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

[Redbeard The Pink]

First the ladies set out for the tomb early at daybreak (matt 28:1, John 20:1, Luke 24:1, Mark 16:1).

Ok, but how many, and which ones? John names only Mary Magdalene, Matthew names only her and the "Other Mary," Mark names 3 women, and Luke describes an entire crowd.


Also, was this before daybreak or after? John describes the visit occurring while it's still dark, but according to Mark and Luke it was light out.

They could already have been outside of Jerusalem. Around this time at the tomb the guards have fainted at the appearance of the Angels who roll away the stone.(Matt 28:34)

Ok, but was the stone rolled away before the women got there (like in Mark, Luke, and John), or after (like in Matthew?) Also, how many angels were there? One (like in Mark and Matthew) or two (like in Luke and John)?

 They also recover and run back to tell what happened (Mt 28:1112)  When the women arrive they find the tomb open,

Hang on, now...in the version of the story that actually has those guards, the women show up before the guards fall down and the stone is rolled away, and in this account you're trying to assemble you have them finding the tomb after the guards have already fainted, gotten back up, and run off. That part of your narrative does not comport with what's in Matthew. The other books say they found the tomb with the stone already moved, but those stories don't mention the guards at all, so there's no support for the idea that the thing with the guards happened before the women ever got there. In the only book with the guards in it, the women see them faint.

Mary M (John 20:12), runs to find Peter and John who were probably in Jerusalem since they followed Jesus to his trial and John to his crucifixion. The other ladies go into the tomb and find the angels in there and receive the news of Jesus resurrection (Mt 28:1, Luke 24:1, Mt 16:16, Mt 28:5) . When Mary M reaches P/J they all run back to the tomb while the other ladies are possible taking another route back to find the tomb (John 20:2). P/J arrive at the tomb and enter to find it empty (john 20:3-7) and then Mary arrives and as they go back she encounters the resurrected Jesus (John 11-17, Mark 16:9). Then after Jesus appears to Mary, He appears to the other women on there way to meet other disciples. Later Jesus appeared to the disciple on the road to Emmaus (Luke 13-35). Then Later Jesus appeared to all of them in the room. (Luke 24:38-40)  for an more in depth explanation you can look at this link

Ok, this part of the story is where it really starts getting messy, but I'll try to cover everything I see wrong here.


First off, in Matthew Jesus appears to all the women at the same time (inlcuding Mary M), so there's no real support for separate encounters or for splitting the women up. The only account that makes it sound like Mary was by herself at any point is John, and that one doesn't really mention the other women at all. Splitting the women into two groups is mostly just scholars trying to force-fit the varying accounts into a single narrative that vaguely makes sense; it's not in the text, though.


Also, there's a discrepancy about who says what, and to whom (and in my opinion, it's actually kind of an important one). In Mark, the women do not encounter Jesus. The angel they encounter tells them to deliver a message to his disciples telling them to go to Galilee so Jesus could meet them there. In Matthew, they get the same message, but from Jesus himself. If you're the all-powerful, all-knowing, and infallible creator of the Universe and you're trying to deliver a message to your people, how are you going to mix up whether something was said by your son or one of your angels (or let the human writers mix it up)?

Here are some bible excepts that are God speaking out against slavery (physical and spiritual)  that is oppressive

Ok, well, "spiritual slavery" is not what we're talking about (and it's not a real thing), so I'm going to ignore those. Let's see what you've got.

 

Thus says the Lord,
“For three transgressions of Israel and for four
I will not revoke its punishment,
Because they sell the righteous for money
And the needy for a pair of sandals. (Joel 2:6)
 
 For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. 4 But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, 5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs [a]according to the hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:3-7)
 
“Is this not the fast which I choose,
To loosen the bonds of wickedness,
To undo the bands of the yoke,
And to let the oppressed go free
And break every yoke?
7 “Is it not to divide your bread [c]with the hungry
And bring the homeless poor into the house;
When you see the naked, to cover him;
And not to hide yourself from your own flesh? (isa 58:67)

Sooo...I'm noticing a pattern here...when I say that I'm gonna quote a passage that glorifies slavery, the passage I select tends to contain words like "slave," "enslave," and "slavery," whereas yours do not. You seem to be taking passages that you think refer to various aspects of slavery (kidnapping, bondage, selling people, etc.) but that in context do not actually pertain to slavery at all.

 

If He had no problem with it then he would have left the Israelites in their slavery (Exodus)

Yeah...that didn't really happen.

if He was ok with it He wouldn't have died for the sins of mankind so that they would not be enslaved to their sin.

Not the kind of slavery we're talking about, and also...that never happened, either.

Also it isn't religion that makes people lose sight of evil. That would mean that religion was the only thing to blame for evil, not the people, and that isn't true.

I said religion can make people lose sight of evil, but I never said it was the only thing that could do that. Take down your straw man and address the points I'm actually making, please.

It is the nature of man and his rejection of God that makes him blind of what is evil.

Evidence?

You don't have an objection porn, because people are willing to objectify themselves to it (right?).

Ummm...what?


I do not have an objection to consensual porn made by adults. If people who are of legal age and sound mind decide that they wish to subject themselves to being filmed during sex (for money or otherwise), then that is none of my business unless I am one of those people.

While I have an objection to porn, because it objectives people (which is evil).

I think you mean it "objectifies" people, and personally I don't think that's even true. It is perfectly normal for human beings to want to express themselves as wanting sex and wanting to be sexually desirable, and doing so does not reduce the person to an object. That is absurd.


Furthermore, even if porn did "objectify" people, if a person volunteers to express themselves as a sex object, there is nothing wrong with that. Luckily for everyone, what you object to has no practical impact on what society actually deems acceptable.


 

 Our country doesn't see the murder of an unborn child as wrong because they want to redefine what is life to suit their own desires. Things only get "gray" when people seek their own desires and reject what God says is right. (changing and redefining the meaning of words to suit their own needs and purposes)

Your god doesn't see anything wrong with mass genocide and forced marriages, so you really don't have the moral high ground here, even if abortion were evil (which it isn't).

Leviticus 25:44-46New International Version (NIV)

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

 

NUM 15:15 The community is to have the same rules for you and for the foreigner residing among you; this is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. You and the foreigner shall be the same before the LORD:
Lev 19:34The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
Lev 19:33“ ‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them.
Lev 24:22 You are to have the same law for the foreigner and the native-born. I am the LORD your God.' ”
 
When these people come into their country as salves then they should be treated as a natural born.

Those passages are talking about free men. Foreign residents and foreign slaves were not the same thing, nor did they hold the same place in society. Again, you've picked a passage that does not talk about slavery to try to refute my interpretation of a passage that definitely does talk about slavery. You're basically out of context on this entire argument. None of the passages you've pulled are actually talking about slavery specifically; they've mentioned kidnapping, oppression, hospitality, etc. but not slavery. The passages I'm quoting say in plain language what your god thinks of slavery and how he commands Jews to conduct their ownership of slaves.

What I am saying is that DNA is information

Not exactly. Genetic coding is not "information" in the sense that you're using it.

and information comes from a mind

Even if I granted that, it's not completely accurate to refer to genes as information, so there's still no support for the statement that DNA had to be designed by a mind.

and that mind could only be God.

Even if we granted that DNA must have come from a mind (which we cannot do, since you have utterly failed to support such an assertion), that still wouldn't get us to that mind being your god. That would be a separate claim that would need to be supported by its own evidence, which you have again failed to produce.


"I don't understand where the 'information' in DNA came from, therefore God must have done it," is an argument from ignorance. No matter how you word it, this line of reasoning is fallacious and will get you nowhere while trying to convince a rational person.

Modern science seems to have a problem with saying what is actually alive or dead. Since our society started throwing out the Knowledge of God everything has become blurred and confusing.  There is no defined Truth, no lasting way of thinking.

The strength of science lies in the fact that it does not adhere to predefined "truths." A way of thinking lasts only as long as it seems to be supported by evidence.

What is male what is female, what is alive what isn't, what is an animal what isn't, what is right what isn't. You don't have any answers just a lot of data that you can't make since of because with the rejection of God you have rejected knowledge and wisdom.

Quite the opposite. Religion is the rejection of knowledge and wisdom in favor of sensationalism and fairy tales.

When I say that God is and that he created everything He did it outside of space and time. Since He is eternal and a spirit He isn't subject to space or time. A thing needs to have space so if it just is then there was space before there was a thing and so now you must explain where that space came from. Also a thing does not have a will where as God is a being and He has a will and decided to start time, space and life.

All you're doing here is attempting to define your god as something that should be able to ignore the Special Pleading Fallacy. If God is eternal, then other things can be or that's special pleading. If he does not require a creator, then neither do other things or that's special pleading. If God can exist without space or time, then so can other things or that's special pleading. If God can exist without being created by something with a will, then so can other things or that's special pleading. Regardless of how or why you think your god can "just is," the problem is that you are stating that nothing can "just is" except god.