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

[Chad32]

Almost all of the best lessons of the bible are taken from other sources. you can get "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" from Confucius. Give to the poor is a basic goody good lesson, though Jesus took it to the extreme because he thought the world was about to end. Don't steal or kill, and be nice to your neighbors. Something every society needs to function.

A funny one is don't covet, because that's pretty much a tennant of capitalism. Keeping up with the Joneses, I think it's called.

[jenny1972]

I asked once what "good things" the bible teaches Christians that are not fairly obvious to a well balanced atheist who has never even heard of the bible. I did a whole thread about it, and the answer was nothing.

yes you can learn how to be good without picking up a Bible people learn behavior from parents and other people .

---

Almost all of the best lessons of the bible are taken from other sources. you can get "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" from Confucius. Give to the poor is a basic goody good lesson, though Jesus took it to the extreme because he thought the world was about to end. Don't steal or kill, and be nice to your neighbors. Something every society needs to function.

A funny one is don't covet, because that's pretty much a tennant of capitalism. Keeping up with the Joneses, I think it's called.

yes its much more in line with socialism than capitalism . jesus did not invent functional society but was addressing the dysfunction that existed during his lifetime just like there are things wrong in society now that need fixed there were problems in his time .

[Chad32]

As so many have done throughout history, gaining followers along the way.

[jenny1972]

As so many have done throughout history, gaining followers along the way.

true i believe they also were inspired by God just like jesus was

[Chad32]

Of course you would.

[brewer]

To the thread title: He/It doesn't leave good foot prints and the sent trail is negligible.

[Redbeard The Pink]

What's the difference between saying "they should be", and "it would be better if they were"? The latter is just a nicer way of saying the same thing, and we know christians have taken that kind of idea seriously. People have been killed and persecuted by christians for spreading a different religion, or just not converting to christianity. What good does it do to try to soften it when historically people have done exactly that sort of thing, and could easily use the bible to justify it?

I think the idea is that being drowned by millstone would be a more enjoyable experience for them than what Gaud will do when he inevitably gets ahold of them...you know, because he loves them so much.

[Rekeisha]

If Gaud exists but has no beginning, it means that other things could also exist without a beginning, meaning that being created by Gaud is not a prerequisite to existing. If everything must have a beginning and a reason to begin, then Gaud must also, and so he explains nothing without raising the question of why Gaud himself exists. If Gaud is the only thing that doesn't require a beginning and he is required to create everything else for those things to exist, then that is special pleading.

I see angels, heaven and hell as physical places and things. Still thinking about it now, angels may be immaterial. I haven't given much thought to what angels are made of. Still, I was saying that God is not subject to change. Now that I look back at your past post that wasn't what you were speaking about so that is my mistake.  

If they were physical places and things, then we would be able to detect them by physical means. Where are they?

The short answer is Heaven is where God resides and where there can be no evil.

 
The long answer is, beyond us. We do not even know the full extent of our own "perceivable reality" so then the idea that "these things don't exist, because we see them not" would be leaving out all that we haven't seen. Also, many people have concluded, there are possibly many other "facets" or "dimensions" that we don't know anything about.  
 
God will create heaven on earth when He judges everyone and brings His kingdom on earth; Hell will be were everyone goes that choose their own way apart from Him.  There then will be two physical places. As for angels I don't know where they are but there are some that are with God, where/how/whenever that might be.

He didn't just design it, though; he also has foreknowledge of it. If he creates me not knowing what I'll do, then I have free will because my future isn't predestined. If he knows everything I will do and everything that will happen to me, then I no longer have free will and Gaud becomes responsible for literally every event and action in my life. If he knows I will disobey if created and he still chooses to create me, then he is knowingly setting me on a path of disobedience. Maybe he doesn't command me to sin, but he causes me to by supposedly creating me with the foreknowledge that I will sin if created.

Foreknowledge does not mean He makes every decision for you. Knowing that you will sin is the reason that He died on the cross for you. He knew that you needed a savior and made the provision of salvation through Christ for you. Your rejection of that is still your decision. You are not without options.   

In short, no. There is no evidence of such broad corruption within the scientific community. Scientists are primarily concerned with finding and sharing the truth. It's practically their entire job.

You believe that all people who believe that there is a God or a supernatural element to the world is wrong.  That is a large number of people getting it wrong. (There is also those who are card carrying scientists that either believe in God, or at least acknowledge that there "must" be some "outside" force other than what we can fully understand or know.  Yet I know that these individuals are few, mostly out of self preservation because of the "societal constraints" in today's scientific community.)

 

I believe that God is the only God, which there are still quite a few who would agree with me.  I may be getting your point wrong, or I may have expressed mine incorrectly earlier, but would you help me understand why is it hard to believe that scientist may have gotten it wrong? We do see in history where a great deal of other people throughout time have consistently gotten this crucial item wrong.

By the definitions of those words. Gaud's laws are not necessarily written based on what's harmful; Gaud forbids some behavior for no apparent reason other than personal preference or to illustrate a concept, and he changes his mind constantly about who to kill for man's wickedness. Based on what the bible says about him, his rules are chosen arbitrarily in the vast majority of cases. He just forbids behaviors he finds icky, it seems.

I understand that how man perceives what God says can be confusing even seeming in opposition to who God truly is.  The issue here, however, is not what God says, but rather how man perceived its implications, and stole some of God's authority when applying it. You see God forbidding some behavior "for no apparent reason, other than personal preference..."  Could you please explain why you see men dressed in women's clothes, wool mixed with linen and God's dietary law as arbitrary?

The rules of my society don't condone genocide, rape, or slavery, which means that my society causes objectively less harm than the Jews did during Bible times, which makes my society's morality objectively better by a measurable standard (human rights and quality of life).

Based on your world view, that we have been discussing for a while, Why are these things wrong? If I am getting your view point correct. Man is a result of evolution over a long period of time. In some way life came from non-life. Humans are just products of unguided undersigned purposeless chance or evolved single celled organisms. Even if people, as evolved organisms, treat another evolved organism in a way that causes life or death the only value to these actions are a construct of a complex organism's personal value system. Justice or injustice is only constructed by a the evolved organism. If the human organism, as a whole, ever ceases to exist then all it's constructed values will end with it. So on a cosmic level it doesn't matter. The life and death of a single human organism is meaningless and will be forgotten in a few decades even if there is lore attached to that organism.

 
Now in my worldview I have a bases as to say genocide, rape or slavery are wrong because it is based in the creator of all thingswho cherishes His creation. He also protects and is righteously jealous of His people.  In protecting His people, only He would know what was a right and just action (knowing all and perceiving every intention of the heart). Both His protective and jealous actions have also allowed some actions as you stated above to happen to His own people.  But they are always preceded with warnings, and specific instructions on how not to be "wiped of the face of the earth".  I may have failed at completely revealing to you the "Fullness" of God, like how Him just being the creator of all things would allow Him to do whatever He wished at the time, whether it was perceived as good or bad.  I also know that no one can know God without a revelation from Him, and He is generous with His revelations.  I could share some scripture with you as to how God is merciful even in these situations. I think we would create a less contemptuous discussion, and be able to work together at understanding what we both truly believe. 

No. Some view points are aligned with the facts of reality, and some are contrary to them. View points that go against the facts have objectively less merit than view points that agree with them.

Based on your definition of the world not having a purpose or function. So someone's viewpoint is just a human construct, and someone evaluating how closely that view point is to reality, is also a human construct. If so there is not merit to either view; in fact there wouldn't even be a value on which to base "merit" upon.

Sure, everyone's "worth" the same, but not everyone shares the same level of respectability.

As you know I don't hold the same view and I hope that  I have not been disrespectful. I know that at times I can seek to push my side and forget that I am speaking to a person. I know You are worthy of respect, even if we disagree with your views, because you are an image bearer of God. I will practice respecting you and everyone.

Baseless assertion

Please explain.

[Rekeisha]

You evaluate Abraham's morals so do you have any true foundation outside of your own perception by which you judge his actions?

Do you have any foundation to judge god's actions?  If you only get your morality from god, how do you know what he says and does is good?

Thank you for asking.  As the creator, everything has its/their source in/from God. In order to judge God, I would have to be over God in every aspect or Have a knowledge from someone who is over Him. Since I do not I am not in a position in which to judge Him. So, if you don't mind would you help me understand how you come to know what is "good"?  I would then like to tell you how I have come to understand what is "good", so that we then would have together a better foundation onto which we can discuss morality and its implications upon humanity.

[Rekeisha]

 
Also, I can't say that I am familiar with Mario Puzzo's work. I haven't seen any of the Godfathers but I have a slight understanding of the premise of the story. Why do you say Abraham's story is like this?

Because it's on the same lines as some Mafia boss enforcing his authority by making a brutal demand. I thought, I made that perfectly clear. And it's not outside my perception. It's exactly as I perceive that story to be.

If you don't mind I am not quite following what was brutal about His demands? Also, if it is not outside of your perceptions how can you know that what you perceive is correct?