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]

There is a VERY marked difference between "the wages of sin" leading people to death, and your extremist poster here saying "those that don't obey god's Will, deserve to die".

Friend, these expression are equivalent. Wages are earned. People get the wages they deserve. (Don't quibble over rate. I'm talking about the rate x the number of hours. No one pays that if the person has not worked those hours).

One more point; truth is extremist.

 

[BarneyFife]

Haters pretend Jesus is ONLY about peace when in reality he is ALSO about complete surrender and submission to God’s Will as an act of our love.

What's the difference between those two? I don't see any.

 

[Wrangler]

Haters pretend Jesus is ONLY about peace when in reality he is ALSO about complete surrender and submission to God’s Will as an act of our love.

What's the difference between those two? I don't see any.

The Atheist might be able to explain it better than I can. In short, he creates a Strawman of God's nature, then attacks Christianity for holding ideas that go against the Strawman he created.

The Atheist has a God complex and wants YHWH to submit to him rather than the Atheist submit to YHWH. The Atheist wants DMC, Decision-Making Control, to be lord over his own life AND for Jesus to not condemn him for going against God's will every step of the way.

To the Atheist, "love" means one can sin with impunity. OR if God allows the consequenses of sinful behavior to be handled by the sinner, the Atheist deems the Christian has a wrong idea of God being all loving. The Atheist invents such word meanings as a vein hope to manipulate God to act as the Atheist deems fit.

The Atheist denies God's complete nature. In addition to love, God is also holy and just. The Atheist scoffs at and loathes the notion that payday is coming and he will be completely powerless to deal with the consequences of a foolish life, denying God, his plan for the Atheists redemption and the truth of the many times God's people tried to reach him but in his arrogance, contemptuously slapped away the hand that saves.

Hope this answered your question.

 

[Lapidem]

What's the difference between those two? I don't see any.

I guess it's personal perspective which is shaped by how indoctrinated one has become.

Peace comes through not forcing anything and allowing people free reign. Parents quickly learn that love dies if they constantly try and force their kids to submit to their rules, preferences and styles. The "my way or the highway" approach is laughably appalling and catastrophically destructive for any kind of relationship.

Hence with the Christian dogma the "submit or go to hell" approach is equally laughable. It paints god as a tyrant, an authoritarian dictator. No-on with half a brain cell can possibly think this is the true nature of god, but as I said, some are so deeply indoctrinated that they will believe any old tosh they've been spoonfed, having long lost the ability to think for themselves.

Do I want to spend eternity with a tyrant who is prepared to treat people like that? No sireee !

This is why the Christian doctrine is as absurd as it clearly is. It's all threats and sombre warnings and appalling pious arrogance in those thinking they have one over on others. Boy are they in for a huge shock !

Some on this site have realised the lies of that core dogma and worked out that god isn't anything like that painted by the church. They've managed to find the humility to realise they were previously duped and indoctrinated and had the courage to challenge what they were taught and start to search in new directions. They "emptied their cup" of all the past lies and nonsense and refilled it with love and new understanding.

 

[Wrangler]

Peace comes through not forcing anything and allowing people free reign.

Hence with the Christian dogma the "submit or go to hell" approach is equally laughable. It paints god as a tyrant, an authoritarian dictator.

Here is where you are hopelessly misguided. God's laws are protective, not restrictive. The reason the guard rail is there is to prevent you from driving off the cliff to your death.

People are free to choose but not free from the consequences of that choice. Anyone is free to break God's law at any time. I do not believe we are punished for our sins but by our sins. If you choose to drive over the cliff, don't blame God when it ends your fiery annhiliation.

Peace comes from surrender. When you fully submit to God's lordship over your life, you will have the peace that transcends all understanding. His spirit of peace will displace your fleshy desire to oppose what is in your long term best interest. As Scripture says, those who are free in Christ are free indeed.

 

[Lapidem]

As I said, this fundamentalist zealotry paints god as a tyrant and by this any rational person can see that the fundy dogma is laughably false in nature. Oh wait, I need to put this in colours because for some reason this makes some kind of difference. The appalling psychological scaremongering Modus Operndi of fundamentalists shows itself to be not only false but horribly out of kilter with the true nature of god. This is the power of indoctrination. It blocks rational and critical thinking.

 

[Lapidem]

Interesting article:

How Religious Fundamentalism Hijacks the Brain

Fundamentalist ideologies act like mental parasites.

www.psychologytoday.com

How Religious Fundamentalism Hijacks the Brain

Fundamentalist ideologies act like mental parasites.​

In moderation, religious and spiritual practices can be great for a person’s life and mental well-being. But religious fundamentalism—which refers to the belief in the absolute authority of a religious text or leaders—is almost never good for an individual. This is primarily because fundamentalism discourages any logical reasoning or scientific evidence that challenges its scripture, making it inherently maladaptive.

It is not accurate to call religious fundamentalism a disease, because that term refers to a pathology that physically attacks the biology of a system. But fundamentalist ideologies can be thought of as mental parasites. A parasite does not usually kill the host it inhabits, as it is critically dependent on it for survival. Instead, it feeds off it and changes its behavior in ways that benefit its own existence"

"In much the same way, Christian fundamentalism is a parasitic ideology that inserts itself into brains, commanding individuals to act and think in a certain way—a rigid way that is intolerant to competing ideas. We know that religious fundamentalism is strongly correlated with what psychologists and neuroscientists call “magical thinking,” which refers to making connections between actions and events when no such connections exist in reality. Without magical thinking, the religion can’t survive, nor can it replicate itself. Another cognitive impairment we see in those with extreme religious views is a greater reliance on intuitive rather than reflective or analytic thought, which frequently leads to incorrect assumptions since intuition is often deceiving or overly simplistic."

"We also know that in the United States, Christian fundamentalism is linked to science denial. Since science is nothing more than a method of determining truth using empirical measurement and hypothesis testing, denial of science equates to the denial of objective truth and tangible evidence. In other words, the denial of reality. Not only does fundamentalism promote delusional thinking, it also discourages followers from exposing themselves to any different ideas, which acts to protect the delusions that are essential to the ideology"

 

[Wrangler]

How Religious Fundamentalism Hijacks the Brain

Fundamentalist ideologies act like mental parasites.​

the true nature of god

So, how do you know the true nature of God while also avoiding the brain hijack?

 

[Lapidem]

So, how do you know the true nature of God while also avoiding the brain hijack?

Because any entity who designs all that we see around us wouldn't remotely be anything like the kind of tyrant that you seem to relish, creating hell and consigning people to oblivion. Your ideology is at best Neanderthal, cultish.

 

[Wrangler]

Because any entity who designs all that we see around us wouldn't remotely be anything like the kind of tyrant that you seem to relish, creating hell and consigning people to oblivion.

Circular reasoning.

 

[Lapidem]

Circular reasoning.

Critical thinking. Try it . .

 

[Wrangler]

You're projecting - again. All you do is deny the evidence to maintain your false beliefs. From 'Real Face of Jesus' Revealed in Newsmax Magazine
The shroud has been a subject of controversy for some time, but Chandler says major media have largely ignored the new scientific and forensic evidence pointing to its link to Jesus of Nazareth.

"The shroud was examined recently by one of the top laboratories in Italy, and they were able — through this these new techniques that I just referenced — they're able to date the shroud back 2,000 years ago," Chandler said.

"It's AB blood and, by the way, that blood matches a cloth called the Sudarium, which is another historical cloth which is on display in Spain at the moment," Chandler said.

"The evidence is mounting,” he said.

"The researchers that we spoke to, and we spoke to numerous researchers, many of whom have devoted their careers to this, independently, they've come to the conclusion that the shroud is real."

From

Showing the importance of not relying on any one branch of science, the conclusion that the shroud is the actual burial cloth of Christ rests on these 8 bits of evidence.

1. Replica cannot be recreated
2. Image is 3D (only such image on Earth)
3. Matches Sudarium of Oviedo Blood Stains
4. New Studies on Age
5. Forensic Analysis
6. Pollen Grains
7. Coins Minted by Pontius Pilate
8. AB Blood

New test dates Shroud of Turin to era of Christ. The Shroud is a negative of a negative. But the most intriguing question, even given the least reliable data of 1326 is, how did the image of the man get put on the shroud centuries before photography was invented? Some estimate the radiation to produce the image in 3D would need to be nearly 1,000 x stronger than the sun and such a burst of radiation would have to be generated in 0.2 seconds. Man does not have the ability even now in the 21st century to generate this radiation signature.

There is no non-supernatural explanation for this observed phenomena.

One of the principles of science is that an explanation for what is observed has to yield to better explanations. One cannot legitimately call themselves a scientist or following the science but hold to 'no explanation' in light of an explanation one does not want to admit, an explanation involving the supernatural.

Photograph of the Moment of Resurrection

A video called The new astonishing phenomenon detected on the Shroud by International Institute For Advanced Studies of Space Representation Science, Palermo Italy found the Shroud of Turin is not a single image but a superimposition of many images. The highly technical and dry video uses phrases like, 'reconciliation shows orthogonal projection from the body onto the cloth, which does not occur in nature.' This means that IF the source of radiation were external to the body, the image would be distorted as radiation moves in waves and is seen in circumference patterns. The orthogonal projection (linear) from the body onto the cloth can only mean one thing; the source of radiation is from within the body.

One odd thing is the video concludes the body was placed in the prone position (face down). At 40-47 minutes of the video it details 4 areas of clear movement and multiple bursts of radiation to show the movement.

1. The legs are incongruent with the soles of the feet.
2. multiple location of inanimate objects (falling with gravity)
3. the hands moved in union with the chest (breath)
4. Nail in foot retracted as foot rotated 90 degrees.

 

[Lapidem]

You're projecting - again. All you do is deny the evidence to maintain your false beliefs.

Back to repeating the same nonsense again.

And yet again you fail epically to understand the difference between evidence of a thing and that thing being what YOU claim it to be, which are of course 2 VERY different things.

I hope I'm getting the colours and bold/italics right !!! Clearly it seems to make a difference somehow in this puerile landscape.

So let's recap to once again quash this BS you keep spouting.

1. Evidence of a designer for the Earth and life forms on it, DOES NOT equate to that designer being YOUR chosen deity and mythical fabrication. It is what it is, evidence of A DESIGNER which could be any entity more advanced than humans

thus

2. Evidence of the existence of an historical figure called Jesus DOES NOT equate to that figure being the mythical entity YOU choose to believe he is. It is what it is, just evidence of an historical figure. A human.

Fact is Jesus had the Philosopher's Stone as did his disciples. Jesus was an alchemist. The Stone was used to revive him after crucifixion.
The Stone is a source of incredible energy which is why it is kept secret lest it fall into the hands of the military. It's power could destroy humanity and everything around us. It could very easily explain the shroud.

 

[Wrangler]

the difference between evidence of a thing and that thing being what YOU claim it to be, which are of course 2 VERY different things.

You mean, like your claim lacking ANY evidence whatsoever that Jesus had a rock, which is what caused the observed miracles?

Fact is Jesus had the Philosopher's Stone

 

[Wrangler]

I hope I'm getting the colours and bold/italics right !!!

You didn't use colors.

 

[Wrangler]

Evidence of a designer for the Earth and life forms on it, DOES NOT equate to that designer being YOUR chosen deity and mythical fabrication.

So, you admit the evidence of a designer for the Earth and life forms is compelling? That is, you believe Creation of Earth and life forms on it were made by a designer?

 

[Wrangler]

1. Evidence of a designer for the Earth and life forms on it, DOES NOT equate to that designer being YOUR chosen deity and mythical fabrication.

The evidence certainly does overwhelming prove the premise. You are just in denial.

But for you, a rabid Atheist, I'm only trying to prove God exists. One step at a time. To side step this first step, you attempt to move the goal post.

YOU: There is no evidence God exists.​

​

ME: Here is the evidence:​

1. Creation.
2. Life. (DNA language in 4D written into molecular arrangement)
3. Math
4. Etc.

YOU: Yabut that does not prove the Christian God you believe. There was this rock ...​

2. Evidence of the existence of an historical figure called Jesus DOES NOT equate to that figure being the mythical entity YOU choose to believe he is.

I did not present evidence of a historical figure. I presented scientific evidence of a supernatural cause of the image on the Shroud of Turin. And far more profoundly, I presented scientific evidence of the moment of the resurrection, his literal first breath.

Your response? Appeal to Strawman. Pretend I only presented historical evidence that an ancient person existed. Just deny, deny, deny. That's all you got.

What's so funny is how you hold that a rock explains the miracles with no evidence. The standard of evidence you demand of others is not the same standard of evidence you require for yourself. ROFLMAO.

 

[Lapidem]

You mean, like your claim lacking ANY evidence whatsoever that Jesus had a rock, which is what caused the observed miracles?

Sure. I freely admit that Jesus is not physically here to ask however in the Bible he spoke about the Stone often and always using allegorical terminology as all alchemists do. Add to that the Bible refers to the same thing in similar allegorical terminology and there is reasonable cause to consider that Jesus was an alchemist and had the Stone. And just to avoid your further embarrassment the Stone is not a rock, that's just your ignorance of alchemy. In similar fashion the Elgin Marbles aren't small spheres used to play a child's game just in case you were wondering.

 

[Lapidem]

So, you admit the evidence of a designer for the Earth and life forms is compelling? That is, you believe Creation of Earth and life forms on it were made by a designer?

I already conceded that there could be designers of the life forms on this planet many pages and days ago. It obviously went over your head. However the "creations" or designs are very far from perfect. Some are clever others are clumsy. Some are good, others are positively wicked. Therefore we have cause to consider who or what the designer or designers were. What seems obvious to any rational mind is that they were not created by any mythical all-powerful, all-loving perfect deity.

 

[Lapidem]

The evidence certainly does overwhelming prove the premise. You are just in denial.

Nope it doesn't. There is no such evidence. You just need to cling to this fallacy because you've invested your life in the silly mythology the church has indoctrinated you with. You're stuck in that illusion.

But for you, a rabid Atheist, I'm only trying to prove God exists. One step at a time. To side step this first step, you attempt to move the goal post.

Again nope. You're just not listening or have comprehension issues caused by your religious fervor. I believe there is something, a universal source, a cosmic energy. I just don't believe in the childish Santa Claus fairytale concept of god that you do. That doesn't make me an atheist.

YOU: There is no evidence God exists.​

There is lots of evidence that YOUR particular concept of god does not exist.

​

ME: Here is the evidence:​

1. Creation.
2. Life. (DNA language in 4D written into molecular arrangement)
3. Math
4. Etc.

​

Again that's proof of "a designer" not proof of your Santa Claus concept of god. Wriggle all you like and keep repeating the BS but it doesn't change this solid fact.

I did not present evidence of a historical figure. I presented scientific evidence of a supernatural cause of the image on the Shroud of Turin. And far more profoundly, I presented scientific evidence of the moment of the resurrection, his literal first breath.

Nope. Again false. You presented evidence of something which you choose to believe is supernatural and that's just because you don't yet understand the science behind what caused it. Just as people believed the Earth was at the centre of the universe.

What's so funny is how you hold that a rock explains the miracles with no evidence. The standard of evidence you demand of others is not the same standard of evidence you require for yourself. ROFLMAO.

Nope, again there is no rock anywhere that I have spoken of. I hold that Jesus had the Elixir Of Life because all the benefits of that tally with what Jesus is recorded as having achieved with it and because Jesus spoke allegorically about the Elixir in his parables and elsewhere. I realise this must be frustrating for your current ignorant position but until you have the "eyes to see" these things will not become revealed to you. Stomping up and down and having childish tantrums won't get you those eyes. You need humility, you need to "empty your cup" and relearn.