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

[Redbeard The Pink]

I still find you are oversimplifying the facts to back up your viewpoint

You don't say.

Hitler being born a Roman Catholic is one thing and following the tenets of Catholicism is another thing. Also even if he followed those tenens doesn't make him a christian. Many of the Roman Catholic practices are not biblical hence the Martin Luther's 95 theses starting the protestant reformation. His behavior was contrary to what the bible calls for like "loving your neighbor as yourself". The fact that he targeted the Jews as a problem is a big issue as a christian since Jesus was Jewish. Also that link I showed you, do you even know what it was? Well I have linked the New York Times article that will explain it and also the link to it again so that you can take a look.  (Article from the New York Times The Persecution of the Christian Churches')

So Catholics aren't true Christians, and we're back to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Do I really need to go over this one again?

Yes our lungs helps us breath but are willing to ask yourself why do they work this way. Not, how this works but why does this work.

This is a nonsense distinction that you're making so you can ponce around with your semantics later. If I fill in any answer but Gaud, you'll just say "No, that's not the why, that's the how, I want to know why." Watch, I'll prove it.

Why do we work so well in our environment?

If you're talking about humans specifically, it's because we've been adapting to our environment generation by generation for roughly the last 100,000 years, and the organisms we descended from came from a process of adaptation that was billions of years long.

If we are supposed to be evolved how long does it take a being to change enough to work like we do.

Billions of years of gradual change as new generations breed and die.

You need a heart lungs and brain and we don't work right without them.

Evolution of the Heart


Evolution of the Brain


Brains most likely came first, in case you were wondering.

We also need a male and female to create more humans but single celled organisms don't.

Evolution of Sexual Reproduction

 It would seem better not to need two different sexes just split from yourself so how are we better to have two sexes.

It might seem that way to you, but no, that's not the case. Creatures that reproduce sexually (with a male and a female) exhibit more genetic diversity, which generally makes for greater disease resistance and better adaptation across generations.

Think deeply about this.

Trust me, I have.

Just saying people evolved is simplistic and doesn't tackle a lot of the real issues.

I'm guessing by "real issues" you mean "imaginary issues," right?


So it's simplistic to say that humans are the end result of billions of years of gradual change and adaptation because of a mountain of evidence from the fossil record, genetics, etc., but it's not simplistic to say that humans are the result of an all-powerful, invisible person scooping up a fistful of mud and breathing on it because a dusty, old book says so?


 

Why in the world do things function.

There's that metaphysical "why" again.

 

Why does it seem like things are pre-programmed?

The Universe exists as it is and functions as it does for no apparent reason. It just is and does. Your Gaud does not suffice as a reason for the origin or configuration of the Universe because he has not been demonstrated to exist, and you can't posit something as the reason for a phenomenon if you can't demonstrate that the thing you're talking about exists. You're trying to solve a mystery by appealing to a greater mystery. It has no explanatory power, and it raises more questions than it supposedly answers.

What makes a thing move from nonliving to living?

Most experts say that the line between life and non-life is when a cell forms, but some think that that definition is too narrow because it doesn't include viruses, which technically aren't a complete cell that can duplicate on its own and yet do behave as if they were alive in many respects: they often have some level of cell motility, they do reproduce themselves (even though they require a host cell to do it) and convey genetic information, they can adapt genetically from generation to generation, etc.

Your claim that most people are christian in jail as proof that christianity is corrupt is again another simplistic argument. Have you asked what was the polers definition of Christianity? Then you have asked when did these people in jail say that they became christian? Also Christianity is for those who realize their brokenness so it is easy to come to this realization in jail. There is a place in Louisiana the Angola prison is full of christian and that is because a prison warden. When he became the warden it was one of the most dangerous prisons in the United States. Then he started to plant churches in the prison and crime and violence dramatically dropped. Here is a documentary about the prison.

Do the same that I suggested above with the statistics you find about crime being more serious in religious culture than non-religious. You have to ask yourself about their history and the values of the culture. You have to think about population density, what they think about weapons, what is the the climate like, is food plentiful? What kind of government do they have what do they think about a person's autonomy? Also, when they were doing a survey what did they define as religion? Which religion predominates the culture because not all religion teaches the same thing. Do those who claim that religion actually practice the tenets of the religion?

What I'm demonstrating is that godlessness and illegal/immoral behavior are not positively correlated. People are about as likely to do bad things regardless of whether they're religious or what religion they belong to.


The vast majority of Christians behind bars were Christians when they went in. Look it up if you don't believe me.

You keep disparaging me for following what preachers say then you admit that you follow the crowd of what the culture says about the correct moral view. I am not sure if you are realizing that making these statements are hypocritical because you are saying that when I follow people it is wrong but when you follow people it is right.

My morality, like everyone's, is a cross between what's in my mind and what's in my environment. I openly admit that. It's not right for me to "follow people" but wrong for you to do it. It's wrong for you to believe you're following Gaud when you're actually following people and/or your own thoughts and/or that atrocious book of yours, all of which is just another brand of human morality with "we're always right" paint on it.

Also since people haven't made a committee to figure out what is right and wrong then how did they find it out? Why do they even want rules? Why do people in society want order? Why do we even understand what order is? Why do things work correctly when there is order? It is as if we are pre-programmed to want structure and order.

What you're describing is a function of the fact that we're a social species that has evolved to survive and thrive by cooperating and socially interacting with each other.

You say that the bible can't prove it self but this is also a simplistic view. You know that it is a collection of 66 books written by 49 different writers over a span of thousands of years. The fact that that they are unified is amazing.

They aren't unified any more or less than anybody else's religious texts. There is nothing amazing or remarkable about the Bible in terms of consistency, content, historical accuracy, or anything else. It actually contradicts itself on various points of doctrine. I'm sure I've linked to that already, and I'm sure it bounced off your skull like a little bean.

This book was formed throughout time and they didn't just fall from the sky but have links to human culture.

...because it was written by humans...

Your circular argument

You mean your circular argument.

is too simplistic to actually address the way we got the bible and the content in it. There are multiple books about World War II and when someone adds in an alternate fiction about WWII we can tell it isn't true by comparing it with the other books. Same with the Bible. If they were written throughout time like there were with the changing cultures they would not back themselves up like they do.

Based on that logic, we should be able to dismiss all but one of the gospel stories as fiction, since no two of them agree with each other.

When you come to the Bible do you seek to disprove it? If this is true your bias makes it possible for you to be lied to. You may not look for the things that will actually back up the bible and only look for the things that support your viewpoint.

I have always approached the Bible with either the presupposition that it was true or the desire to find out whether it was true. I have never approached the Bible with a presupposition that it was false.

Your view of Jesus' sacrifice is still simplistic. When Jesus rose from the grave he still had a human body and when he ascended he still had a human body. Also the crucifixion is more than just physical pain but he took on the sin of the world past present and future for all who would believe in Him would have everlasting life. You don't understand the wrath of God for just one person it is destructive but Jesus took everyone's. He and his relationship with His father is perfect and close and He never had been separated from him. Yet, he pretty much took hell and separation in order that we would not. He paid for us so that we wouldn't. 

An all-loving, all-powerful god wouldn't demand a blood sacrifice for sin. The very idea of blood sacrifice is barbaric and immoral, as is the idea of punishing an innocent victim for the crimes of the guilty.


This video sums the scenario up nicely:

I spoke about slavery multiple time and again that is a simplistic view of what slavery is in the bible and how it was different from the culture in the area. He condemns it in both testaments in the way it was practiced in that time, the Americas and now (kidnapping people and treating them as subhuman to grow their own wealth). The slavery spoken of in the Bible had stipulations and it also ended after a certain time. People were still given dignity. In some cases it was a way to be gain shelter and protection. Some slaves could even inherit the wealth of the land owner. When you just take your cultural views of what slavery is now and don't look at what God has laid out in the Bible then you make errors like this. 

I have already explained why your views on slavery in the Bible are patently wrong. The text you're pointing to states very clearly that the limitations only applied to Hebrew slaves; Jews were encouraged to buy and capture slaves from foreign lands, and those slaves were slaves for life. Furthermore, the "stipulations" you're talking about were things like "You can totally beat your slaves, just don't knock their eyes or teeth out or kill them. If they die more than a day or two later, though, then that's not your fault." The limited time thing could be loop-holed if you gave your slave a family from among your other slaves; if he doesn't want to leave his wife and children, you can pierce his ear and he'll stay a slave forever.

This again is simplistic. People are liars and love to be in power. If the the way to be in power is to be a priest then they would become priest whether they even cared about God or not. Most people use religion to get them what they want not to get God. Did the people ever encounter Him? Did/do they follow God as Jesus says by being born again and living life by faith or did they just follow what the religion says.  Or did they live double lives, say they believe it in the public and then in private live another. Did they only get to be a priest because it would be a comfortable occupation?

So every Christian who abuses power just isn't a True Scotsman then, right?


Man, I'm getting sick of seeing that shit all over this board.