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

[Redbeard The Pink]

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.

Sooo...Catholics aren't True Scotsman. Great.

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.

So a fossil record that's billions of animals deep is underwhelming. I can't imagine what it would take to impress you.

 Then there is the problem of the start of life which none of the proposed methods have been been proven.

That does not matter. A lack of evidence for someone else's explanation does not equal evidence for yours. To have that, you need...you know...evidence.

Then there is the problem of how all that information got into DNA/RNA.

Ugh. This.


The word "information" is a little misleading for some people as it pertains to genetics, but we're gonna blow right past that and get to the part where it took billions of years to happen in the first place and billions more to reach the level of complexity that we see today. RNA and DNA are made out of things that occur and react with each other naturally, so considering the vast amounts of time and material involved it's really not that much of a stretch. According to statistics, given an unlimited number of attempts, all possible results will manifest, so if life is even remotely within the realm of possibility, the size and age of our Universe made it practically inevitable that life would manifest eventually.

 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).

Are you at all familiar with the process of facial reconstruction from bones? Forensic scientists, anthropologists, and other experts are often able to make very accurate diagrams of faces and other body parts based on what the skeletons look like, even if the samples are incomplete. I'm sure there's some degree of speculation involved with many animals, but you'd be amazed how much information scientists can tell just from looking at a piece of bone. Just from looking at a skull, for instance, scientists can often tell what an animal most likely eats, what kind of vision it has, how good its hearing and sense of smell are. By looking at human bones, we can tell if a subject was male or female, how old they were when they died, what their occupation was...the amount of information in a skeleton is actually pretty baffling.

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?

Scientists have literally millions of fossils of men and man-like ancestors dating from various parts of our evolutionary history, and we have genetic and physical traits in common with apes. Technically speaking, we are apes. We didn't just evolve from apes...we are apes right now.

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.

But even if he could (and I'm not conceding that), to be able to say that he is the cause you would need some evidence that he actually exists and then further evidence that he actually caused the Universe. Just because something hasn't been proven impossible, doesn't mean that it is actually possible. It could still be impossible and just hasn't yet been proven so.


I reject the notion that your god exists because there is no good reason to believe otherwise.

(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. 

So you're telling me that it's a "wall" in my thinking to say that the Universe "just is, and then you intend to turn around and tell me that your god "just is"?


Sounds like you've hit a wall in your thinking.

Do you trust the news?

Not particularly.

Or science textbooks. Those are also written by men.

Yeah, but the difference there is...

You have said that you trust them because they line up with objective truth.

Ah, you beat me to it. Also, I'm not quite sure I said that exactly. If I did, what I meant to say is that I trust those things if (and only if) they are supported by sufficient evidence to indicate that they comport with objective reality.

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.

Nooooohohohoooo...


No, you do not. The bible is contradicted flatly by history and science both. The number of manuscripts and the meticulousness of the copying methods only establish how close the copies are to the originals; it sheds no light on whether the original texts were true. Once mainstream science and history get involved, the claims made by religion crumble like smoldering paper.

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. 

The point is that if your god were actually the source of all goodness and morality, then we would expect his followers to be noticeably more moral than the general population (but they aren't), and if lacking a belief god actually made it harder for a person to be moral, then we would expect atheists to be less moral than the general population (but they aren't). Christians love to appeal to morals as if they're evidence for god, but then god's followers aren't actually any more moral than anybody else.

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.

I am fully aware of what the Bible says. I'm also aware that there is no good reason to believe any of it is true.

What you call contradiction in doctrine may come from a lack of understanding.

Or maybe you just don't see the contradictions because of a lack of understanding, and because your pastor told you there aren't any (spoiler alert: he's wrong).

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.

Man, that context thing is the go-to Christian cop-out, isn't it?


If I or something I linked to is out of context, you need to specifically demonstrate why, or I can just say you're wrong and I don't believe you. General assertions are not sufficient. I know the Bible, the history, and the context of those writings. I was a very well-read Christian and an advanced biblical apologist. Practically all of the arguments you're using and assertions you're making have come out of my own mouth at some point or another, and you still haven't scratched the surface of some of the better ones I used to make. Talking to me about "context" is not a game you want to play.

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.

The contradictions are interesting and serve nicely to demonstrate that the Bible was definitely written by humans and not a perfect, divine being, but they're not really the reason I don't believe the Bible. When I was like you, the contradictions didn't bother me either. I always just swept it aside by assuming that the contradiction didn't affect doctrine, or that it arose from a misunderstanding of the lack of proper chronology in Jewish storytelling, or [insert mental gymnastic here]. In short, I sounded just like you.


The reason I don't believe the Bible is that it's directly and demonstrably contradicted by physical reality. For me, there's just no getting around that. I could care less that it contradicts itself (and it does).

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. 

I didn't say they contradict doctrine. I said they contradict each other. I know that your preacher is always very careful to isolate certain parts of those stories from each other so you're not looking at them right next to each other, but there are several details that are actually inconsistent from one book to the next. We're not talking about things that were in one book and not another one; we're talking about stories that are in multiple books and have mutually exclusive details.


The example that jumps immediately to mind is what happened after the tomb was opened. Looking at the four gospels, it is literally impossible to piece together a sensible narrative that accounts for all the details presented in the gospels about that event. The books disagree on who went to the tomb, what they saw when they got there, what they did afterward...practically none of the details are consistent when we get to the actual Resurrection, which is supposed to be the most important part of the whole story.

First, from what unshakable absolute truth do you stand upon to make such assertions that a "blood sacrifice is barbaric and immoral"?

You're fucking kidding me, right?


Death cult.

 For if you read on i will explain what cornerstone i will lay measure to all else...[/color]
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. 

Great. Now just demonstrate that your god actually exists and I'll happily rejoin your death cult.

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.

So just saying you're a True Scotsman doesn't make you one, huh?


Because there's no way to definitively measure whether Christ has changed a person, we cannot use that as a way to determine whether someone is a true Christian. You have no way of telling the difference between a liar and a faltering Christian, so you have no place from which to say who is a true Christian and who isn't.

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/)

Look, I don't care what Answers in Genesis says about slavery in the Bible; they're just trying to justify a pro-slavery text in a world that is no longer pro-slavery. I care what the Bible says about slavery in the Bible, and slavery is condoned and regulated in both testaments. In the New Testament, slaves are ordered to obey their Earthly masters as they would obey Christ, and the Old Testament regulates the keeping and beating of slaves.


You're really hung up on this kidnapping thing, but what you're failing to realize is that most biblical slavery wasn't fueled by kidnapping. That, interestingly enough, is an argument made by taking those kidnapping texts out of context. Most slaves were either born into it, sold themselves into it to pay a debt, or were enslaved by a conquering tribe/nation (like the Jews, for instance). The Jews were commanded and encouraged to buy slaves from among their foreign neighbors, and those slaves did not enjoy the same limitations and restrictions as Hebrew slaves. Most of these foreign slaves would have been from one of the groups I just mentioned and NOT kidnap victims.


I could link to the text again, but I did that already and it didn't seem to do any good. The Bible plainly and boldly advocates slavery, and you've done the necessary mental gymnastics to convince yourself that it doesn't even when you're staring right at the text, and if you're that badly detached from reality then I really don't know how to get through to you.