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

[Redbeard The Pink]

He could create a system that wouldn't break down like the free will system but then you wouldn't have free will. He wanted to create beings that are made in His image. This entailed giving us the ability to love freely. Since God is love then we need to have the ability to love. If you don't have free will you don't have love. If you have to ability to choose love the you must have the ability to not choose to love.

 
Ah yes...the ability to love freely, and then be punished for loving certain people in certain ways...how nice.

An all-powerful and perfect being could create a system with free will and not have it all come crashing down because of something that he himself built into the system. Something all-powerful and all-perfect could create beings that can choose not to love him and they would all still love him. All-powerful means able to do anything. By all written accounts, your Gaud is an incompetent designer. If he designed the system to include (or even just knowing it would result in) sin and suffering, then he is malicious and not all-loving. If he couldn't create a system without those things, then he is not all-powerful. If he failed to create a system that could not be disrupted by those things, then he is not all-perfect.

Could you please elaborate on the construction of the bible, what troubles you about it's construction? 

Let's see...the fact that virtually all of its stories disagree broadly with mainstream science and history, the fact that virtually all of its tenets and narratives are stolen from other cultures, the fact that it can easily be used to incite and condone horrendous atrocities against humans, the fact that it endorses and regulates slavery (including guidelines for selling one's daughter as a sex slave)...shit, like all of it, basically. It's a horrible book, and it's ALL fictional.

Also what makes you think He isn't speaking right now? 

 
How about the fact that he never spoke to begin with? How about the fact that he most likely does not exist? Those are both good reasons.

What bothers you about suffering?

 
Seriously? What bothers YOU about suffering? It's suffering. Are you saying you aren't bothered by it?

What bothers me about it in terms of Gaud is the fact that it exists at all. If he's really all-powerful, then creating a system that inflicts suffering on anyone was completely unnecessary unless he wanted there to be suffering for some reason. What love-inspired reason could he possibly have had for creating a system where suffering was somehow inherent or necessary? Again, if he chose to do it, he is not all-loving. If he had to do it, he is not all-powerful.

As for forgiveness is there anything you couldn't forgive? If someone murders, or rapes, or defrauds someone you love without remorse would you easily forgive and not seek justice for your family? Would that be just and right? If the criminal asked you to forgive them would it be just to your family to say "I forgive you" and let that person off the hook?  Should there be punishment for those who do wrong? 

Sure, there might be circumstances under which I could be emotionally strained into non-forgiveness and even vengeance, but not for any and every little perceived offense someone commits against me, which is how your Gaud purportedly handles it. Furthermore, there is absolutely no finite crime in this world anyone could do to me or anyone else that would justify eternal torture. That isn't justice by any definition I would accept.

Your objections with rape, genocide, slavery assumes that people have intrinsic worth so where does this worth come from? If we don't have intrinsic worth then on what bases are you saying these practices are wrong? (especially if morals are subjective). Also could you please point me to the biblical accounts of God approving of these actions.

No, it assumes that people suffer when they are raped, killed, and enslaved. Because I know what it is to suffer and I know how I would feel about anyone who raped, enslaved, or killed me, I can reasonably assume that others do not want those things done to them either. If I expect people to respect my wishes not to be raped, enslaved, or killed, it reasonably follows that others should be able to expect the same from me. What part of the Golden Rule is so hard for Gaud people?

Why is God impossible?

Because he is consciousness in the absence of matter.

Because he is said to exist outside the material Universe and yet still be able to affect the material Universe observably.

Because he is supposed to be all-loving and all-powerful and yet responsible for creating a world rife with suffering and malice and leaving it that way.

How do you know that your reasoning has changed?  How does reality have any authority? It is not a being and only beings can have authority and give authority. So are you your ultimate authority?

Authority probably wasn't the right word, considering how you theists love to bandy semantics about. What I'm saying is that evident reality is my standard for Truth. Ultimately, though, we're all limited by our own perception and understanding.

By what standard are you judging these people to say their knowledge was practically non-existent? Along with your study on the bible did you also study the cultures of that day? Also again if morals are subjective why are you judging the way they conducted their society?
What is savage about not lying, stealing, murdering, respecting your parents, not coveting, not committing adultery? Do these laws display a lack in human rights?

By today's standard. What else? I'm right, too. And yes, I've studied the cultures in question. They knew practically nothing of science and the natural world, hence the content of the creation account, the flood story, etc. All you have to do to know this is read the things they wrote.

Morals are subjective, which means that there is no objective source of moral truth, but there are objective criteria by which we can compare two or more moralities relative to each other. Today's modern, western, secular morality objectively contains less suffering and more rights/equality than Bible morality, so today's morality is objectively better than Bible morality.

how do you define what suffering is and how can you say that it is objective as well as empathy?

I define suffering as pretty much any experience a being goes through that said being does not wish to have. A shorter way to say it is that suffering is the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship. I can say it and empathy objectively exist because we can observe them in objective reality.

How do you know that that proof is right?

Because I have the knowledge and critical thinking skills to tell when I'm looking at good evidence.