If atheists get accused of taking verses out of context, how do we know fundamentalists making those accusations aren’t doing the same as well?

[Wrangler]

You can find a plethora of videos with Catholics or Protestants talking about how the others are heretics.

And they are right. A heretic simply means going against a standard. Change the standard, change who the heretic is.

 

[Wrangler]

Except you have no proof or evidence of such a god

You are drowning in proof. We've been through this proof claim before. I even referred you to a whole thread I started on evidence to be seen.

Your standard of proof is absurd. You cannot prove there is even a sun in the sky or night follows day as you have convinced yourself that things like time are merely human constructs.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

False. You can find a plethora of videos with Catholics or Protestants talking about how the others are heretics. Many Baptists consider Catholics to be idol worshippers and focused on works rather than faith.

You also forgot 16. Romanov2448 thinks both Protestants and Catholics are lost.

Here are a few videos straight from Catholic channels:

Tell me how much they agree with one another again?

Yes, and I do think those are critical, judgmental people who look for differences beyond those fundamentals and focus on them rather than finding peace and common faith. And they have warred against eachother too. We are passionate about faith. It seems any little difference we see and off we go: " This person must not be a Christian, but a heretic from the pit of Hell ... bla, bla, bla!" We get passionate about one non-essential doctrine, our the pride fuels up and it's time to rumble. That is what it is, pride. Everyone wants to be right, especially those who have studied for decades and grew in knowledge in churches that may have some false doctrines. No church is perfect but we think ours is almost perfect.
>>> Look at the 1st century Seven Churches in Revelation; only two did not get a rebuke and were faithful. Others had false doctrine, one was evil, another dead, another lukewarm and most were warned by God to repent or else. These seven churches were real churches but they also describe church-types that existed throughout the Church-Age. We see them today. There are faithful, warm, loving churches that flourish, like Philadelphia; persecuted churches like Symrna, strict doctrinal churches like Ephesus that are somewhat cold and beat everyone over the head with doctrines and may focus too much on hell-fire judgment; churches that are legalists ( faith + works salvation like Catholics and some Protestant ones too); half dead churches that don't grow for various reasons; false churches; materialist churches, etc. Why is this? We may have been saved, washed by His blood, but still have the remnants of the old selve , the flesh. We are still sinners. There is a war going on inside us between the spirit and the flesh and so this war manifests itself outside of us. Christians get divorced. Why? Lack of faith of one or both who can't seem to reconcile their differences -- selfishness usually, a lack of unconditional love ...???
We seem to possess these same additudes about other churches. We have irreconcilable differences and so we divorce them, throw the baby out with the bath water or so to speak.
But we should reconcile and rise above our differences and view the Body of Christ as ONE.

 

[bbyrd009]

You are drowning in proof.

hmm
but do you have any "objective evidence?"
(a standard for "proof")

altho im pretty sure requiring "proof" of the "existence" God is missing the point anyway

 

[Wrangler]

but do you have any "objective evidence?"

There are tons of objective evidence. Again, atheist standard of proof is deliberately set to deny the overwhelming evidence that is there. Let me give an example.

Suppose we are walking in the woods and happen upon a book. Does the objective evidence of the existence of the book imply that a writer (of the book) exists? Or do you insist a book could be a product of nature because we found it in nature?

 

[Wrangler]

look for differences beyond those fundamentals

We can only expect the unsaved to be divisive, to get us to look at our relatively superficial differences as irreconcilable.

Our lord did not say to only love those who have 100% doctrinal alignment. So, there is that.

 

[Lapidem]

There are tons of objective evidence.

Hope you don't mind me wading in on this discussion. I disagree with your statement. What there is, is absolutely tons of evidence that the Christian concept of an all-powerful and all-loving God does not exist. However it's a moot point because indoctrinated Christians are incapable of facing up to the evidence and will sweep it under the carpet in the form of some divine "it's just God's will" nonsense. They wouldn't even be able to agree to a definition of what is loving and what is not in any real sense.

Suppose we are walking in the woods and happen upon a book. Does the objective evidence of the existence of the book imply that a writer (of the book) exists? Or do you insist a book could be a product of nature because we found it in nature?

It would be a product of nature if its atomic make-up was comprised of particles of nature, so yes, very likely it would be a product of nature. What you are failing to take into account in this straw man is that animals and humans themselves are part of nature and thus anything they do or produce is by definition also a part of nature.

Nature produces people
People produce books made from trees made from nature
Books are a product of nature

Everything around us is a part of nature. We are all made from the same stuff. That "stuff" has been here since the beginning of the universe billions of years ago. We are simply forms that nature has made and we have been many different forms before this current form.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

@Romanov2488

A good book is "A Case For Faith" by
Lee Strobel, a former atheist _ award winning, investigative journalist, who sought out to disprove God and Jesus but was shocked to discover the overwhelming evidence and is now a Christian. He also wrote , "A Case For Christ".
"Evidence That Demands A Verdict" and "More Than A Carpenter" are other good ones as well.

 

[Wrangler]

What there is, is absolutely tons of evidence that the Christian concept of an all-powerful and all-loving God does not exist.

Wow! You can prove a negative. How brilliant of you!

 

[Wrangler]

They wouldn't even be able to agree to a definition of what is loving and what is not in any real sense.

Oh? See 1 Cor 13.

What you are failing to take into account in this straw man is that animals and humans themselves are part of nature and thus anything they do or produce is by definition also a part of nature.

So, you reject 2 dichotomies: natural v man-made + natural v supernatural.

By your construction of terms, God is part of the natural. The natural exists. So, therefore, God exists.

Everything around us is a part of nature.

Everything including God.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

It would be a product of nature if its atomic make-up was comprised of particles of nature, so yes, very likely it would be a product of nature

A book is composed of natural ingredients except for the ideas and thoughts communicated in organized sentences, paragraphs, with rules of grammar, etc. Where did the ideas come from? An author! They just didn't evolve.
Likewise, life has order and design, it did not just evolve. It must have a Designer.
Chance has no power, no mind to order, change is nothing, ignorant and likely only exists in a game. Nature doesn't have a mind to order things or make choices; yet the TOE leads you to believe that nature has this collective unconscious mind that picks and chooses beneficial mutations over time to build an organism, guide it through an evolitionary process to result in a kind of organism, plant or animal. Absurd!
So in comparison, to say that life itself and all natural organisms within nature appeared by chance is like saying an explosion in a print shop produced the 30 plus volumes of the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

humans themselves are part of nature

No, nature was created first, then humans were God's crowning achievement. Nature could exist without humans, has existed and has flourished without us for thousands of years.

anything they do or produce is by definition also a part of nature.

No, thoughts, ideas, emotions, love, hate and basically our souls and spirits are not part of nature. We were nade in God's image, which means we have a rational mind, emotions, volition, creative abilities far beyond any animal, distinctly separate from the animal kingdom. Animals just function and are designed to do basic things in order to live, eat, produce, in their unique ways. We can train them to do and perform human-like tasks, learn a couple hundred words, but do we find genius apes creating and performing Mozart, talking, readind or building Rockets? lol the smartist of animals may have equivalent intelligence of a one year old child. But a two year old ... emmm ... not likely, but the claim has been made.

Nature produces people

Nope, impossible. Nature could not produce a one -celled animal. If you magnified it a billion times, you would find thousands of factories producing amino acids and proteins with photo-copying devices that duplicate and grow molecular structures, error correcting, DNA deciphering machines that receive information, decode and process that information, organize it to produce these amino acids and proteins, but not life itself. Life is not produced, only created by God. But overall, these components, molecular structive and processes are irreducible and could not have evolved by chance. It is said that the flagellum of a paramecium is more complex than a 747.

We are all made from the same stuff.

Physically yes, not mentally, emotionally or spiritually.
How did Moses, who wrote Genesis by God's inspiration _ word for word _ know we were made from the dust of the earth (dirt of which has 17 elements that we possess)?

 

[Wrangler]

Nature doesn't have a mind to order things

Indeed. A fundamental force of the universe, entropy, goes toward disorder. Order of molecules is therefore a supernatural affect.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

Indeed. A fundamental force of the universe, entropy, goes toward disorder. Order of molecules is therefore a supernatural affect.

Right, humankind and nature itself _ once perfect _ have been moving towards less order, accumulating more and more imperfections (mutations which are essentially defects). And the universe itself is winding down.

 

[Wrangler]

What you are failing to take into account in this straw man is that animals and humans themselves are part of nature and thus anything they do or produce is by definition also a part of nature.

Your own Strawman is exposed. The point was not about something natural or unnatural.

Suppose we are walking in the woods and happen upon a book. Does the objective evidence of the existence of the book imply that a writer (of the book) exists? Or do you insist a book could be a product of nature because we found it in nature?

The point was about the objective evidence of the existence of a writer.

 

[Wrangler]

Right, humankind and nature itself _ once perfect _ have been moving towards less order, accumulating more and more imperfections (mutations which are essentially defects). And the universe itself is winding down.

Along with that is human intelligence is winding down, which explains why so many people today have a hard time understanding the Bible.

They take what it says literally and only grasp contradictions. They cannot think in the figurative way it was written to make a point. For instance, the last verse of John reads "Jesus did many other things. If they were all written in books, I don't suppose there would be room enough in the whole world for all the books."

Many foolish atheists pretend the Bible is a science book. They claim what it says does not hold up to scientific scrutiny, like the sun standing still for Joshua to finish the battle. Even their claims of the age of the universe is rooted in assumptions they do not want to admit even exist. For instance, radioactive decay is a rate. On what basis do they conclude the rate of things today matches the rate of things in the past? LONG TIME is their idol.

We make different assumptions. We assume the all-knowing Creator of the universe reveals the truth to us for his glory. They try to find reasons not to believe. And they are very successful in their utter failure to have eyes to see and ears to hear.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

Along with that is human intelligence is winding down, which explains why so many people today have a hard time understanding the Bible.

They take what it says literally and only grasp contradictions. They cannot think in the figurative way it was written to make a point. For instance, the last verse of John reads "Jesus did many other things. If they were all written in books, I don't suppose there would be room enough in the whole world for all the books."

Many foolish atheists pretend the Bible is a science book. They claim what it says does not hold up to scientific scrutiny, like the sun standing still for Joshua to finish the battle. Even their claims of the age of the universe is rooted in assumptions they do not want to admit even exist. For instance, radioactive decay is a rate. On what basis do they conclude the rate of things today matches the rate of things in the past? LONG TIME is their idol.

We make different assumptions. We assume the all-knowing Creator of the universe reveals the truth to us for his glory. They try to find reasons not to believe. And they are very successful in their utter failure to have eyes to see and ears to hear.

I agree with most of what you said except for the words in bold. I take most of the Bible literally, but can also distinquish from what was intended to be symbolic.
Actually I believe the world could not contain OR understand all that Jesus did, since I believe He is the CREATOR. To describe how each organism was created would take volumes times billions and billions of organisms, then His individual involvement of each person's life, in relation to every event and every individual and nature itself, day after day, year after year = many volumes of information times maybe 15 billion people.
Let's expand what he did on the cross. He became sin, took on himslef all sin for all time. He knew every one of them, had to. That's omniscience, a requirement to do such a thing. Also omnipotence and omnipresence is alsonrequired to accomplish that. Think of one sin, it's detailed description, the other persons involved, circumstances leading up to that sin, feelings, reprecussions, everything. Writing that down may be equivalent to a book. Now multiply that by billions of people who committed thousands of sins = trillions upon trillions of books describing those sins. And that is only the bad stuff. How about writing trillions of volumes pertaining to all the good He has done in everyone's life for all time. Now do you think maybe the world can't contain books written of all that He has done?
The Bible contains 31,426 spoken words of Jesus. It takes about four hours to speak those words. Let's say He taught the disciples for four hours/day. That's only one day's worth of teaching out of 1277 days. Out of twelve disciples you would expect them to be asking him more than twelve thousand, seven hundred and seventy-seven questions over that time period. That's 'only one question each per day.
So at least it would be fair say that if every word spoken by Jesus was included in the Bible, it would be hundreds of times larger than it is and all that He has done ... forget about it. It is also fair to say that much of that teaching would be repetitious for their sake and so no need for a hundred volume Bible, it is sufficient as it is.

 

[Wrangler]

I agree with most of what you said except for the words in bold. I take most of the Bible literally, but can also distinquish from what was intended to be symbolic.

Well, that's my point about most people. They can't do that.

I remember telling a friend in high school that I was so tired I "passed out." He refused to take the term figuratively, no matter how many times I told him it was a figure of speech.

 

[Lapidem]

@Romanov2488

A good book is "A Case For Faith" by
Lee Strobel, a former atheist _ award winning, investigative journalist, who sought out to disprove God and Jesus but was shocked to discover the overwhelming evidence and is now a Christian. He also wrote , "A Case For Christ".
"Evidence That Demands A Verdict" and "More Than A Carpenter" are other good ones as well.

Another good read is "The End Of Faith" by Sam Harris who reasons well that the notion of faith itself is a key problem for humanity since it requires that we lay aside simple rational reasoning. The book is described thus:

"In The End of Faith, Sam Harris delivers a startling analysis of the clash between reason and religion in the modern world. He offers a vivid, historical tour of our willingness to suspend reason in favor of religious beliefs—even when these beliefs inspire the worst human atrocities. While warning against the encroachment of organized religion into world politics, Harris draws on insights from neuroscience, philosophy, and Eastern mysticism to deliver a call for a truly modern foundation for ethics and spirituality that is both secular and humanistic."

 

[Lapidem]

Oh? See 1 Cor 13.

Faith, hope and charity. Nothing about love in there. You just proved my point.

So, you reject 2 dichotomies: natural v man-made + natural v supernatural.

The term man-made means something of nature taken by man (who is made by nature) and assembled into some form or other.
If you take 100 leaves that nature created and put them in a pile, the pile is man-made, but it's all still a product of nature. If you take a kilo of wheat that is produced by nature process it into flour you still have a product of nature. This echoes nicely with the tenets of Alchemy and the creation of the Philosopher's Stone. Though the alchemists labour long in their laboratories all they are actually doing is providing a perfect environment for nature to do its thing. The Stone is a product of nature. Man can not produce it.

Supernatural? Can you give me any solid evidence of the supernatural? Is there such a thing as super nature? Some kind of greater nature than ordinary nature? I've never seen or witnessed such. Surely what man like to call supernatural is just more ordinary nature that hasn't been seen before or which is not understood.

By your construction of terms, God is part of the natural. The natural exists. So, therefore, God exists.

I'm afraid that's very false logic. The statement "God is part of the natural" already assumes there is a God. You can't then use that statement to prove that God exists. Condensed that is just "God exists because I say he does" which is somewhat naïve.

Let me help.

IF there exists some kind of God, not the concept of God peddled by Christianity (which is patently ridiculous) but some kind of universal source energy then yes, it's part of nature and nature is a part of it. One and the same. This is where I lean towards. Pantheism. The universal life energy is in everything. It's the fundamental lego bricks from which everything is made.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

Another good read is "The End Of Faith" by Sam Harris who reasons well that the notion of faith itself is a key problem for humanity since it requires that we lay aside simple rational reasoning. The book is described thus:

"In The End of Faith, Sam Harris delivers a startling analysis of the clash between reason and religion in the modern world. He offers a vivid, historical tour of our willingness to suspend reason in favor of religious beliefs—even when these beliefs inspire the worst human atrocities. While warning against the encroachment of organized religion into world politics, Harris draws on insights from neuroscience, philosophy, and Eastern mysticism to deliver a call for a truly modern foundation for ethics and spirituality that is both secular and humanistic."

I think the "end of faith" is coming for everyone. For Christians, they won't need faith in heaven because that which had been unseen (God and heaven and their eternal bodies), will be a reality. For unbelievers, if they do not receive faith sometime in their lives, their fate will be sealed at death, the end of life and everything that was good.