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

[Chad32]

You believing that I will burn has no effect on whether or not I really get burned.

I'd like to use that against any christian who believes in fire and brimstone hell.

[Lek]

Ok. Good catch on the belief thing! You're exactly right there.

So... if you knew I'd stay Muslim, or else I stay atheist, which is better? (Sorry for the weird questions! Just seemed interesting.)

No problem. I think you forgot my original reply to your question, but I'll just drag it here.

Becoming a muslim would require that you believe in God and would be a step in the direction of the truth. Coming to faith is often a step-by-step process. So generally speaking, I would prefer that you become a muslim. especially since the vast majority of muslims don't try to kill infidels. Now if you wanted to become a muslim and begin ravaging those who don't believe the way you do, then it would probably be better for the world that you remained an atheist for now.

[Rekeisha]

@Rob I read the definition of arguing from ignorance. It has been 2000+ years since the death of Jesus and and many more thousands of years since Moses first pinned the Torah. Yet no one has over thrown any parts of the Bible. If it is a lie how long will it take get the evidence to support this claim?

As for the either a Muslim or an atheist the end result is the same. You are still heading in the same direction it doesn't matter what you call it.

[Longhorn]

@Rob I read the definition of arguing from ignorance. It has been 2000+ years since the death of Jesus and and many more thousands of years since Moses first pinned the Torah. Yet no one has over thrown any parts of the Bible. If it is a lie how long will it take get the evidence to support this claim?

if it's the truth, where is the evidence for it?
You don't just get to shift the burden of proof like that. The default position is not that we take everything at face value without evidence to the contrary, especially if it's an extraordinary supernatural claim like the Bible

[Chad32]

It has been thousands of years since Judaism and Christianity were started, yet only a minority of people believe it's true, and those that do have killed each other over what the revealed truth actually is. How long will it take before the followers of god reach a consensus?

[Secular Elf]

Secular Elf, your post is so long and involved that I just can't divide it up and reply to sections separately.  First of all, calling me willfully ignorant is not an answer to my questions.  Secondly, going through a zillion word summary of your accepted version of the history of judiasm and christianity may show why you don't believe in them, but it doesn't invalidate either religion.  The same goes for your essay on your version of the history of the development of the doctrine of the Trinity.  Are you just giving an informational account here or are you trying to prove that christianity is untrue?  If you're trying to show that christianity is untrue, how does your history lesson prove this?

As many people who come to AF claim that that they do so to learn, it is for informational purposes.  It is also quite true that many Christians are ignorant of the history of their religion.  I present facts of history to demonstrate that much of what Christians claim about their religion isn't necessarily so.  If you find this confusing I humbly encourage you to do some research on your own.

---

It is a synopsis either verbatim and/or paraphrased of what I learned from Wikipedia and other web pages regarding the history of Christianity.  I wrote the essay for my own benefit as I was studying it, putting everything in chronological order as I went.

[abaris]

@Rob I read the definition of arguing from ignorance. It has been 2000+ years since the death of Jesus and and many more thousands of years since Moses first pinned the Torah. Yet no one has over thrown any parts of the Bible. If it is a lie how long will it take get the evidence to support this claim?

Well, you're still arguing from ignorance since the egyptian gods lasted even longer. And it's even more ignorance that noone has thrown parts of the bible, since the bible as it is today has been compiled in the late 4th century, when christianity became Roman state religion and many parts have been scrapped back then.

You could easily look that up if you showed any interest in anything else than preaching. And by the way, there are 2,2 billion christians in this world. There are 7 billion people. Seems like it's a minority. A sizeable minority, but still a minority.

[Lek]

Secular Elf, your post is so long and involved that I just can't divide it up and reply to sections separately.  First of all, calling me willfully ignorant is not an answer to my questions.  Secondly, going through a zillion word summary of your accepted version of the history of judiasm and christianity may show why you don't believe in them, but it doesn't invalidate either religion.  The same goes for your essay on your version of the history of the development of the doctrine of the Trinity.  Are you just giving an informational account here or are you trying to prove that christianity is untrue?  If you're trying to show that christianity is untrue, how does your history lesson prove this?

As many people who come to AF claim that that they do so to learn, it is for informational purposes.  It is also quite true that many Christians are ignorant of the history of their religion.  I present facts of history to demonstrate that much of what Christians claim about their religion isn't necessarily so.  If you find this confusing I humbly encourage you to do some research on your own.

I have also researched church history, but I don't agree with all your inferred conclusions as to the effects of those historical events. One example is that the doctrine of the Trinity developed over a period of time and wasn't formalized by the church until a few hundred years after Christ. Did you mean to say that this information invalidates this doctrine? I see none of what you said in your posts that would prove that christianity is not true. But I see that you are presenting this information to educate christians and give us some food for thought. I can accept that.

[abaris]

I have also researched church history, but I don't agree with all your inferred conclusions as to the effects of those historical events.  One example is that the doctrine of the Trinity developed over a period of time and wasn't formalized by the church until a few hundred years after Christ.  Did you mean to say that this information invalidates this doctrine?  I see none of what you said in your posts that would prove that christianity is not true.  But I see that you are presenting this information to educate christians and give us some food for thought.  I can accept that.

The doctrine invalidates itself by making Jesus' sacrifice a joke. He's god, so he can't die, he's god, so he created the sin he supposedly atoned for.

Also, the trinity wasn't written in stone. If you're really familiar with church history, you will probably know about Arianism.

[Lek]

The doctrine invalidates itself by making Jesus' sacrifice a joke. He's god, so he can't die, he's god, so he created the sin he supposedly atoned for.

Also, the trinity wasn't written in stone. If you're really familiar with church history, you will probably know about Arianism.

You don't have an understanding of the christian doctrine of the Trinity. Jesus was fully God and fully man. By becoming man Jesus allowed himself to be subject to the same conditions that we all face. Jesus, the man, died and was raised from the dead with a physical body, just as will all believers. The doctrine of the Trinity is arrived from the totality of the scriptures, not by a single statement or verse. Just saying that there were heresies, such as Arianism, only shows that there were factions within the church who disagreed with orthodox christianity. There are similar factions today. The fact that Arianism existed doesn't validate an assumption that Jesus was not God and man.