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?

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to post 139 by alexxcJRO]

We will get to the issue of the ten commandments, along with the video, but lets get to one thing at the time. In fact, lets get to where the rubber meets the road here in this post.

You dont have a problem with God ordering the Israelites to kill other humans, to commit mass murder, genocide?

My position on this question, would be completely, and utterly irrelevant to whether the passage can be held accountable for the thousands of women who were killed, that you spoke of.

In other words, if I were to answer, "yes I do have a problem with God giving this command", it would still not affect the outcome of whether the passage could rightly be blamed, for those who took the passage out of it's clear context?

So then, if I did have a problem with the fact that God gave the command, I would then have to go on to say, "but this command was only for the Israelites, and cannot be the blame for those who were killed much later, when those who used the command were not Israelites, and the covenant was not intended for anyone other than the Israelites." So again, my position on this would not matter, nor change the fact as to whether the passage can be rightly blamed.

How is that compatible with an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, perfectly wise God?

I have not in any way argued that, "God would be omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, or a perfectly wise God." So where are you getting this from? I have readily admitted that I cannot even demonstrate that there is a god. If I have admitted this, then I certainly could not attempt to argue that this god would be, any of these other things?

So let's not get into a debate concerning things that neither of us can demonstrate. However, I am convinced that it can be clearly demonstrated that the passage we are referring to, was only intended for the Israelites. If this is the case, then the question is, "can the passage possibly be the blame for something it never commanded anyone other than the Israelites to do?"

You don't need to believe God exists or prove he exists to be able answer Q1, Q2 from below(one can talk about concepts without belief; it's called philosophy) :

Q1: Do you not have a problem with God of the Bible ordering the Israelites to kill other humans, to commit mass murder, genocide?

Q2: How is that compatible with an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, perfectly wise being?

Q3: Is God not defined as being a maximally great being: omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good?

Q4: Do you not believe God as a omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being exist?


And please don't avoid this again:

Q5: If not for this verse: "You shall not let a sorcerer live" would tens of thousands of women have died burned at the stake or hanged for being witches?(Yes/No question)

Q6: If the Israelites would have instead killed tens of thousands o women after being accused of witchcraft would then the passage be culpable for this?(Yes/No question)

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 141 by alexxcJRO]

The problem here is, I have not made any of the arguments the questions are posing. So then, is not a necessity for me to give an answer, or attempt to defend any argument I have never made.

On the other hand, you have attempted to make the argument that the passage is at fault for those who were murdered. I have refuted this argument, and now instead of defending your position, you instead ask questions that are completely irrelevant to the argument you need to defend, which clearly demonstrates, that it is you who is doing the avoiding, by attempting to ask questions that would lead us away from your original argument.

I could answer all the questions, either way, and it still would have no bearing upon, if the passage was intended for those who used it to murder the women you speak of.

So then, let us take a different tact here, in an attempt to get you to defend your position. For the sake of argument, let us assume that everything in the Bible is false. Now, even with this being the case, how would it be possible for this passage to be the blame for those who were murdered, when it can be clearly demonstrated that the passage was only intended for a particular group of people, even if this is a false report?

The point is, it does not matter in the least about any of these other things. The only thing that matters is, was the passage intended for a particular group of people, and only intended for them?

Even how, and why it may have been misinterpreted would be irrelevant as well. In other words, there are many things that are clearly written, but there will always be those who have an agenda, and will use, and even misinterpret things in order to fulfill such an agenda, on top of the fact that many people may have never read it for themselves, and are simply taking the word of others, like many, many Christians do to this day.

But again, all of this is not relevant in the least. Either the passage can be blamed. Or, the fault belongs to those who took it out of context, whether they did so intentionally, or simply took the word of others.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Silent no More: The Rise of the New Atheists

There are few to none "new" atheists, insofar as it is, folks have been rejecting 'em unproven claims for as long as it is, them claims kept 'em on a-bein' 'em unproven.

The only possibility then, of there being a "new atheist", is the one who heard these tales for the first time and thought, "You gotta be kiddin' me!"

[kayky]

While I appreciate your enthusiasm, communism is a government system that includes an atheistic worldview; and that didn't work out so well. Not saying it was BECAUSE OF the inherent atheism, but just pointing out that atheists don't automatically make for a better society.

I don't really understand were that post is coming from.

My only points were:

1. "thinking atheism is the cause for the atrocities committed by the communists is fallacious."

2. Atheism is not a theological position.

You are not basically disagreeing with those two points but yet somehow you disagree with me.

Q: What's up with that?:)


Observation: I assumed that you were addressing this post to me. I highly doubt it's not addressed to me. But if it's not ignore my post.

My post was addressed to the OP, but thanks at least for not ignoring it!

[alexxcJRO]

I could answer all the questions, either way, and it still would have no bearing upon, if the passage was intended for those who used it to murder the women you speak of.
So then, let us take a different tact here, in an attempt to get you to defend your position. For the sake of argument, let us assume that everything in the Bible is false. Now, even with this being the case, how would it be possible for this passage to be the blame for those who were murdered, when it can be clearly demonstrated that the passage was only intended for a particular group of people, even if this is a false report?
The point is, it does not matter in the least about any of these other things. The only thing that matters is, was the passage intended for a particular group of people, and only intended for them?

That is your interpretation.
The Catholic and Protestant Church Bible from the middle ages had other interpretation that i am sure made perfect sense in their head. Like your does in your head.

Every Christian sect, believer thinks arrogantly that his interpretation is the correct one.

This confusion is very damming. It clearly points to Christianity being false, the work of men that has nothing to do with perfect, omnipotent beings.


This question is relevant:
Q: If not for this verse: "You shall not let a sorcerer live" would tens of thousands of women have died burned at the stake or hanged for being witches?(Yes/No question)

Also:
Q: How could the Catholic and Protestant church had justified the torturing, burning at the stake, drowning, hanging of hundreds of thousand of women if this passage did not exist?

"On December 5, 1484, Pope Innocent VIII issued a papal bull, or document, that condemned witchcraft. He also authorized two inquisitors"Jakob Sprenger and Heinrich Kramer (also known by his Latin name, Henricus Institoris)"to combat the problem. The two men produced a book entitled Malleus Maleficarum, that is, The Hammer of Witches. Both Catholics and Protestants accepted it as the authority on witchcraft. The work contained imaginative stories about witches based on folklore, presented theological and legal arguments against witchcraft, and provided guidelines on how to identify and eliminate witches. The Hammer of Witches has been described as the most vicious and . . . the most damaging book in all of world literature.
"Jakob Sprenger was an appointed inquisitor for the Rhineland, theology professor and a dean at the University of Cologne in Germany.[79] [80] Heinrich Kraemer (Institoris) was an appointed inquisitor of south Germany, a professor of theology at the University of Salzburg, the leading demonologist and witch-hunter in late medieval Germany.[79][81] Pope Innocent VIII in Papal Bull Summis desiderantes affectibus refers to them both as "beloved sons" and "professors of theology";[82] also authorizes them to extirpate witchcraft.[83]
The Malleus Maleficarum was intended to implement Exodus 22:18: "You shall not permit a sorceress to live." "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleus_Maleficarum



Even defenders of Christianity admits that: "as a result of some of the biblical passages about witchcraft, some Christians have killed witches. "

"It goes without saying that the Bible condemns witchcraft. Therefore, Wicca is condemned because Wicca is witchcraft. But, unfortunately, as a result of some of the biblical passages about witchcraft, some Christians have killed witches. The Burning Times is a term Wiccans use to describe the persecution and killing of witches in the 1500's and 1600's. The truth is that Christians were involved in this atrocity citing Old Testament passages as justification for their actions, i.e., Exodus 22:18, You shall not allow a sorceress to live."
https://carm.org/wicca-burning-times-and-christianity

Even how, and why it may have been misinterpreted would be irrelevant as well. In other words, there are many things that are clearly written, but there will always be those who have an agenda, and will use, and even misinterpret things in order to fulfill such an agenda, on top of the fact that many people may have never read it for themselves, and are simply taking the word of others, like many, many Christians do to this day.

Avoidence plus talking about the motives again.
You do love the add hominem fallacy.




Q: Do you believe the directives(Thou shalt have no other gods before me, Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour and so one) are addressed to Christians too? Do you think they are addressed to you too? Do you respect them?

[Realworldjack]

I could answer all the questions, either way, and it still would have no bearing upon, if the passage was intended for those who used it to murder the women you speak of.
So then, let us take a different tact here, in an attempt to get you to defend your position. For the sake of argument, let us assume that everything in the Bible is false. Now, even with this being the case, how would it be possible for this passage to be the blame for those who were murdered, when it can be clearly demonstrated that the passage was only intended for a particular group of people, even if this is a false report?
The point is, it does not matter in the least about any of these other things. The only thing that matters is, was the passage intended for a particular group of people, and only intended for them?

That is your interpretation.
The Catholic and Protestant Church Bible from the middle ages had other interpretation that i am sure made perfect sense in their head. Like your does in your head.

Every Christian sect, believer thinks arrogantly that his interpretation is the correct one.

This confusion is very damming. It clearly points to Christianity being false, the work of men that has nothing to do with perfect, omnipotent beings.


This question is relevant:
Q: If not for this verse: "You shall not let a sorcerer live" would tens of thousands of women have died burned at the stake or hanged for being witches?(Yes/No question)

Also:
Q: How could the Catholic and Protestant church had justified the torturing, burning at the stake, drowning, hanging of hundreds of thousand of women if this passage did not exist?

"On December 5, 1484, Pope Innocent VIII issued a papal bull, or document, that condemned witchcraft. He also authorized two inquisitors"Jakob Sprenger and Heinrich Kramer (also known by his Latin name, Henricus Institoris)"to combat the problem. The two men produced a book entitled Malleus Maleficarum, that is, The Hammer of Witches. Both Catholics and Protestants accepted it as the authority on witchcraft. The work contained imaginative stories about witches based on folklore, presented theological and legal arguments against witchcraft, and provided guidelines on how to identify and eliminate witches. The Hammer of Witches has been described as the most vicious and . . . the most damaging book in all of world literature.
"Jakob Sprenger was an appointed inquisitor for the Rhineland, theology professor and a dean at the University of Cologne in Germany.[79] [80] Heinrich Kraemer (Institoris) was an appointed inquisitor of south Germany, a professor of theology at the University of Salzburg, the leading demonologist and witch-hunter in late medieval Germany.[79][81] Pope Innocent VIII in Papal Bull Summis desiderantes affectibus refers to them both as "beloved sons" and "professors of theology";[82] also authorizes them to extirpate witchcraft.[83]
The Malleus Maleficarum was intended to implement Exodus 22:18: "You shall not permit a sorceress to live." "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleus_Maleficarum



Even defenders of Christianity admits that: "as a result of some of the biblical passages about witchcraft, some Christians have killed witches. "

"It goes without saying that the Bible condemns witchcraft. Therefore, Wicca is condemned because Wicca is witchcraft. But, unfortunately, as a result of some of the biblical passages about witchcraft, some Christians have killed witches. The Burning Times is a term Wiccans use to describe the persecution and killing of witches in the 1500's and 1600's. The truth is that Christians were involved in this atrocity citing Old Testament passages as justification for their actions, i.e., Exodus 22:18, You shall not allow a sorceress to live."
https://carm.org/wicca-burning-times-and-christianity

Even how, and why it may have been misinterpreted would be irrelevant as well. In other words, there are many things that are clearly written, but there will always be those who have an agenda, and will use, and even misinterpret things in order to fulfill such an agenda, on top of the fact that many people may have never read it for themselves, and are simply taking the word of others, like many, many Christians do to this day.

Avoidence plus talking about the motives again.
You do love the add hominem fallacy.




Q: Do you believe the directives(Thou shalt have no other gods before me, Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour and so one) are addressed to Christians too? Do you think they are addressed to you too? Do you respect them?

That is your interpretation.
The Catholic and Protestant Church Bible from the middle ages had other interpretation that i am sure made perfect sense in their head. Like your does in your head.

Every Christian sect, believer thinks arrogantly that his interpretation is the correct one.

This confusion is very damming. It clearly points to Christianity being false, the work of men that has nothing to do with perfect, omnipotent beings.

Everything you say here is completely irrelevant, and ignores the facts. Let us look at the Biblical passage ourselves.

Exodus 20
And God spoke all these words:

2 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

3 You shall have no other gods before me.

Of course after this, it goes on to list the rest of the ten commandments. At any rate, who is the commands clearly addressed to? Well, it would be those who were, "brought out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery." Well, I have never been in Egypt, and have never been enslaved.

So then, the only way one could interpret this passage as being addressed to anyone else, is if they have some sort of agenda, and there can be more than one agenda.

In other words, there are certainly Christians who have an agenda, and they will do whatever it takes to promote such an agenda. Let's consider those Christians here in the U.S. who have the agenda to promote a Christian America. These Christians will take such passages as if they were addressed to us as a nation, when the passage is certainly clear that it was addressed only to the nation of Israel, the nation that was said to be enslaved in Egypt.

It is not uncommon for Christians to have an agenda, and to misinterpret passages to promote this agenda. All one would have to do is to look at the crusades.

However, it is clear that Christians are not the only ones with an agenda. Let's take this example here. Instead of acknowledging that the passage was clearly only intended for the Israelites, and dealing with exactly what the passage clearly says, one looks at the way in which others have misused the passage as an example of what the passage must mean, instead of acknowledging that these folks clearly misused the passage, for there own agenda.

In other words, it is not simply Christians who can have an agenda, to purposely misuse a passage, unbelievers as well can have an agenda, and would be more than happy to allow Christians to continue to misuse the passage, in order to promote their agenda, instead of acknowledging that the Christians misused the passage.

A great example is yourself. Instead of dealing with the passage itself, and what it actually says, and who it is addressed to, you simply cite those who have misused the passage, because it would be impossible for you to defend your position by simply dealing with how the passage is actually presented.

The point is, if one were truly interested in the truth, even if they may be an unbeliever, then they could acknowledge that, "Christians have indeed used this passage to do horrific things, and although I am not a believer myself, it is clear that the passage was never intended to be used by anyone else, than those addressed at the time."

But no, those unbelievers who have an agenda themselves, are more than happy to allow this sort of thing to continue, ignoring the passage altogether, and instead claiming the old, "you have your interpretation, and others have their's" because it promotes their agenda.

The point is, citing all of the things above, and how the passage has been used, does not in any way deal with what was actually communicated in the passage itself, and when it begins by addressing those, "who were enslaved in Egypt" then this would be a clear indication of who was being addressed, and who the passage applies to. In other words, it does no good at all to tell me how the passage has been used. The matter is, what does the passage actually say?

Every Christian sect, believer thinks arrogantly that his interpretation is the correct one.

This is a little bit of an overstatement, don't you think? I will agree that there are many Christians who operate in this way, and that many do so, "arrogantly." However, to say, "every" would be stretching it.

As an example, I do not simply believe my interpretation of the passage we are addressing is correct. Rather, I have put my interpretation out there for all to see, allowing the passage to speak for itself. Now, I most definitely could be wrong, but instead of you actually dealing with the passage itself, you have only told me, how others have used it, which only tells us how passages have been used, it does not tell us what the correct interpretation is.

This confusion is very damming. It clearly points to Christianity being false

WOW! That is simplistic. Does this mean that everything that is confusing is clearly false?

This question is relevant:
Q: If not for this verse: "You shall not let a sorcerer live" would tens of thousands of women have died burned at the stake or hanged for being witches?(Yes/No question)

I meant to point this out in my last post. Although this question is completely irrelevant to this discussion, I have already answered this question in a previouse post.

Next, there is really no way to know at all, if these folks would have been murdered. In other words, if there were those who did not like the practice of witchcraft, then they could very well find other reasons to commit these murders. The only thing we can say for certain is, if these commands were not given to the Israelites, then folks such as yourself could not place the blame upon these commands. But this does not in any way necesitate that they would not have been murdered for other reasons.

But the main thing here is, this argument you are attempting to present is a very sad, and pathetic argument. In other words, you seem to acknowledge, or realize, the fact that you cannot make the argument that these commands were intended for anyone else outside the Israelites, because you understand that you could not possibly win the argument. If you could attempt to make such an argument, I am confident that you would.

However, since you still would like to somehow place the blame on this passage, you ask the above question, pleading for a simple yes, or no answer, which sort of demonstrates that you are looking for simple answers. Moreover, it sort of seems to demonstrates one who is really not all that interested in the truth, but rather has an agenda, and will attempt to do what ever it takes to protect that agenda. This is what most folks are doing when they insist on a "yes or no answer."

The facts are, if this passage had not been written, the only fact we can know is, folks like yourself, would not be able to blame the passage. What we cannot know is, if these folks would have been murdered without the passage.

But again, it is absolutely pathetic for one to acknowledge that this passage was only intended for a specific audience, and then go on to attempt to blame the passage, rather than those who took the passage out of it's intended context.

Also:
Q: How could the Catholic and Protestant church had justified the torturing, burning at the stake, drowning, hanging of hundreds of thousand of women if this passage did not exist?

Well, let's see? Since they misused this passage, and since there are many, many other passages that can be found in the Bible, and since this is not the only passage that deals with such things, because there are others, then maybe...........? just maybe, they could have misused another passage to justify, and promote their agenda, and I am sure that if this was the case, you would continue to defend them, and their actions, by placing the blame on the Bible.

Even defenders of Christianity admits that: "as a result of some of the biblical passages about witchcraft, some Christians have killed witches. "

GOOD GRIEF! Any other time, what a Christian would have to say would be useless to you, but now, since it helps promote your agenda, all of the sudden, what a Christian says is, relevant?

But the question is, "is what the Christian says, true? Well, not exactly, because we know that the passage was not addressed to Christians. Therefore, what should be said is,

as a result of Christians MISUSE of the biblical passages about witchcraft, some Christians have killed witches."

You see, simply because a Christian says it, does not make it true, and in most cases you would back me up on this, but for some reason now, you want to side with the Christian. Wonder why?

Q: Do you believe the directives(Thou shalt have no other gods before me, Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour and so one) are addressed to Christians too? Do you think they are addressed to you too? Do you respect them?

I really do not know how to better explain this to you. Seriously! Why don't you help me out? The passage we are referring to begins,

And God spoke all these words:

2 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

So then, who is being addressed? Well, it seems it would be those who were, "brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery." Well, I have not been in Egypt in my entire life. So how could I interpret that this was addressed to me? It goes on to say,

You shall have no other gods before me

So, who is the "you" in this passage? Well, it would clearly seem to be those who were being addressed, and I believe we have just determined that it would be those who were, "brought out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery."

So, this should clearly answer your question. But now allow me to ask you. Is this passage addressed to me in any way at all? Does it even suggest, or hint to the fact that I may be included? Or, would one have to do a whole lot of assuming to come to such a conclusion?

[alexxcJRO]

So then, the only way one could interpret this passage as being addressed to anyone else, is if they have some sort of agenda, and there can be more than one agenda.
In other words, there are certainly Christians who have an agenda, and they will do whatever it takes to promote such an agenda. Let's consider those Christians here in the U.S. who have the agenda to promote a Christian America.
It is not uncommon for Christians to have an agenda, and to misinterpret passages to promote this agenda. All one would have to do is to look at the crusades.
However, it is clear that Christians are not the only ones with an agenda. Let's take this example here. Instead of acknowledging that the passage was clearly only intended for the Israelites, and dealing with exactly what the passage clearly says, one looks at the way in which others have misused the passage as an example of what the passage must mean, instead of acknowledging that these folks clearly misused the passage, for there own agenda.
In other words, it is not simply Christians who can have an agenda, to purposely misuse a passage, unbelievers as well can have an agenda, and would be more than happy to allow Christians to continue to misuse the passage, in order to promote their agenda, instead of acknowledging that the Christians misused the passage.
A great example is yourself. Instead of dealing with the passage itself, and what it actually says, and who it is addressed to, you simply cite those who have misused the passage, because it would be impossible for you to defend your position by simply dealing with how the passage is actually presented.
The point is, if one were truly interested in the truth, even if they may be an unbeliever, then they could acknowledge that, "Christians have indeed used this passage to do horrific things, and although I am not a believer myself, it is clear that the passage was never intended to be used by anyone else, than those addressed at the time."
But no, those unbelievers who have an agenda themselves, are more than happy to allow this sort of thing to continue, ignoring the passage altogether, and instead claiming the old, "you have your interpretation, and others have their's" because it promotes their agenda.
The point is, citing all of the things above, and how the passage has been used, does not in any way deal with what was actually communicated in the passage itself, and when it begins by addressing those, "who were enslaved in Egypt" then this would be a clear indication of who was being addressed, and who the passage applies to. In other words, it does no good at all to tell me how the passage has been used. The matter is, what does the passage actually say?

All your doing here is saying the other Christianity are wrong and you are right.

That they have an agenda and you don't. Your interpretation is correct and their interpretation is wrong.
Stop with the add hominem.

Q: Do you seriously think that the majority of Christians who believe and respect the 10 directives(thou shall not steal, thou shall not kill, and so one), who believe God hates gays have an agenda and don't sincerely believe this?

Like every Christian believer you think arrogantly that your interpretation is the correct one.

Q: Do you not know that many Christians interpret many parts of the Bible metaphorically?

The literal interpretation of Genesis is not congruent with reality, science. No problem it's then metaphorical.
The literal interpretation of Noah story is not congruent with science, reality. No problem it's then metaphorical.
The literal interpretation of the prophecy of Isaiah 53 does not math with Jesus. No problem it's then metaphorical.
The literal interpretation of Jesus saying: "Truly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, Be taken up and thrown into the sea, and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says will come to pass, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." is not congruent with reality. No problem it's then metaphorical.

Well, let's see? Since they misused this passage, and since there are many, many other passages that can be found in the Bible, and since this is not the only passage that deals with such things, because there are others, then maybe...........? just maybe, they could have misused another passage to justify, and promote their agenda, and I am sure that if this was the case, you would continue to defend them, and their actions, by placing the blame on the Bible.

Dear sir they sincerely believed witchcraft is real. They sincerely believed their God ordered them to not let a sorcerers live.

"Section I examines the concept of witchcraft theoretically, from the point of view of natural philosophy and theology.[73] Specifically it addresses the question of whether witchcraft is a real phenomenon or imaginary, perhaps "deluding phantasms of the devil, or simply the fantasies of overwrought human minds".[74] The conclusion drawn is that witchcraft must be real because the Devil is real. Witches entered into a pact with Satan to allow them the power to perform harmful magical acts, thus establishing an essential link between witches and the Devil.[7"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleus_Maleficarum

WOW! That is simplistic. Does this mean that everything that is confusing is clearly false?

Dear sir there are thousands of denominations of Christians.

Christians disagree on myriad of things from little things to important things like salvation by works or by grace or both, eternal conscious torment or annihilation or universalism, Jesus is God vs Jesus is not God, the 10 directives Yahweh spoke apply to the Gentiles or not, baptize is required for salvation or not, Penal Substitution or not and so one.

The fact that there is confusion about important things like salvation is really damming for Christianity.
It's like this:

An omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being message: Do "this" and you will be saved. If you don't do "this" you will be condemn and suffer the consequences.
People are confused about what "this" means.

C: Either

1. The being that utter the confusing "this" is not omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good. If this is the case why call him God?!
or
2. The omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being does not exist.

I really do not know how to better explain this to you. Seriously! Why don't you help me out? The passage we are referring to begins,
So then, who is being addressed? Well, it seems it would be those who were, "brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery." Well, I have not been in Egypt in my entire life. So how could I interpret that this was addressed to me? It goes on to say,
So, who is the "you" in this passage? Well, it would clearly seem to be those who were being addressed, and I believe we have just determined that it would be those who were, "brought out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery."

That does not answer the question. Please answer:

Q: Do you not respect the 10 directives(thou shall not steal, thousl shall not kill, and so one)? (Yes/No question)
Q: If yes why because according to your logic were addressed only to Israelites?

[help3434]

Please don't distort what i said.

I didn't said he is wrong because he is religious.

You asked why you would listen to a religious man, implying that the religious are incapable of saying anything correct.

I just made an observation which is correct, usually Christians have problems with definitions regarding religious terminology.

Do you have any scientific studies that confirm that this is a correct observation?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 147 by alexxcJRO]

All your doing here is saying the other Christianity are wrong and you are right.

That they have an agenda and you don't. Your interpretation is correct and their interpretation is wrong.
Stop with the add hominem.

Okay, now you are under the burden to demonstrate where I have said, "my interpretation was correct, while others are incorrect?" I have not. Rather, what I have done is to put the exact passage out there for all to see, in plain language, and have asked the question of believers, and unbelievers as well, including yourself, "how in the world could this passage be the blame for those who were killed, when it clearly never addresses anyone else other than the Israelites?" This is a far, far cry from proclaiming that I am right, and all others must, and have to be wrong, because I am giving all the opportunity to explain how the passage can be said to apply to those it is not addressed to.

This means you have had this same opportunity yourself, but you have yet to even deal with the passage at all, and what it actually says, but rather simply continue to tell us how others have used it.

It really does go back to the analogy of the letter addressed to my wife. In that case, there is no way you would attempt to blame the letter, for my stupidity, but since blaming this passage helps promote your agenda, you are more than happy to blame the passage.

Q: Do you seriously think that the majority of Christians who believe and respect the 10 directives(thou shall not steal, thou shall not kill, and so one), who believe God hates gays have an agenda and don't sincerely believe this?

What in the world would, "Christians sincerely believing something", have to do with, whether what they believe is correct? This would be like saying, "they sincerely believe God exists, so it must be so." There are many people who are sincere concerning what they believe, but there is a such thing as being, "sincerely wrong."

Like every Christian believer you think arrogantly that your interpretation is the correct one.

Again no! I am not insisting that I must, and have to be right, and I always acknowledge the possibility of my error. The problem is again, you have yet to actually deal with the passage, and have rather simply pointed out how others have used it, which seems to demonstrate that you really do not care if they are correct or not, as long as it promotes your agenda to blame the passage, as opposed to those who have misused it.

You see, for me to simply arrogantly insist that I must be right, it would have to be in the face of those who are explaining how the passage must, and has to apply to those outside of Israel. Thus far, you have not even attempted to deal with what the passage actually says, but rather seem to be avoiding it. I understand why you would avoid it though, which is because you could not possibly win the argument that the passage would apply to anyone other than the Israelites.

Q: Do you not know that many Christians interpret many parts of the Bible metaphorically?

The literal interpretation of Genesis is not congruent with reality, science. No problem it's then metaphorical.
The literal interpretation of Noah story is not congruent with science, reality. No problem it's then metaphorical.
The literal interpretation of the prophecy of Isaiah 53 does not math with Jesus. No problem it's then metaphorical.
The literal interpretation of Jesus saying: "Truly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, Be taken up and thrown into the sea, and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says will come to pass, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." is not congruent with reality. No problem it's then metaphorical.

What in the world would any of this have to do with the passage we are dealing with? It would have nothing to do with it, because those Christians who used it to kill the women you speak of, could not have taken the passage, metaphorically.

Dear sir they sincerely believed witchcraft is real. They sincerely believed their God ordered them to not let a sorcerers live.

And again, Christians sincerely believe God is real, but for some reason this does not get them off the hook with you, because this part that they sincerely believe, does not promote your agenda. However, since they sincerely believe that this passage was meant for them, and since it promotes your agenda, you are more than happy not only to allow it, but you also appeal to their sincerity, as if this means anything at all. Again, there are those who are, sincerely wrong. in other words, we can all be as sincere as we want to be, but this has no bearing upon if what we sincerely believe, would be true.

Dear sir there are thousands of denominations of Christians.

Christians disagree on myriad of things from little things to important things like salvation by works or by grace or both, eternal conscious torment or annihilation or universalism, Jesus is God vs Jesus is not God, the 10 directives Yahweh spoke apply to the Gentiles or not, baptize is required for salvation or not, Penal Substitution or not and so one.

None of this has anything at all to do with the simple passage we are dealing with. We could both sit down and go through each, and every issue you bring up, and determine how much confusion there really is, and we can start with this passage.

In other words, we can start right here, and determine beyond doubt as to whether the passage was ever intended for those who used it to kill those you speak of, and it would not be difficult at all. But no, you really would rather not deal with this passage at all, and explain how in the world anyone could ever use the passage in such a way. Rather, you are more than happy to continue to allow Christians to disagree, because you somehow are convinced that this is damaging to Christianity. It is not in the least my friend.

The fact that there is confusion about important things like salvation is really damming for Christianity.

Oh really? Well in whose eyes is it damaging? I would say it is only damaging in the eyes of those who would really do no want to have to think very much. In other words, these folks simply cannot get past the fact that there is so much disagreement, and this must, and has to be proof that it must, and has to be false, so much so that they have never really looked at many of the issues at all, to determine how much confusion there can really be.

You know like the simple, simple passage we are looking at now. The passage clearly addresses a certain group of people, and it never suggests, or even hints to the fact that there may be others that would be included, so where in the world would the confusion come from?

But no! It is far easier to point to the confusion than to actually deal with the passage to determine how much confusion there can actually be. However, as we can clearly see, once you deal with the passage, there is no confusion because there is only one group of people addressed, and for those to take the passage centuries later, and apply it to themselves, there would have to be a tremendous amount of twisting going on. But again, you are more than happy to allow it.

That does not answer the question. Please answer:

Q: Do you not respect the 10 directives(thou shall not steal, thousl shall not kill, and so one)? (Yes/No question)
Q: If yes why because according to your logic were addressed only to Israelites?

I have not seen this type of avoidance in my five years here on this site. The simple question is, "can this passage be the blame for those who were killed, or does the blame lie with those who took it out of it's clear context?"

My answer to these questions would have no relevance to the final answer to this question.

At any rate, I have noticed that the question has changed somewhat. In other words the original question was,

Q: Do you believe the directives(Thou shalt have no other gods before me, Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour and so one) are addressed to Christians too? Do you think they are addressed to you too? Do you respect them?

You seem to have dropped the question as to whether I believe these commands were addressed to Christians, or myself, because I have clearly answered that question, and all that seems to be left here is, "do I respect them?"

Well, I did not bother answering this question, because it really makes no sense. I really do not know what you mean by, "do I respect them?" In other words, there is a tremendous difference between respecting something, and believing you are bound to abide by them, as a stipulation to a contract.

So let me ask you, are there any of the ten commandments that you respect? Well let's see? Thou shalt not steal. Well, I think this command is a pretty good one, and I do not steal, and I have no reason to believe that you think stealing is a good practice. Therefore, we do not steal, but it is not because either of us are under the impression that we are bound by the ten commandments, in the same way the Israelites were. Rather, we simply both believe that it is a good common sense practice.

We could continue on with some of the rest of the commands, and I will assure you that the result would be the same. In other words, there would be those I guess you would say you "respect", but this would not mean that we both believe we are under obligation in the same way the Israelites were.

So yes, I guess you could say there are those of the ten commandments that I believe are good ideas, but this would not mean that the actual ten commandments were addressed to me, and are binding upon me in any way.

So now, this should answer both of your questions, even though it has no relevance to what we are attempting to establish which is, "can the passage possibly be blamed for those who were murdered since the passage makes it clear that the Israelites were the only other party in this covenant, (contract)? Or, does the blame fall squarely upon those who took the passage out of it's context?

Allow me to put the passage in context for you, and you can go back and check for yourself. God had chosen the Israelite clan, out of all the clans on the Earth, to be his chosen people. God set all the laws, including the ten commandments, as stipulations of the contract.

In other words, God was setting up a theocracy. As it is reported, God clearly laid out the stipulations of the covenant. After all the laws were read to the Israelites, it is reported that the Israelites responded in, "one voice, all this we will do", which certainly indicates that the Israelites agreed to the stipulations.

In other words, the Israelites were not forced into the covenant. Rather, they agreed to the covenant.

With all of the above being the case, we can clearly see that only the Israelites were involved in the covenant with God, and they agreed to the stipulations, with one of them being, "do not let a sorcerers live."

So then, whether this would be a wise command or not, nor whether it was an actually a true story or not, the question I am attempting to get you to answer after all this time is, "can the passage possibly be the blame for those who were murdered or, would we have to blame those who took the passage out of it's clear context?"

Notice here, I am not insisting upon a, "yes, or no answer." In fact, I would love to hear any explanation you have, either way, because unlike you, I understand that many questions require far more than a yes or no answer, which should demonstrate that I am not insisting that I must, and have to be right, and all those opposed to me must, and have to be wrong.

I believe I have answered all your questions now, even though the answers would be irrelevant the question I have posed. So could you please give a straight answer?

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 79 by For_The_Kingdom]

Anybody that leaves the faith was never with us to begin with...

I suppose that's right. I never felt comfortable with Christianity. I just cannot get excited by any world view that condemns most of the world to eternal hellfire. I prefer hope for everybody regardless of what they believe.