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

[drfuzzy]

---

Lol no. God doesn't exist.


Besides, that doesn't even follow. Even if god did exist and he had actually written that book, hating a book doesn't automatically mean you hate its author. That's just stupid.




The Golden Rule is arguably our oldest moral principle, found in documents that predate the Bible by literally thousands of years. It has been in circulation and practice for virtually all of human history. What part of that makes it seem to you like human moral principles won't stand the test of time?


My views on evil are not motivated by whether humans have intrinsic worth or value. They're motivated by empathy and an understanding of suffering. Actions are not evil because they violate a person's "worth," they're evil because they needlessly inflict suffering and/or detract from the well-being of one or more individuals. My morality is informed by the actual greater good and not some arbitrary list of rules, and that's what makes it better and more useful than yours.




You keep going back to this "You don't believe in a creator therefore nothing you believe can be definite," thing, and I have thoroughly explained multiple times why that is an asinine assertion. If you still don't understand, I really don't have anything else to say about that matter. Sprout a brain, already.


The social standards of my time produce objectively better results in terms of human rights and human suffering, so my social standards are objectively better than the Bible. Your book only produces results in the event that your god and your hell actually exist, which you still have yet to demonstrate.




And if they choose to live in a way that is contrary to social morality, they are ostracized and/or punished by society. Sure, that means that the over-arching morality is ultimately what's in charge, but that's been getting consistently better throughout history, and that correlates directly with the decline of religion and the increase in secularism around the globe, especially in government. The last few theocracies left are Muslim ones, and those countries are some of the most backward in terms of human rights. A few hundred years ago, your religion was acting just like that.




No. It functions on whether a choice will cause unnecessary harm/suffering, which has nothing to do with whether a person has value. Regardless of how much "worth" I place on my own life or someone else's, I still recognize that I don't want to suffer or be harmed and can reason out that I shouldn't inflict those things on others. We've been over this.




You have yet to demonstrate that there's anything to be saved from, or anything to do the saving. If you applied your standard of evidence consistently, you would have to accept testimonies and scriptures from hundreds of religions, virtually all of which contradict your own. If you took the standard of evidence you use for other religions and applied it to yours, you'd see why yours doesn't hold up better than anybody else's.


That's presuming that you've critically evaluated anyone else's religion, of course, rather than simply accepting what your pastor says about them. I sort of think you probably just accept what your pastor says, though, don't you?


And no, the word is "threaten." You're threatening me on behalf of this god, not warning me.




Yes, in the vicarious human blood sacrifice for your war god in your death cult. I know. And yes, he's hostile toward gays and women. Old Testament law makes that pretty clear, and Jesus is pretty clear in the New Testament that not one letter of the law is to be forgotten or changed, and so is Paul. I know you think you can somehow dismiss huge portions of the Old Testament while still keeping things like the (wrong) 10 Commandments, the junk about creation, and a whole mess of other garbage I'm sure you still believe, but those of us who are critical, rational thinkers have to be a little more consistent with how we view bodies of text.




More religious jargon. Your god doesn't exist, and he's not going to judge me.




Is that a question or a statement?


I'm a lover, not a fighter.




Those are not real things.




See above statement concerning being a lover and not a fighter.




Yes, and I manage to do it without needing to believe that they'll be tortured forever when they die.




I certainly think people shouldn't bind themselves to lies, and that's why I don't think anyone should bind themselves to your religion or anyone else's.




Souls are not real, and the idea of "worth" has little or nothing to do with whether a person should be treated well for reasons I have already outlined twice in this post and elsewhere in this thread.




People are born as humans, and that's a trait we share that allows me to empathize with them, and that informs how I treat them. Trying to place "value" on living beings is kind of barbaric in the first place.




I absolutely think they are more than who they are attracted to, whereas your god would be willing to damn them forever for that fact alone, ignoring the rest of their existence. Just another example of how I'm more moral than your god.




Joy can be found in all kinds of places: sex, companionship, romance, athletic achievement, financial success...the fact that I can find joy in all these things and you only find joy in your imaginary friend just means my life has more joy in it than yours does, which is yet another reason why my world view is objectively more positive than yours.




I certainly don't want people lied to, which is why I'm against religion.




A love that will burn them in hell for eternity unless they blindly accept a story that contradicts mountains of evidence in the very reality that this god supposedly created. Don't forget that part.




While that isn't true, taking "cues" from real people would still be a better idea than taking them from a fictional character.


Then again, taking cues from people is the reason that you think you're taking cues from a fictional character, so no, I try to avoid just blindly listening to anyone. I go by what the evidence says, and the evidence says that your god is a make-believe being contrived by ancient desert-dwelling scribes who knew no better than the people who used to blame thunder and lightning on Zeus or Thor.

---

---

You view of books are simplistic not all books are about the same thing so depending on what the book is about determines you view on the author. Your view of the Bible is also simplistic and your understanding of how God communicates is flawed. The Bible is full of stories reflecting God's glory and our depravity. Since you reject this truth you hate God. 


Where did you first encounter the Golden Rule? Also your rendition of the Golden rule that you now ascribe to, If I am remembering correctly, is a negative version. Don't do to people that you wouldn't want them to do to you. So this just means don't do avoid certain behaviors that from your point of view would be harmful. The Golden Rule goes further and tells you to act on that person's behalf. To humble yourself and move towards a person for his or her good. 

---

Your motivations on calling something evil is simplistic and narrow. You don't understand the fullness of what is evil because you don't understand the fullness of what suffering is and what it is for. You don't know what is good for a person in the long run. You are only using your limited understanding of how you feel and how people say that a things should be. You don't know everything so you can't fully understand suffering. You don't full understand enjoying a thing so you can't see how this too can cause suffering and pain. You don't accept that there is purity so you can't see how certain things will corrupt a person. Since, you don't think people can be pure then you don't see that impurity must be removed therefore you leave people in their pain and suffering. You can only judge by what you see not by what actually is. You lack knowledge, wisdom, and understanding to rightly apply the Golden Rule d and your assertion that you have and do is arrogant. 

You again have a narrow minded view and hold prejudice views on past cultures. You believe that because you were born at a certain time that you are now so morally and socially advanced that you can understand the nuances and needs of a person throughout time... You have no control over the time you were born in but you pride yourself with your moral superiority? You are blind to your moral weakness and to this prejudice. This again is arrogant.

---

As for gays. God would be right if he killed all of humankind, but He move towards all of His enemies in a loving way. God says that pride is an abomination and I have struggled with this for the majority of life. This is a condemnation just like that person who participates in any sexual sin. Instead of just sending me to Hell Jesus died on the cross for my sins and theirs. There is no one on the face of the planet that has any moral high ground. There is no one who doesn't deserve God's condemnation. You view your sin so lightly that you have blinded yourself to all the evil that is around. You also miss a great deal of pain and suffering and the ones that you do you can only cover up with platitudes and behavior modification. Your narrow view of what is actually happening with the human soul is lacking. This  is proven by the fact that you don't believe it exist. Your viewpoint will only keep people enslaved to their pain and suffering not free them from it. God not only can free them from their sin enslavement but also from suffering. Not in this life but in the next. Also He doesn't give people platitudes He uses His own body to heal their pain. He doesn't give them lies about how they are but names their sin then gives them a few identity through His love and grace. 

Don't hide behind insults and falsehoods you know exactly what you need saving from you know that your actions will lead to destruction. God is purifying the world and if you choose to hang onto your sin He will remove you. Yet, in His grace He moves towards you and will walk you

---

Wow, was this a drunk post?  There is a lot of fragmentation and the grammar is pretty odd in places.  
It's also a HUGE ad hominem attack.  How DARE you tell anyone that you have never met that they "don't understand" something over and over and over and over and . . . yawn . . . JesusChrist wanking off on a cracker, what a BITCH.  Redbeard has treated YOU with understanding and gentleness and patience, over and over, and all you do is insult him.  And you accuse HIM of being narrow-minded, prejudiced, and arrogant??
Wow.  I have never seen such a HUGE example of the pot calling the kettle black.  Just Wow.  With every post you become more and more of a poster child for how your stupid death cult and your evil book and your imaginary friend turns human beings into assholes.