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

[TheRocketSurgeon]

In my first novel, I put my characters in Los Angeles. I'd hate to think that 2000 years from now people will be standing in the administration building at Cal State thinking, "Oh wow, we're standing right where Chloe met Ted. And there really is a King Hall here. There really is a Greyhound station on Los Angeles Street, so Rhonda's book MUST be true."

That's  not what fiction writers mean when they say suspend disbelief.

Agreed.

A better metaphor, though, would be if you wrote a book about London in the 1600s, and people claimed that because there really is a Tower of London, etc, that it's really true... even though due to shoddy or unavailable research materials, you actually got a lot of stuff wrong (like putting a suburb that wasn't founded until the 1800s in the story because you didn't know it wasn't always there), and yet people claim your book is the definitive guide to 17th century England.

[Rhondazvous]

Agreed.

A better metaphor, though, would be if you wrote a book about London in the 1600s, and people claimed that because there really is a Tower of London, etc, that it's really true... even though due to shoddy or unavailable research materials, you actually got a lot of stuff wrong (like putting a suburb that wasn't founded until the 1800s in the story because you didn't know it wasn't always there), and yet people claim your book is the definitive guide to 17th century England.

This is why they say get the children when they are young. By the time I took science in high school I was too firmly indoctrinated to question Joshua making the daylight last longer by praying for the sun to stand still.

[Rekeisha]

This is again an oversimplification of the facts and a misunderstand of what the bible says.

So how is what he's saying wrong? You dismiss it out of hand as an oversimplification, but you do nothing to actually explain why that is, which is a problem because first of all, you've offered no justification for your assertion and second, you've provided Redbeard no opportunity to correct his views if, indeed, he's wrong in them. I feel like you could be doing better, both for yourself and for others, if you added a little more effort to your responses beyond simplistic "nuh uh!"s.

Since you deem the bible full of lies then I assume you don't ascribe to the golden rule in the bible instead you ascribe to a "golden rule" that predates the bible. So, I will assume that it is a golden rule that says don't do to others as you would have them do to you. Like the one Confucius said. If you ascribe to one that tells people to do onto others then please state it because I am unaware of it.

The golden rule predates the bible, as you seem to acknowledge, but weirdly, you don't actually seem to know what the formulation of it was before Jesus "said" it. Have you even read Confucius' version? "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." It's literally the same sentiment, just presented in a passive voice: why would you then lie and say that Confucius' version was "don't do to others as you would have them do to you."?

I didn't explain further (when talking to RedBeard) because we have been writing back and forth for a while, but you are right, and I will dive in deeper since you pointed it out.
God is the creator of all human kind and He is the source of all physical and spiritual life. If He wants to end a life he can and does. Not just that but He is not like us He is totally different and knows everything and is good. His decisions may seem incorrect to us (again He is Higher and Greater than us, His creations), but they are correct.  He possess all knowledge, He knows what is right and what should take place, whenever it needs to take place. It is a mercy and grace that He doesn't just condemn up for our sin but give us opportunities to repent and believe in Him.

As for Egypt He gave them warnings and chances to repent but they didn't and even when he sent plagues He didn't completely destroy them. God had a plan for the Israelites and Egyptians to display His glory. What He did in Egypt helped build the faith of the Israelites, and subdue those who would have loved to kill them as they traveled to Canna. He also made it so that Egypt wouldn't have the ability to get them back. He completely severed any social ties the Israelites had with Egypt at the time. 

As for Sodom and Gomorrah, He allowed Abraham to intercede, seek mercy, for them. God was willing to save the two towns if there were at least 10 righteous people but there weren't any. The are account in Genesis speaks of the people wanting to gang-rape the angels, who they thought were men. Even when they were struck blind they were more concerned about getting to these "men" instead of their physical state. There was a serious social decay in this society and they were a cancer to this area. God knew what the result of a society this corrupt could do it it continued to exist; so he destroyed it.  Though Lot was accounted to be "most righteous", yet because of the intercession of Abraham, God chose to make a way for Lot's whole family.  The Angel had to physically remove Lot's family chose. Lot's wife was leaving but at the end she desired the sickness of Sodom and Gomorrah more than the salvation that God was providing. 

Satan was in the presence of God since his own creation and so were the angles that don't get to be saved. He saw the purity and holiness of God he was a witness to more truth about God then we are. Yet, he was more interested in rejecting God's goodness for his own glory. He was so full of pride he attempted to overthrow God and got other angels to join in. God isn't going to save him he is going to throw Him in Hell and remove his evil from the world. 

The fig tree is a tree. Still, it is also a symbol for those who pretend to follow God, but they are just hypocrites. They like to look godly instead of being godly. They are liers and Jesus was using the fig tree as an illustration on what he will do to all those who are trying to play the game. God isn't fooled.


I don't think I explained what I meant by "don't and do's" very well, sorry. The Confucius version is saying avoid doing things you don't want done to you were as the Judaiouchistian vision is say do what you want done for you. One is "passive" while the latter is "active".
Say my husband leaves dishes for me to clean, am I to: dwell on how I don't like to be treated, therefore cleaning the dishes in anger? or am I to think about wanting to be helped and therefore see how I can help my husband, yes by cleaning the dishes out of love. Is that clearer?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I like how she explains these stories... to people who grew up Christian, have heard them likely as many times as she has, and can recite them just as easily... as if we don't understand them.

It's charming in the same way that the mentally handicapped nephew drooling on himself as he tries to eat at the big table with the adults is charming.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I also like how, in the story of Sodom, she focuses on the attempted gang rape of the angels (the homosexual hatred angle, as if rapists are the same as homosexuals if they target men), and ignores that Lot offered two of his virgin daughters in their stead.

Now why, if the sin of Sodom was homosexuality and not rape, would Lot think that might be an acceptable solution?

[Rhondazvous]

I also like how, in the story of Sodom, she focuses on the attempted gang rape of the angels (the homosexual hatred angle, as if rapists are the same as homosexuals if they target men), and ignores that Lot offered two of his virgin daughters in their stead.

Now why, if the sin of Sodom was homosexuality and not rape, would Lot think that might be an acceptable solution?

Because in the bible, forcing sex on a women, or what we modern humanists arrogantly call rape, is not a sin against the woman but against her husband. Since there daughters had no husbands and their father saw fit to hand them over, the man in the city were free to do whatever they liked. It's like when you're walking through the grocery store and the salesperson hands you a free sample of frosted marshmallows.

oh she's a she? I really don't know what to think about women who have no problem with the misogyny in the bible. It's o in your face.

[drfuzzy]

I like how she explains these stories... to people who grew up Christian, have heard them likely as many times as she has, and can recite them just as easily... as if we don't understand them.

It's charming in the same way that the mentally handicapped nephew drooling on himself as he tries to eat at the big table with the adults is charming.

      
Instead of looking for any real proof, or researching your comments about archaeology and the wholly babble, she just goes back to her fairy tales.  We're probably at an impasse now, she has no debate skills and no logic.  Just pat it on the head, say "whatever you say dear" and move on.
    

[Wyrd of Gawd]

I also like how, in the story of Sodom, she focuses on the attempted gang rape of the angels (the homosexual hatred angle, as if rapists are the same as homosexuals if they target men), and ignores that Lot offered two of his virgin daughters in their stead.

Now why, if the sin of Sodom was homosexuality and not rape, would Lot think that might be an acceptable solution?

Because in the bible, forcing sex on a women, or what we modern humanists arrogantly call rape, is not a sin against the woman but against her husband. Since there daughters had no husbands and their father saw fit to hand them over, the man in the city were free to do whatever they liked. It's like when you're walking through the grocery store and the salesperson hands you a free sample of frosted marshmallows.

oh she's a she?  I really don't know what to think about women who have no problem with the misogyny in the bible. It's o in your face.

The interesting thing about the Lot story is that it doesn't specify how many daughters the scumsucker supposedly had.  He had some sons, that he left to get roasted.  He had some daughters, who were married.  They also got roasted along with their husbands.  And he had the two skanky ones, who may or may not have been married.  So it's possible that he had at least ten people in his family who should have met the criteria of being righteous but in the end he ran out of town with just his wife and his two skanky daughters and enough wine to keep him drunk for months on end.

[Redbeard The Pink]

Actually He has, is and does. Every Day I don't draw a breath without Him. I can't keep myself together, physically, without His direct help. You can't either. You curse Him with your words but God still takes cares of you.

That is nonsense. Your lungs are what lets you breathe, and your lungs came from evolution.

Post them and I then hold me accountable if I do or don't.

Nah, I'm good. A cursory google search will yield the global stats for the rise of secularism and the decline of religiosity worldwide in recent decades, and the stats for how mostly-atheist countries like Iceland and England compare with mostly-religious countries like America in terms of violent crime, social progress, education, prison populace, and various other categories. Do your own research for once.


While you're at it, you can look up the stats for the religious affiliations of the American prison populace. The overwhelming majority are Christian, more so than in the general population. Atheists make up a tiny fraction of inmates, whereas they make up anywhere from 15 to 20 percent of the general population depending on how the survey question is phrased. If atheism caused delinquent behavior, then we'd expect to see a higher percentage of atheists in prison than in the general population, but instead we find the opposite.

Fact check that friend. Many of His political leaders have attested to the fact that he wanted to abolish the church. You should read the biography of Bonhoeffer.  If he were a christian then there wouldn't have been a section of the christian leaders lead by Bonhoeffer to denounce his "church". He just used christianity to get in because that is what the culture identified as by tradition. He is a christian like Donald Trump is a christian. Here are some things I have found http://www.amazon.com/The-Nazi-master-pl...B00CH5XL5M if you can find it look at the New York Times "National Reich Church" where Hitler hollows out the chruch and places himself in it as god.

 

Hitler was Catholic, and the Nazi party was overtly Christian. Check the history. The actual history, not some crackpot ebook.


Besides, even if Hitler were pretending to be a Christian just to get into power, is that argument really helping Christianity?


"Hey, Hitler! You can't be the Fuhrer of Germany because you're an atheist; the German people will never vote you in. The only way to get them to commit the mass extermination of the Jews, Gays, Gypsies, handicapped, etc. is to pretend to be Christian!"


Yeah...that's not really helping your religion seem less evil.

Then there is no right and wrong if it is invented by humans.

Bullshit. Right and wrong are concepts invented by humans. You can't claim your god invented right and wrong until you can first demonstrate that he exists, which you have still not yet done.

You don't get to judge whether one is more right or wrong because they have their own systems. You say that the ones that are more right because they are based in some kind of physical truth is just you system of judgement. If someone else does not want their moral system to be done that way then who are you to judge? Everyone will change with the wind and when murder is in it is ok and don't judge it no matter how much suffering it causeses. When it is out don't say it is better because it is all made up anyway and people are just organisms anyway they don't matter they don't have worth. 

"Don't murder," like the Golden Rule, is also a moral code much older than Christianity. Incidentally, it also falls under the jurisdiction of the Golden Rule itself (you don't want to be murdered, so don't murder others). Murder is pretty much never "in." That's a terrible example.


A better example would be slavery, which we now understand to be immoral despite it being legal around the world for most of human history, and despite the fact that it's condoned and celebrated in both testaments of the Bible. Your holy book says that slavery is A-OK, whereas the Golden Rule would say that if you don't want to be enslaved, don't enslave others. Just another reason why the Golden Rule is a better moral guide than your entire Bible.

Now, you say you think for yourself so why do you believe that Homosexuality is right?

Because as long as it's between consenting adults who are being responsible with their bodies and their health (like any couple should), there's nothing immoral about it. It does not cause unnecessary harm or detract from anyone's well-being in any demonstrable way, so I can find no reason why there's anything wrong with it. I'm sure you'll counter with "but they'll go to Hell," but remember I said "demonstrable." Hell is not demonstrable, so it's not a good reason for me to believe something.

What are you basing that moral judgement off of?

See above statement.

Did you sit home one day and it just popped in your head that you thought "today I think Homosexuality is ok!"

No, I first had to realize that Jehovah wasn't real and that the Bible was bullshit. Up until that point I thought homosexuality was wrong because the Bible said so. I was still pro-gay-rights and pro-gay-marriage, at least as an adult, but I did believe homosexuality was wrong until I finally realized that the Bible was just a storybook.

Would you have had the same mindset 50 years ago?

Maybe, maybe not. I have no idea.

You say you think for yourself, but then you say that moral are a social construct. Which is it?

Personal morality is always built out of some combination of one's personal beliefs and the dictate of society at large. Nobody builds their moral framework in a vacuum, and there are trends that tend to permeate human behavior as a whole (with some anomalies, of course), but the actual morals and the reasons they're held will still vary somewhat from person to person.

There are somethings I thought were just fine but I was wrong and it blew up in my face then I went to the bible and found out that God says that those things are wrong.

That would be the sharpshooter fallacy. The Bible, among other things, contains huge lists of rules about what's right and wrong; it forbids practically everything humans do as a species. You would have to rule out coincidence before jumping to the conclusion that your situation got bad because you offended god.

I can't call it I am not that wise and all knowing. I don't know what is going to adversely affect me or others and I don't want to do a trial and error thing. Sox Yes I am going to ask the one who knows everything. It doesn't say in the bible where I should live or what to drive or watch on tv. I have to actually listen to God and He has instructed me.

Correction: you instructed yourself. That voice in your head is not a god, and you do not have personal access to a source of Universal Knowledge. If you did, you would make better arguments and offer actual evidence when questioned instead of just vomiting up more religious garbage.

Why do you say this?

Because it is a basic rule of logic that a claim cannot be used as evidence of itself. You can't use the Bible to prove what the Bible says because that's circular. Because the Bible is the source of your claims, you have to support the things in the Bible with evidence from other sources.


I know your pastor says that the Bible "aligns with archaeology and history," or whatever, but that simply is not true. Mainstream scholarship denies much of the "history" in the Bible as having never happened.


The Exodus from Egypt lacks any archaeological evidence from the appropriate region and time. Neither Geology nor Anthropology supports the idea of a world-wide flood big enough to drown Everest by 20 feet. Many cities, such as Jericho and Nazareth, didn't even exist during the time frames where their stories are set. I could go on, but hopefully you're getting the idea. The Bible is full of stories that are no more historical than the myth of the Trojan Horse.

It is self evident like the sun is self evident and the only reason people don't see the sun is either they are blind or they look away.

The problem with that is that we don't see your god no matter where we look in the Universe. We can see the sun, feel its rays, test its properties, study its contents...we actually know quite a lot about the sun, and we know those things because of science. In the days of religion, most people just thought the sun was a magic light from...you guessed it...a god. Now we know it's a ball of churning plasma. Religion didn't really help us get there.

Did humans do that collectively? When? How?

This wasn't a singular event. Human culture and thought has been in the works for at least the last 100,000 years, maybe longer.

Why are we still being evil?

Well, there could be a lot of reasons and a lot of ways that a person justifies acting immorally. For one thing, they might have a moral code that's counter to other people's that doesn't recognize a behavior as immoral. They might come from a culture that doesn't recognize a behavior as immoral. They might believe the behavior is usually immoral, but that God will forgive them, or that it's ok this one time because they've actually been commanded by God to carry out whatever action they've conceived. Sometimes our animal nature takes over and we go into "fight" mode, taking actions with the survival centers of our brain rather than with our higher reasoning. Sometimes people get caught in circumstances so dire that they feel they have no other choice if they (or their families) want to survive. Sometimes people get so mad with power that they think moral principles don't apply to them, or that they get to dictate what those principles are.


The reasons are myriad and often unique to the situation. There is not a magic devil or force of evil that makes people do bad things.

Why are nations still collectively causing needless suffering and wrong?

You know who does the most of that?


Theocracies.

If what you say is true humanity didn't really agree we just made empty declarations and went about doing whatever we wanted.

No, not really. We can do whatever we want within the framework of the rules (some of which, like laws, are officially agreed upon, whereas others come to exist in more subtle, organic ways), but when one of us breaks those rules, there are consequences. If you act immorally (meaning you needlessly/selfishly detract from well-being and/or cause suffering), other people might withdraw from you, mistreat you in kind, or even try to hurt or punish you depending on how bad your behavior is.

Here is a link to different versions of the Golden rule. I know what the Golden Rule says in the Bible and the reason I asked you where you heard it from first is because you are still holding on to the one in the bible not the ones that most culture say. Most cultures and religions but this statement in the negative from "don't" whereas in Christianity and Judaism say to do this and to love your neighbor as yourself even one Egyptian one says do. These statements are different than just don't do a thing. So my question is since you have rejected the bible which one where you citing. 

I am not citing one text or another. The common message of ALL these rules is "treat others the way you want to be treated." I can reason that part out for myself, so that's the rule I follow.


The Biblical Versioin, "Love your neighbor as yourself," is not the same thing just because it's a "positive" version of the rule. It's still totally different. "Treat others the way you want to be treated" makes no mention or requirement of "loving" yourself or anyone else. "Love" is a very loosey-goosey concept when you start dragging theology into it anyway. The language in my version is much more plain and useful, plus it has the upside of not being attached to a book of fairy-tales that people are willing to kill and die for.

Read Hebrews it will explain what I meant. When you worked at your christianity did you understand how Jesus was a sacrifice and what He gave up? Did you ever understand what it cost Him or even question why people said that He sacrificed?

I know why you think the vicarious blood sacrifice is both super cool and super important, but seriously, what Jesus did isn't an "infinite sacrifice" any way you slice it. You're talking about an infinite being who played at being mortal for one short, measly human lifetime plus three days of being dead. Out of all eternity as a supreme ruler, that's really not giving up much. The Romans crucified a LOT of people, and none of them got to go rule the Universe, so they actually got a worse end of the stick than Jesus did.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Not to mention that, as a god-man (as they allege), Jesus would have known his death wasn't permanent, and that he would arise and ascend back to heaven to [I guess fuse/conglomerate with his original self?], so really it wasn't even a big deal. A little bit of pain, perhaps.

"Jesus had a pretty bad weekend for your sins."

Seriouly, good grief... if I could know for sure that I'd arise from the dead, I'd probably volunteer to be cruficied and resurrected, just to see what it's like. YOLO! I mean, YOLT! (You Only Live Twice.)