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

[Rekeisha]

You don't know why there is uniformity so all that you base upon uniformity is founded in your assumptions. You walk around as if thing will be the same without certainty of the fact.

I have already explained why it's perfectly reasonable (based on evidence) to be certain to the greatest possible degree that the laws of physics have always remained and will always remain constant, since the beginning of time and until the end of time. Nothing has to be assumed in order to reach this conclusion; the evidence speaks for itself.

I know why there is uniformity but you will not even consider that or challenge your belief in that. Roman 1:19-20 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Blah blah woo woo word salad word salad bullshit. You keep throwing this word "uniformity" around as if you have no idea what you really mean by it, and then you vomit Bible verses to the tune of "Look around! The birds and the bees and America and trees are evidence that Gaud exists! Yaaaaaay   "


Your argument, at its heart, is an argument from ignorance. You dig and you dig and you dig until you finally get someone to admit, "Yeah, I mean I guess we don't know some stuff," and then you shout,


"That's because GAAAUUUUD did it!"


So every time we don't know something, you're gonna claim that's where Gaud is? That's what he's doing? Are you sure that's how you want to play this game? Because if it is, history is filled with things (weather, for instance) that used to supposedly be explained by Gaud or gods, and then when we got around to really looking at them we discovered that there was no Gaud necessary for the phenomenon, nor was there any to be found.


If that's how you want to play it, then Gaud is an ever-shrinking pocket of scientific ignorance that loses power and meaning every time we learn something new. You're just playing the "God of the Gaps" card, which is a fallacious argument borne of ignorance and incredulity, steeped in emotional mumbo jumbo and deeply indoctrinated word salad.

Why are you subjecting God to your morals. Since He has a different sent of morals who are you to judge Him?

Since the first part of that is apparently an oddly worded statement and not a question, I shall neglect to answer it. As to your actual question (you know, the one with the question mark after it), I judge Gaud by his alleged actions, which both during and beyond Bible times are pretty reprehensible.


If the Bible really were true, it would mean that the Creator Gaud of the Universe is personally responsible for every scrap of suffering and death in the entire Universe, starting with the shitloads and shitloads and shitloads of men, women, children, animals, and even plants that he kills throughout the Bible itself. The being you worship is a blood-thirsty, war-mongering monster that supposedly burns most people in Hell forever over a test of belief and not morality (a test from which he systematically hides so we have to go on an ancient system of mythology and the word of people who already believe in him), and yet he is said to be the source of all goodness and morality in the Universe. That is the most self-defeating description of anything I've ever heard. A being cannot be all-good, all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful and also meet the description of the Gaud presented in the Bible. The two concepts are mutually exclusive, and it would be paradoxical for them to be qualities of the same being. The Gaud of the Bible is a blundering, immoral mess filled with hate and rage.

He said he was God when I first met Him and that he was beyond time and that he didn't have a mother or a father I learned this while on a bus ride.

He told you...that he is eternal...and that he has no parents. That's what Gaud told you. Ok. So, then, the Bible was the first religious story you tripped over after that, and you discovered that the being described there was supposed to be eternal and have no parents, and you took that to mean that the being from this book somehow revealed himself to you. Obviously, that's what happened.


Here's the problem with that: if you had bumped into another story about a god with those same two characteristics (say, because you lived in a different part of the world or because you decided not to start with the Bible), then you would have converted to that religion instead on the exact same standard of evidence. The number of gods, by the way, with those two qualities probably numbers in the THOUSANDS. Virtually every one of man's gods is immortal and/or eternal and/or dying-and-rising, and plenty of them are said to have no origin to speak of, or no mother or father, as you put it. You just happened to trip over the Bible first, so that's what you went with, and evidently the damage is irreversible.

With all your talking you still can account for uniformity.

Also having subjective morals means that there are no absolute right and wrongs and your opinion on what God does are just your opinons but have no real foundation. Also God allows but does not cause evil. Still He will judge evil and has the right to since by Him you are only able to have a true foundation of right and wrong.

You can make up stories about what my life would have been had I meet come aginst some other religion but God is soverign and led me into truth. No matter what it is by the grace of God that I know who he is.

[Minimalist]

Of course there is no more evidence for any fucking "disciples" than there is for jesus so worrying about what they did is a bit like asking why the Klingons threw their lives away fighting Captain Kirk.

where did you get that idea from?

History.  Which has nothing to do with your fucking bible.

[Rekeisha]

---

You don't know why there is uniformity so all that you base upon uniformity is founded in your assumptions. You walk around as if thing will be the same without certainty of the fact. I know why there is uniformity but you will not even consider that or challenge your belief in that. Roman 1:19-20 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Why are you subjecting God to your morals. Since He has a different sent of morals who are you to judge Him?

---

That's like the joke about the girl who saw a small man in her flower garden.  She exclaimed "You're a leprechaun and you have to give me your pot of gold!"  So the guy said "OK, but first you have to make love to me all night."  She said "OK, because I want your pot of gold."  So after banging all night the guy asked her "How old are you?"  She replied "I'm 27."  And he said "Here you are at 27 and still believe in fairy tales about leprechauns and their pots of gold."

Even the Bible says that people shouldn't believe in Jewish fairy tales.  If you think you saw God on a bus and had a conversation with him you're insane.  You should start a new religion based upon the revelations you got from your imaginary deity.  Women are suckers for stuff like that so it'll be easy for you to convert some of them and have them support you.  Before you know it you'll be rolling in the dough.   Just keep them mesmerized with a lot of mumbo-jumbo religious BS.

Did i say i saw God? You are the one adding to what I said

[Redbeard The Pink]

With all your talking you still can account for uniformity.

Yes. I can, and I just did (again), and thank you for finally admitting it.

Also having subjective morals means that there are no absolute right and wrongs and your opinion on what God does are just your opinons but have no real foundation. Also God allows but does not cause evil. Still He will judge evil and has the right to since by Him you are only able to have a true foundation of right and wrong.

If Gaud is personally and solely responsible for creating a system like the Universe, then he is personally and solely responsible for everything that happens within that Universe as well as all possibilities that exist within it. All the good, all the bad, all the joy, all the suffering, it's ALL on him. If evil was introduced to the system by something other than Gaud, the thing that introduced evil was still introduced into the system by Gaud. If he really were the causeless cause, then everything would trace back to being his fault. Everything. This is an inescapable truth of your premise, and it is the reason Gaud cannot be the Creator of our Universe and also all-good, all-loving, and all-powerful because he deliberately created a system with full prior knowledge of how badly it would go for its occupants, and he still created the system anyway for purely selfish reasons. Jehovah is a monster worse than 1,000 boogey men, and I used to hunt boogey men. Those fuckers are nasty.

You can make up stories about what my life would have been had I meet come aginst some other religion but God is soverign and led me into truth. No matter what it is by the grace of God that I know who he is.

"Oh, but that didn't happen, so it couldn't have happened."


Yeah, it could have. If you had been born in a Muslim country and had the same experience, the next book you stuck your nose in would have been the Quran, and you would have converted to Islam (if by some strange twist you hadn't already by whatever age you were when this happened to you). Allah is said to have the exact two qualities you mentioned. You probably would have been safe from Mormonism, but the Jehovah's witnesses could have snatched you up just as easily. There are plenty of variants of your Gaud, and there are plenty of other gods said to have similar qualities. Even though the stories and characters are all different, nobody's religion is truly unique.

[JesusHChrist]

Based on the copious volume of bilge emanating here, I'm thinking "reek" is a more appropo nom de plume for this one. Or perhaps bilgerat69.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I'm still trying to even figure out what, exactly, "you can't account for uniformity" even means.

Billions of scientific experiments that show the laws of physics are constant, that biochemistry works the same way every time, and that we can depend on these laws to create computers, airplanes, satellites, cell phones, etc... but hey, what I can't account for is magic. You're proposing magic. And it's ... just sad.

[robvalue]

So I hear from Christians how God made us in his image. So that surely means we are like him, or at least look like him. Clearly in Genesis, he's just some dude wandering around the earth.

But when asked to describe God, we get a weird word salad that usually starts with him being immaterial and ethereal and not looking like anything. What gives? I suspect that most Christians still imagine an actual person when they think about God, even if their description of him when asked tries to hide this. I wonder how accurate I am with that. Of course I may be wrong.

[Edwardo Piet]

Following Jesus doesn't work because he will eventually tell you to stop following him because he's worried you're looking at his butt.

Jesus takes the Bible very literally and so he's, naturally, very homophobic.

[Minimalist]

Following Jesus doesn't work because he will eventually tell you to stop following him because he's worried you're looking at his butt.

Jesus was an altar boy?

[JesusHChrist]

Jesus: "So does this flowing, stereotypical 1st century middle eastern robe I'm wearing, make my butt look fat?"

Followers, nervously: "Why NO Jesus! You look awesome today!"