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]

Okay, now you are under the burden to demonstrate where I have said, "my interpretation was correct, while others are incorrect?

You said this:
"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? "


You are saying your literal interpretation in isolation is correct, that you have analyzed the text honestly and correctly while the rest have agendas and have not analyzed it correctly.

The literal interpretation in isolation of this text is clearly not congruent with reality:

"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."

But that does not stop Christians to interpret it differently and escape the problem.

"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. "

Firstly,

Again talking about my motives.
Can't you just address the arguments without talking about me?!
Can't you just make valid arguments without bashing your opponent over and over again.


Secondly,

If you admit you might be wrong why so adamant in criticizing the others Christian for interpreting the bible differently.

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.

Yeah but you said they had an agenda. I have debunked your nonsense.

They(theologians of the time, heads of the Christian church, ordinary Christians) sincerely believed God ordered them to kill sorcerers. They sincerely believed sorcerers existed and that they were in cahoots with Satan.

You cannot absolve the passage because they said(in Malleus Maleficarum) they will be killing humans because of the passage.

To commence, the expressions of the Canon must be treated of in detail (although the sense of the Canon will be even more clearly elucidated in the following question). For the divine in many places commands that witches are not only to be avoided, but also they are to be put to death, and it would not impose the extreme penalty of this kind if witches did not really and truly make a compact with devils in order to bring about real and true hurts and harms. For the penalty of death is not inflicted except for some grave and notorious crime, but it is otherwise with death of the soul, which can be brought about by the power of a phantastical illusion or even by the stress of temptation. This is the opinion of S. Thomas when he discusses whether it be evil to make use of the help of devils (ii. 7). For in the 18th chapter of Deuteronomy it is commanded that all wizards and charmers are to be destroyed. Also the 19th chapter of Leviticus says: The soul which goeth to wizards and soothsayers to commit fornication with them, I will set my face against that soul, and destroy it out of the midst of my people. And again, 20: A man, or woman, in whom there is a pythonical or divining spirit dying, let them die: they shall stone them. Those persons are said to be pythons in whom the devil works extraordinary things.
http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/downl ... crobat.pdf


Its illogical to think the passage its not to be blamed when the Christians doing the atrocities themselves admitted they were doing this because of the passage. Capich?!

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.
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.

The confusion is real sir. Its not imaginary.
Its a fact that there are Christians who believe one can be saved by works and others who say by grace.
Its a fact that there are Christians who believe baptize is necessary in order to achieve salvation and others who say is just ceremonial.
Its a fact that there are Christians who believe in Universalism(all are saved) and others who believe salvation is not guaranteed.
Its a fact that there are Christians who believe in Penal substitution( theory of the atonement) and others who do no.

Q: Do you dispute these facts?(Yes/No question)

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,

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.

Dear sir there are other passages from the New Testament that where Jesus clearly says one must obey the laws, the 10 directives in order to achieve salvation and that he has not come to abolish the law but fulfilled it, that until heaven and earth disappear not even the smallest detail of Gods law will disappear.

Lets see how if you still analyze these passages literally in isolation. )

16 Someone came to Jesus with this question: Teacher,[a] what good deed must I do to have eternal life?
17 Why ask me about what is good? Jesus replied. There is only One who is good. But to answer your question"if you want to receive eternal life, keep the commandments.
18 Which ones? the man asked.
And Jesus replied: You must not murder. You must not commit adultery. You must not steal. You must not testify falsely.
17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. Good teacher, he asked, what must I do to inherit eternal life? (Matthew 19:16-18)
18 Why do you call me good? Jesus answered. No one is good"except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.[a] (Mark 10:16-19)

18 A certain ruler asked him, Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?
19 Why do you call me good? Jesus answered. No one is good"except God alone. 20 You know the commandments: You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.[a] (Luke 18:18-20)

17 Dont misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of Gods law will disappear until its purpose is achieved. 19 So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys Gods laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
20 But I warn you"unless your righteousness is better than the righteousness of the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven!
(Matthew 5:17-20)

Q: Has the Heaven and Earth disappeared?(Yes/No question)