The Reasons why "Just Following Jesus" Doesn't work

[Rekeisha]

Your are right everything is subject to God because His very existence creates absolute truths.
Since there is absolute moral truth that isn't subject to man how does your world view account for that?
Since you have admitted there is a wrong way to live that is not subject to humans. Then there must be a right way to live that is not subject to humans so how do you know that you are living is the right way?

That is not what I said. What I'm saying is that if morals come from someone, be they man or god, it is subjective. That is what subjective means. If it was objective, it would be separate from god, and he wouldn't be correct by default.

I don't account for absolute moral truth, because I don't believe it exists. I don't believe that homosexuality is an abomination, or that slavery, rape, genocide, and human sacrifice is ok within certain restrictions just because I read it in a book. Or that thoughts equal actions, and that killing an innocent person can absolve the guilty of their crimes, or that infinite punishment for finite crimes is a just system, just because I read it in a book.

I can do some research into objective data, that can influence my subjective morality, so I have a more clear idea of how I should live. I have already gone over this. I don't know how to be more clear to you.

The definition for objective is: (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Objective only deals with people, not God. Since God does not change any of His moral commands will never change. He is also able to inforce this law and no one can over turn it. There is nothing out of His control so everything is subject to Him.

If you don't believe that there is an absolute then how do you account for knowlege? You have no foundation to base anything off of.

How can you do any research because you can't even trust your methods of research. You can not establish the correct way to research without an absolute. All of your conclusions are meaningless because there is a lack of foundation.

There is a truth and there is a truth giver. I can know things because God who has infinite knowledge has reviled this knowledge to me. You do not live as if there are no absolutes because you do not live as thought tomorrow would suddenly be a completly differnt reality. Not just that the world has systems if there were no absolutes then you would not see any natural laws.

[Chad32]

That is not what I said. What I'm saying is that if morals come from someone, be they man or god, it is subjective. That is what subjective means. If it was objective, it would be separate from god, and he wouldn't be correct by default.

I don't account for absolute moral truth, because I don't believe it exists. I don't believe that homosexuality is an abomination, or that slavery, rape, genocide, and human sacrifice is ok within certain restrictions just because I read it in a book. Or that thoughts equal actions, and that killing an innocent person can absolve the guilty of their crimes, or that infinite punishment for finite crimes is a just system, just because I read it in a book.

I can do some research into objective data, that can influence my subjective morality, so I have a more clear idea of how I should live. I have already gone over this. I don't know how to be more clear to you.

The definition for objective is: (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Objective only deals with people, not God. Since God does not change any of His moral commands will never change. He is also able to inforce this law and no one can over turn it. There is nothing out of His control so everything is subject to Him.

If you don't believe that there is an absolute then how do you account for knowlege? You have no foundation to base anything off of.

How can you do any research because you can't even trust your methods of research. You can not establish the correct way to research without an absolute. All of your conclusions are meaningless because there is a lack of foundation.

There is a truth and there is a truth giver. I can know things because God who has infinite knowledge has reviled this knowledge to me. You do not live as if there are no absolutes because you do not live as thought tomorrow would suddenly be a completly differnt reality. Not just that the world has systems if there were no absolutes then you would not see any natural laws.

God is a person. If he wasn't, there wouldn't be a point in worshiping him. A place, thing, or idea can't reward or punish you for anything. Just because he doesn't change (which is debatable) doesn't mean he got it right the first time. It just means he's stubborn. His ideas of the way things should be are as subjective as any. The only difference is that he's apparently top dog. if anyone overthrew him, their opinions would be the absolute morality somehow.

There are some things that can be absolute. Morality isn't one of them. I have said this before.

We can trust a method of research that can be cross-examined by other people, using multiple sources if possible. We make theories about things that have been repeatedly tested through multiple means, and reached the same conclusion. It remains a theory because something might come along to change it, but just because we don't know everything about how something works now, doesn't make it useless.

Your god doesn't seem to be good at handing down truth, given how many of his followers have died over disagreements over the truth he's trying to hand down.

[Rekeisha]

If there is no objective truth then you can make those statement about being human and animal right and since those statements, in your world view, are made up someone else can come by tomorrow as redefine everything. So either people are humans because of an absolute truth and we have rights based on that truth or we are humans because we say we are and we have no right other than the ones we make up. If the latter is right then being caged and leashed aren't wrong because someone can make up other rights based on their beliefs.

._.

Humans are animals. That's the fucking taxonomy of our species. We are humans because we are humans. We don't need to say so.

Yes, the only laws that exist are the ones we've made up! Why do you think they change all the time?

Right and wrong, rights, laws and truth are all just our perception. And why wouldn't they be? What, do you think morality is some sort of an intrinsic property of the universe? We made them up, or rather we evolved them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

And as to being caged and leashed, your god doesn't exactly object to that, either.

Tell me:

What other rights would we have that we didn't make up?
What does truth mean?
Can you demonstrate objective morality?

Who made up the idea of taxonomy?

If we make the rules and everything is subjective then the rules have no true authority. They are meaningless and aren't even as stable as the waves of the sea. Why even follow or care about them because they are just the imaginations of some people who are neither right nor wrong they just have a personal preferance.

What do you know about my God and how could I even trust your system of judgement if it is just made up?

The rights given by God which are immutable

Truth is conformable to fact; in accordance with the actual state of things; correct; not false, erroneous, inaccurate, or the like; as, a true relation or narration; a true history; a declaration is true when it states the facts.

These are a part of the moral law which is not subjective to any person
A person should be trustworthy and loyal
A man should protect his family
You should give respect where it is due.
When you are able you should help those in need.
You do not murder or harm the innocent and helpless

[Chad32]

Pretty sure the bible condones abandoning families and killing the helpless from time to time. These are not immutable.

You seem to think in opposite extremes, ignoring anything in between. You think unless something is absolute, it has no value, though I'm not sure why. Be careful not to strawman the argument.

[robvalue]

That is a huge problem with religion, it encourages binary thinking. Something is perfect or it is worthless. Something is certainly true or absolutely false.

We constantly live inbetween these extremes, which is why religion is of no practical use when it comes to morality or truth.

[Longhorn]

Why do you think that anything subjective has no value?
or is it the potential to change that makes something worthless?

and btw, your god is made up, too.

[Dragonetti]

Hmm, your logic would then suggest all animals are currently locked in a cage by Humans, which we know is not true. Also, God placed you in a cage with all other lifeforms called Earth. I would like to see you live outside the planet's atmosphere.

[Rekeisha]

The definition for objective is: (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Objective only deals with people, not God. Since God does not change any of His moral commands will never change. He is also able to inforce this law and no one can over turn it. There is nothing out of His control so everything is subject to Him.

If you don't believe that there is an absolute then how do you account for knowlege? You have no foundation to base anything off of.

How can you do any research because you can't even trust your methods of research. You can not establish the correct way to research without an absolute. All of your conclusions are meaningless because there is a lack of foundation.

There is a truth and there is a truth giver. I can know things because God who has infinite knowledge has reviled this knowledge to me. You do not live as if there are no absolutes because you do not live as thought tomorrow would suddenly be a completly differnt reality. Not just that the world has systems if there were no absolutes then you would not see any natural laws.

God is a person. If he wasn't, there wouldn't be a point in worshiping him. A place, thing, or idea can't reward or punish you for anything. Just because he doesn't change (which is debatable) doesn't mean he got it right the first time. It just means he's stubborn. His ideas of the way things should be are as subjective as any. The only difference is that he's apparently top dog. if anyone overthrew him, their opinions would be the absolute morality somehow.

There are some things that can be absolute. Morality isn't one of them. I have said this before.

We can trust a method of research that can be cross-examined by other people, using multiple sources if possible. We make theories about things that have been repeatedly tested through multiple means, and reached the same conclusion. It remains a theory because something might come along to change it, but just because we don't know everything about how something works now, doesn't make it useless.

Your god doesn't seem to be good at handing down truth, given how many of his followers have died over disagreements over the truth he's trying to hand down.

God is not a person He is God a deity a almighty being. We are made like Him, He is not like us.

If there is no moral absolute then you have no foundation on which to judge anything as right and wrong. You would be just arbitrarily stating what is right and wrong.

I can't trust your judgment on what you say about God and His people because you don't have a foundation on which to make judgements.

[Chad32]

God is a person. If he wasn't, there wouldn't be a point in worshiping him. A place, thing, or idea can't reward or punish you for anything. Just because he doesn't change (which is debatable) doesn't mean he got it right the first time. It just means he's stubborn. His ideas of the way things should be are as subjective as any. The only difference is that he's apparently top dog. if anyone overthrew him, their opinions would be the absolute morality somehow.

There are some things that can be absolute. Morality isn't one of them. I have said this before.

We can trust a method of research that can be cross-examined by other people, using multiple sources if possible. We make theories about things that have been repeatedly tested through multiple means, and reached the same conclusion. It remains a theory because something might come along to change it, but just because we don't know everything about how something works now, doesn't make it useless.

Your god doesn't seem to be good at handing down truth, given how many of his followers have died over disagreements over the truth he's trying to hand down.

God is not a person He is God a deity a almighty being. We are made like Him, He is not like us.

If there is no moral absolute then you have no foundation on which to judge anything as right and wrong. You would be just arbitrarily stating what is right and wrong.

I can't trust your judgment on what you say about God and His people because you don't have a foundation on which to make judgements.

If he's not a person, he's not worth worshiping. I might as well be worshiping the trees.

Yes, we do have a foundation. That foundation is consistent data. It's not arbitrary to say something is wrong, when it's been historically proven to cause problems. All you're doing is making special pleading for your god, saying it's not subjective when he says something is right or wrong, even though that's what subjective means.

You keep saying the same thing over and over, ignoring my examples without giving good reasons for doing so. You want to put your god on a pedestal for no apparent reason, and we keep going in circles. Why are we even having this conversation anymore?

[Rekeisha]

Why do you think that anything subjective has no value?
or is it the potential to change that makes something worthless?

and btw, your god is made up, too.

I think that if there is only subjective truth it can't have value because of the contridiction between right and wrong that inherently exist. Now if there is absolute truth there will be a means to evaluate your subjective truth. Change can add and take away but to evaluate wither it is good or bad you must have an unmovable foundation to make that judgment.

Again I can't trust what you say because you have no foundation on which to make a truth claim.