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

[Redbeard The Pink]

this statement proves that your view is simplistic. You fall back on your presumptions about what you think I believe and what you think the bible says about suffereing. 

Frankly, I don't much care what the Bible says about suffering because I see no good reason to believe what's in the Bible. My views on suffering have basically nothing to do with what's in the Bible.

These lies don't serve you and won't save you. 

Your god doesn't serve you and won't save you.

You think that there is a decline in religion where are you getting this from?

Statistics. Nonreligious people are the fastest growing group of the population in most modernized countries, and some countries are even predominantly atheist now and have been for a while. You can thank the internet for the spike in atheism, by the way. Having all the arguments and information in the world makes it a little easier for some people to be exposed to new things and parse out which ones are bullshit.

 Also, where is the data to back up your statement that this is a more peaceful time and that it is directly related to the fact that there is a lack of religion?

I said "directly proportional", which means that both overall violence and religiosity have both been decreasing. That's not to say that one caused the other, but if a lack of religion actually caused violence, crime, or immorality, then we would expect to see an increase in these things as religion declines.


We don't, though. We see the opposite, which suggests that either religion is unrelated to morality and they just happen to have a directly proportional relationship, or the rise of secularism has actually had a measurable, positive impact on the globe.


I would take time to dig out the actual stats and link to them, but I honestly don't believe you'll even click on them, and even if you did you'd just gloss over it with your religion-glasses and spit out something from the Bible.

Also the Communist China, communist Russia, Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler these people and governments were (are) secular so it isn't religion it is the heart of man that is deceitful and wicked. Life isn't that simple to say all religion is evil and if we're can be rid of it then everything will be great. That is a very naive viewpoint and I believe a misunderstanding of history and human nature.

Oh wow. You brought out the cold war atheists. Bad move.


Hitler was a Christian, and the Nazi party was an overtly Christian group. There was virtually nothing secular about the German government during the years the Nazis were in charge.


Stalin saw religion as a threat to his power and essentially tried to set up Marxist Atheism as the state religion, the way most dictators do with one religion or another. That had very little to do with wanting to get rid of religion and everything to do with consolidating power around the state.


Mao, on the other hand, was smart enough to start a personality cult centered around himself rather than just trying to push everyone toward atheism. Again, this was a power move and had little to nothing to do with atheism in and of itself.


Mussolini is just a bad example. He used religion when it suited him. He was likely an atheist all his life, but he gave both his children communion publicly, he had a religious marriage ceremony with a wife he'd married 10 years prior in a civil ceremony, and he declared Catholicism the state religion with a concordat he signed in 1929. Italy has been Catholic since the late days of Rome, and even if Mussolini thought it was stupid, he knew he had to pander to that to stay popular.

This is again an oversimplification of the facts and a misunderstand of what the bible says. When life stops at science you will never be able to fully deal with reality. You can't say what happened here is wrong because you don't understand it you don't have a framework to comprehend it. Your claim to say you do is just playing at God and it is a game that you will lose. You are morally, intellectually, physically, and spiritually incapable for the job.

Wow. Just wow.


Morality (even yours) was invented by humans. I am every bit as capable of making moral judgments as anyone else is, and I seem to be more capable of moral judgement than you, since I don't have to depend on an allegedly "divine" command to tell me what right and wrong is. Unlike you, I get to think for myself.

It is not a finite crime it is an infinite crime against an infinite God because God is the one who holds you together.

That is nonsense. Theft is a finite crime. Murder is a finite crime. All human crimes are finite crimes, and infinite punishment for a finite crime is infinitely immoral.

Yet, you use the breath and life he gives you and don't just ignore God just fight against God.  When you do wrong to others whether intentionally or intentionally you use what He has given you to do wrong. You are a thief when you lie to yourself and say He doesn't exist and live life as you deem fit.

No. To be a thief, I would have to be someone who steals things. I do not steal things, therefore I am not a thief. I shouldn't have to explain the word "thief" to a grown woman.

You don't understand because you are unwilling to understand and this is foolish and destructive. Yet, God is rich in mercy and grace. The fact that you are still breathing is proof of this.

You worship a thug.


"The robber has the gun to your head, and you deserve to have him pull that trigger, but because he is rich in mercy and grace, he hasn't pulled the trigger yet. Can't you see how much he loves you?"


Get a grip.

There are many thing that you don't believe nor could understand that are real. Just because you deny it doesn't make it not exist. 

You and your Bible affirming it doesn't make it exist, either. If something exists, there should be evidence of the fact; if you don't have evidence, you don't have a good reason to believe something exists.

I am not going to be ashamed of the truth. What is a shame is that you don't have proof the there isn't a soul or God or an afterlife.

For the millionth time already, that is a misplacement of the burden of proof. If you say these things exist, it's up to you to demonstrate it to someone that doesn't believe it. We do not have to demonstrate the nonexistence of something in order to have a good reason not to believe in it. The lack of evidence for it is a good enough reason.

I have the Bible,

The claim, which can't be used as evidence of itself...

I have the presence of God,

Warm fuzzy feelings...

 the fellowship of believers and history,

Other people's warm fuzzy feelings...

and nature.

Which is evidence of natural processes and shows no signs of being designed or interfered with by a "higher power."

You may say this isn't proof, but God deemed it enough.

Before you claim that your god deemed or didn't deem this or that, you have to be able to demonstrate that he exists. Ancient books, your personal delusions, the personal delusions of other religious people, and nature itself are not demonstrations of any gods.

What is asinine and insidious it to lie to yourself and other about the reality of evil, hell and God.

You're right. I sure wish you'd stop doing it.

Your claims of morals is fallacious there can't be anything wrong with hurt of suffereing in your world because people are just highly evolved organisms.

Highly evolved organisms who are accountable to each other (and themselves) and who invented the concepts of right and wrong. Humans have collectively decided that suffering is bad and that deliberately causing needless suffering is wrong, and that's what makes it wrong. Humans define what is right and wrong.

If you want to end the suffereing of organisms then you need to see what we can do about the suffereing of plant life.

Where did I say I wanted to end all suffering for all organisms? My morality is motivated by reducing suffering; eliminating it is an unrealistic proposition. Some suffering is inherent and unavoidable, mainly because everything has evolved to eat everything else, and because everything eventually dies.

The suffereing of mosquitos and other such animal life. You can't just start thinking about humans because you are one or dogs because you like them. How much of your "truth" is a regurgitation of the world and how much of it is actually reality?

Humans have evolved to be a social, cooperative species because it helps us survive in the wild. Some of us have even developed empathetic relationships with other species both to survive and to improve our quality of life. Other species we are indifferent toward, and others we are hostile toward because they represent threats on the food chain or forms of food for us. In nature, morality tends to favor the species where it appears, so there's no reason to believe it has to apply perfectly to the suffering of every live organism on the planet. That's just not realistic.

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.

I literally just told you the wording of the Golden Rule that I hold. Why would you need to assume anything about what I ascribe to? "Treat others the way you want to be treated." It's very simple. It covers things you should do and things you shouldn't do. How do you get an inherently negative rule out of that without just ignoring what I actually said?

 You are an amazing creation of God and He paid an infinite price so that you may enjoy Him 

Say whaaaaat?!


No, he did not. Your holy book says he was dead for 3 days, after which he ascended into heaven to be king of the Universe at God's right hand. That is not an infinite sacrifice. That's hardly an inconvenience.