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

[Rekeisha]

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?

Here is what roman catholics believe that must happen in order to be saved https://carm.org/catholic-salvation-summary here is the Catachism of the Catholic Chruch or the CCC the arctical cites. In comparison a christian believes that it is by grace you are saved and not ourselves, or grace through faith. When we repent of our sins and accept Jesus' death on the cross, and his resurrection, through faith our sins (tresspasses agains God) are paid. This is done through a confession of our sins. here is the Westminster Shorter Catechism for comparison. 

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?

I have been spending the past few days looking into evolution trying to understand it. I tried to look into the fossil records that show how the bipedal species have evolved and I found it to be sparse. I may not have found the right examples, but the ones I did find were underwhelming. Then there is the problem of the start of life which none of the proposed methods have been been proven. Then there is the problem of how all that information got into DNA/RNA. Everything seems so vague and there is a lot of imagination going into what these species looked like or acted like (because for the majority they don't have full skeletons, or DNA). The connection from fish to man is even more vague. I agree that animals change over time (evolve) but an animal changing from a fish to a Human (over a billion of years) has not been proven well enough.  I find that what is found is one thing but filling in the gaps becomes conjecture. Just looking at the chart for human evolution it looks like two different groups trying to be pushed together. One of ape like beings and one of humans. There is no direct link from one group to the next. So why do you trust these sparse and disparate proof of man evolving out of other species?

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.

No, I want to know why and I guess it doesn't really matter because you have already said that you don't have the answer for why and you are willing to leave it at that.

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.

no apparent reason and it just is...  but then you reject God, who is self existent and not caused, could be the source of why a thing acts as if they have been pre programmed. (in other words they are pre programmed) In Him is life. He is the source of all things. He needs nothing, conversely everything in nature depends on something to exist. Here again is another problem with your rejection of God, you can't explain the origins of existence. Your thinking hits a wall and all you can say is that it just is. 

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

Do you trust the news? Or science textbooks. Those are also written by men. You have said that you trust them because they line up with objective truth. Well, we have more data to back up the validity of the bible than we do that humans evolved from fish or some other species. 

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.

Yes, I will agree that religion or the lack of religion doesn't determine whether you are good or bad, but humanity is evil in his/her heart. This is because they reject God as the ruler of all things and desire to control their own lives. Or instead of having God as their king they steal His throne and choose to be king over their own lives. So even if they do "good" in the name of religion for God they are still the king over their lives. This makes their motives self serving and evil. That is one reason why it says in the Bible you must confess Him as lord and savior. it calls for you to remove yourself from the throne, and God to reign and rule in your life. If you have not done this then you are not a christian. No matter what you say. 

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.

What the Bible says is that only God is right and true and man is flawed. It says that there is a way that seems right to man but the end is death. It says that the heart is deceitful who can know it. It says that we all, like sheep, have gone astray. We do our own thing  in our own way. Then it goes on to demonstrate through the history of israel the depravity of man. I know you know there is suffering and that things go wrong. Sometimes it is naturally caused and a lot of the times it is because Humans inflict pain on themselves. If anything the bible says man is wrong and God is right. It goes to great lengths to show the depravity of man and that not one of God's people were perfect or sinless. There is a right and a wrong and following the true God instead of your version of "Gaud" is never wrong.

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.

What you call contradiction in doctrine may come from a lack of understanding. Yes, you have linked to a website. (it wasn't very convincing)  Most of the "contradictions" sighted are from not reading the text in context. It can also come from a lack of understand the culture of the time. ( http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_m...tions.html) Most of the verse that Jim Merrit compiled are easlily explained. Others can be explained if you understand how we got the scriptures. Others are yet still explained if you understand the purpose of the scriptures and how it was written. If he had done some research he would have been able to find the answers (https://answersingenesis.org/contradicti...ure-index/) this website can give answers to the above linked website's contridicions.

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.

that is untrue there is nothing in those gospels that contradict doctrine. They are written from different points of view so the writer highlights different aspect of a story or don't write about some stories all together. This is because they have different reasons for writing each book. Mark was more than likely the first one written so if it keeps certain names out to protect those written in the book from persecution. Mark wrote his gospel to gentiles, more than likely in his church, so that they would have an understanding of Jesus' ministry and strengthen their faith. Matthew on the other hand was written to jews and trying to prove that Jesus is the Messiah and that he fulfills the words of the prophets. Matthew also uses forms of speech that would be understood by a jewish audience. The gospel of Luke is the first book written by Luke and is supposed to tell the story of Jesus until he went to heaven. All of the three sonoptic gospels are written around the same period of time. John's gospel is written later probably after the destruction of the temple in 70ad and it was written to display Jesus' deity not his ministry. More than likely to non-Jews hence why you see in the text that he explains some jewish words. (It does not necessarily flow in chronological order.) You can look at the above link for any answers to your questions about contradiction with in the gospels. Or you can post them here so that we can discuss them. 

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.

First, from what unshakable absolute truth do you stand upon to make such assertions that a "blood sacrifice is barbaric and immoral"?  For if you read on i will explain what cornerstone i will lay measure to all else...
Your sins must be paid. it can be paid by you or by what God sees as worthy to replace you.  So either you can do it or you can allow God, who is full of grace and mercy, to do it for you. 
Your light view of sin does not dismiss God being a loving God. There is a payment that needs to be paid for those who destroy mankind whether through thoughtless or intentional acts. When you live as though you are "god" over your life and take no thought about the far reaching ramifications of your actions, you hurt people and cause disorder. Disavowing God is destructive to yourself and others because you wittingly or unwittingly promote evil and confusion. The sin of Adam and Eve threw creation into disarray. This disorder caused the murder of their son and many more down the history of Man. The way sinful man interacts with each other causes physical and psychological destruction to all those around them. There isn't one soul on earth that is mentally or physically perfect. When we sin against a person or ourselves we are robbing them of their innate worth and lying about ourselves and God. Also it wasn't just some random person God used as a sacrifice He presented himself in our place. He paid our debt that we rightfully owe Him. To pretend to be more holy than God shows how you are playing "god" by assuming you can judge Him. This faulty judgment causes others to rejoice in your promotion of man sinfully  playing "god" and you easy their walk into destruction. 

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

What I am trying to say is that just saying you are christian doesn't make you a christian. Just doing what other christians around you do doesn't make you a christian either. There must be a heart change. God must have sealed you with the Holy Spirit after you have submitted to Him as Lord and Savior. You must have given your life over to the Lordship of God not through mental assent but on a spiritual level. There have been christians who have misused their power and they have also repented. There are also a great deal of people who claimed to be christian because of culture and not becase they moved from death to life (spiritually). 
I am sure you have experienced in your own life people who have professed knowing/doing/having something... and yet they truly did not.  Think of what pressures or circumstances they may have been influenced by to make such false assertions; did they gain favor/status/rapore/trust/acceptance, could it possible have made them feel superior/safe/loved/wanted...?
this too unfortunately is why some people "claim" to be christian, why they "follow" a religion with out truly believing in it, why you see people fail you time and time again... because they are people... It is only God who can make you a New Creation, and the action word is "make" or therefore the "act of doing", therefore over time we who believe and trust in Him are molded, are refined, are strengthened, and purified; not one of us is sinless but He is in us and working with us that we might sin less, and reveal unto the wold His power and grace in our lives.

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. 

In the old testament as well as in the new It outright says that anyone who kidnaps a person should be put to death (exodus 21:16) and and the person who kidnaps a person will not make it into heaven (1 Tim 1:10). It doesn't say you can beat your slave. If you actually look at the entirety of the old testament laws you would see that God says love your neighbor as yourself (Lev 19:9-18). That would mean that you wouldn't beat your slave. Also it says that you should treat the foreigner well (ex 22:21). When you add these laws to the slavery laws it shows a care for people. If you could just beat your slave then there wouldn't be a law against it (please don't make me go into modern law in order to compare it to ancient law). This artical goes more into depth of what the bible says about slavery. (https://answersingenesis.org/bible-quest...t-slavery/)