Christ came was to set the record straight? I mean, even in what is recorded, God said "This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to HIM."

Q: Why should i ignore the God's(Yahweh's) directives from Deuteronomy(let's not forget they include the 10 commandments)? Why should i ignore the most important creed in Christianity, the idea Jesus is God part of triune God?:-s

Observations: An immutable, omniscient being that changes his mind is an illogical concept.

[/quote]


Question 1 - Because at the culmination of that book, God says to listen to His Son. So anyone who is a disciple of that Son is naturally also listening to the Father, by listening to the Son. If you were doing this, then you might understand that all the law and the prophets hang upon the two most important commandments: love God with your whole heart, mind and soul; and love your neighbor as yourself. Christ gave us a couple more as well: love your enemies that you might be sons of our Father in heaven; and love one another as I have loved you.

Because the law of God - that is written upon the heart - is love.

Question 2 - Why should you accept it, would be my question. I realize that some of William's questions had to do with Christianity, so perhaps that is why you brought this up. BUT... listening to Christianity is not the same as listening to Christ. Christianity (the religion) often teaches its people in contradiction to Christ. Proving that it (Christianity) is not listening to Christ and if people are then following it... well that would be the blind leading the blind.


Observation 3 - Christ is the One who reveals God as God TRULY is.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 87 by Realworldjack]

This is a really good point. How do they, the ?Abrahamic? peoples, enforce God’s covenant, since He has been remiss on his side of the bargain.
Are their cosmic police you can call?
Will Ptah act as your divine counsel and Thoth judge?
Yes, God has clearly violated an eternal and sacrosanct coventant, one that was unfair to begin with, obviously using omnipotence to cause duress in those subject.
The whole situation seems so unfair to the Abrahamic people’s. Can no one save them?...

I am really not sure what you are saying, but I can tell you that it is irrelevant, in that we are talking about whether Christians are obligated to the covenant made with Israel that involved conditions concerning their continuing to live in the "land of promise." Whether God has kept his end of the deal, would be a completely different topic, and I am not willing to go on another chase, until this one is settled.

[alexxcJRO]

Yet you won't answer the questions that William has asked. Why is that?

There was no need.
I already said Jesus was in opposition to what Yahweh said.
Therefore this implies Jesus was not advocating for people to commit murder.
Therefore I indirectly answer the questions.

First, the premise is faulty (there is no trinity).

My argument does cover the majority of Christians who believe Jesus to be God and part of the Triune God.

Q: Is Jesus God? (Yes/No question)

So never mind that Christ rebuked His disciples when they though to commit violence.

Yet Jesus committed violence.

Jesus cursed and caused a fig tree to die.
Jesus with whip in hand attacked the merchants in the Temple.

Have you not considered that one of the reasons Christ came was to set the record straight? I mean, even in what is recorded, God said "This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to HIM."

An omniscient being who changes his mind is an illogical concept.

Question 2 - Why should you accept it, would be my question. I realize that some of William's questions had to do with Christianity, so perhaps that is why you brought this up. BUT... listening to Christianity is not the same as listening to Christ. Christianity (the religion) often teaches its people in contradiction to Christ. Proving that it (Christianity) is not listening to Christ and if people are then following it... well that would be the blind leading the blind.


Observation 3 - Christ is the One who reveals God as God TRULY is.

So we should ignore what the prophets said in the Old Testament. Why? Were they not the vessels though which God(Yahweh) spoke?

[alexxcJRO]

I would like to point something out here. If you will notice, after God gave the tablets to Moses, God instructed Moses,

Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.

So then, who was this "covenant" made between? Well, it would seem it was between God, and Israel. I am not Jewish myself, and have never been a part of Israel.

However, this is not the only covenant that God has made. God also made a covenant with Abraham. This was a unilateral covenant, meaning that God made all the promises, and called down all the curses upon himself, if the covenant promises failed to be met. This means this covenant depended in no way upon Abraham. Moreover, this covenant was as everlasting covenant.

Now let us compare this covenant, with the one you are referring too, which is the covenant between Israel, and God. This covenant is a temporal covenant, and Israel's status in the land is dependent upon the conditions of the covenant.

So then, as we can see, the covenant made with Israel, is a temporal covenant, and was never intended to be binding upon anyone else. On the other hand, the covenant with Abraham was an everlasting covenant.

The covenant made with Israel, is a covenant of works, (do this and you will live). The covenant made with Abraham, is a covenant of promise. The question then becomes, should we grab a hold of the covenant of works, that depends upon our ability to keep promises? Or, do we grab a hold of the covenant that depends upon The One, and Only True, Promise Keeper?

This should explain clearly why we as Christians are not bound to the covenant made with Israel. We are not, because we should understand, any covenant that depends upon us, and out ability to keep promises, could never stand.

My argument was not about whether the covenant(the 10 commandments) was made with Israel or the world, if it’s temporary or everlasting.
You are arguing with a straw man.
Aetixintro said the 10 commandments are still valid and good.
I just point them to him to show how ridicule they sound and question their validity.

Therefore you should in fact argue with him.

Next, and off the topic, I would like to point something out in your signature. It says there,

God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not created us to invent him.

The word, "created" here seems out of place. Would this word not insinuate a "creator?" If not, would it not at least necessitate some sort of purpose? Did, or does evolution have a purpose?

Even though the word choice might not be the perfect one I am sure you get the message.
The point was to convey a message.

[Aetixintro]

Firstly,

This would imply the others are not good.
So your basically saying the other Yahweh's directives are bad.

Q: So do you think your God uttered bad directives to Moses?

Secondly,

You mean these 10 commandments:

Here are the ten commandments God wrote again on the tablets after Moses broke the first tablets:

"The New Stone Tablets
The Lord said to Moses, “Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke.� "…

1. Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

2. Do not make any idols.

3. Celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you.

4. The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock.

5. Six days you shall labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest.

6. Celebrate the Festival of Weeks with the first fruits of the wheat harvest, and the Festival of Ingathering at the turn of the year.

7. Three times a year all your men are to appear before the Sovereign Lord, the God of Israel.

8. Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast, and do not let any of the sacrifice from the Passover Festival remain until morning.

9. Bring the best of the first fruits of your soil to the house of the Lord your God.

10. Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk.

“Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.� 28 Moses was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.�(Exodus 34)

These are pretty ridiculous mostly “Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk�.

No! I do not mean those "10 Commandments" and you know it! You have pulled a strawman fallacy on me! This is a violation of good discussion! So now we know who you truly are!

The 10 Commandments: http://biblehub.com/niv/exodus/20.htm.

Note: Though, as I read the Mosaic Laws, some of them seem alright!

[Overcomer]

Just a note about the laws found in the Old Testament:

The ceremonial laws are no longer applicable. They were for the nation of Israel at that time. Therefore, laws about eating shellfish and swine or cooking goats or making bread without yeast, wearing such and such an item of clothing, etc. are no longer enforced. And there are actually a lot of good reasons why God instituted those laws. Some of them had to do with health. Others had to do with separating them from pagan nations, for example.

The ONLY Old Testament laws that have remained in effect are the moral laws. This is because God's idea of what constitutes sin and what doesn't constitute sin has never changed and never will.

That means God will never revoke the Ten Commandments that Aetixintro referred to:

1.You shall have no other gods before Me.
2.You shall not make idols.
3.You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
4.Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5.Honor your father and your mother.
6.You shall not murder.
7.You shall not commit adultery.
8.You shall not steal.
9.You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10.You shall not covet.

I think it was Martin Luther who said that, if you can keep the first commandment, you can easily keep all of the rest.

[alexxcJRO]

No! I do not mean those "10 Commandments" and you know it! You have pulled a strawman fallacy on me! This is a violation of good discussion! So now we know who you truly are!

The 10 Commandments: http://biblehub.com/niv/exodus/20.htm.

Q: Why so trigger happy?

You did not mention which ten commandments.

You are the one committing a logical fallacy. An add hominem.

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Note: Though, as I read the Mosaic Laws, some of them seem alright!

This would imply some of them are not alright.
So your basically saying some of Yahweh's commandments are bad.

Q: Do you think your God uttered some bad commandments?


And please do not ignore key points of my post.
This would imply the others are not good.
So your basically saying the other Yahweh's directives are bad.

Q: So do you think your God uttered bad directives to Moses?

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 97 by alexxcJRO]

"Q: So do you think your God uttered bad directives to Moses?"

They may have been more adequate at the time they were uttered so that God intended for the World to improve! (Or whatever... I do not read The Bible literally. I keep only main points, such as no evil into Heaven, good God, primordial evil and Devil, 10 Commandments, Golden Rule and Hell for those who do evil.)

[William]

[Replying to post 83 by alexxcJRO]

Nonsensical ramblings devoid of any logic in order to defend contradictions in the Bible. Eh? Shocked Confused

My reasoning is not faulty.

It surely is. You claim what I wrote and you quoted, is nonsensical, when indeed it does make sense.

You claim what I wrote and you quoted, is ramblings devoid of any logic, when indeed it is clear, to the point and logical.

You claim what I wrote and you quoted defends contradictions in the Bible, when it clearly isn't even focused upon the subject of contradictions but on the claim you made regarding Christians being sanctioned to murder others.

You further clarify your position of argument by stating that it is coming from the idea of 'the most important creed in Christianity, the idea Jesus is God part of triune God' .

As such, while you obviously cannot directly quote anything that Jesus is alleged to have said as being orders to his followers that they should murder others, you can special plead through the idea that 'Christianity accepts the idea of the trinity' which is not quite accurate anyway, as Christianity does not altogether accept that idea. A branch of Christianity does.

According to biblical reference, Jesus warned that many would be deceived in his name. I personally don't subscribe to the idea that the bible is 'The Irrefutable Word of GOD', so that alone frees me from having to get bogged down with the obvious contradictions, and allows me to pick and choose what I will from biblical referencing, based upon that warning.

In doing so I am dubious as to the stories which present Jesus cursing out of season fig trees or flying off the handle with whip in hand in the temple, as these are contradictory to his message of peace and love.

Your journey alongside your 'logic revealing a major inconsistency, contradiction' leaves things out, which is an act of inconsistency and contradiction in itself, and - of course - you are free to journey as you will - but you are not free to portray me in the same light through your obvious ignorance of who I am and what my position is. That is called projection and it creates a strawman out of 'me' for you to argue against, but ...well....'it ain't me'.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to post 97 by alexxcJRO]

"Q: So do you think your God uttered bad directives to Moses?"

They may have been more adequate at the time they were uttered so that God intended for the World to improve! (Or whatever... I do not read The Bible literally. I keep only main points, such as no evil into Heaven, good God, primordial evil and Devil, 10 Commandments, Golden Rule and Hell for those who do evil.)

Firstly,

Cherry picking dear sir?

Off course you would cherry pick and ignore the parts that don’t conform with your preconceived idea that the Bible is perfect.
Off course you would commit another logical fallacy.

“Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias.[1][2] Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. This fallacy is a major problem in public debate.�
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

Secondly,

So God uttered the Deuteronomy laws to improve the world.

Q: How does Kill thy witches, Kill thy fortunetellers, Kill thy gays, Kill thy non-believers, improve the world?

Q: How does "Celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread, the Festival of Weeks, the Festival of Ingathering at the turn of the year" improve the world?

Q: How does “the first offspring of every womb belongs to me�,� do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast�, “Bring the best of the first fruits of your soil to the house of the Lord your God� improve the world?

Q: How does “When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. “ or this “However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. “ improve the world?

Q: How does “If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.� improve the world?

One would think an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good God who is infinitely wise and fair would not advocate for intolerance, murder, rape(forcing the victims of rape to marry the rapist), slavery, nonsense.

Q: Do you really an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good God who is infinitely wise and fair would come up with this “Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk�?