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

[Edwardo Piet]

Sinnerdaniel I would rather cut off my penis with a rusty breadknife or stick my genitals in a bees nest than read the Old Testament.

[sinnerdaniel94]

God bodies a lot of people

You know, "God Bodies" is a pretty good name for a band. Or at least a metal album.

its a true say

[Cyberman]

"God bodies" sounds like a euphemism used by a despotic tyrant. Like to "disappear" someone, or make them an "unperson". Sounds prettier than "slaughter".

[robvalue]

What about splatterize?

[Edwardo Piet]

"God bodies" sounds like a euphemism used by a despotic tyrant. Like to "disappear" someone, or make them an "unperson". Sounds prettier than "slaughter".

That totally reminds me of this Sketch with David Mitchell and Robert Webb:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgX6JFoV0TM

[Cyberman]

What about splatterize?

Thanks, I won't if you don't mind.

[Rekeisha]

Careful, or you'll fall into infinite regression. If everything has to have a reason to exist, then using Gaud as the reason means that Gaud also has to have a reason to exist, and Gaud's creator must have a reason to exist, and so on. If everything but Gaud has to have a reason to exist, your argument is a special pleading fallacy and it ends right there.

 
Everything that every came into existence needs a reason to exist but God never came into existence He always was and is and always will be.

 

If Gaud knew in advance that I would disobey him and would wind up burning in Hell, and he could have prevented this by not creating me, and he created me anyway, then he is personally responsible for both my disobedience and my damnation because all he had to do to prevent those things was leave me out of existence and put some other poor schmuck's soul in my body. In short, yes, Gaud makes people disobey him because he creates them knowing they will disobey. Gaud's advance knowledge of all future events eliminates virtually any possibility of free will.

He does know everything and your individual existence has consequences beyond yourself and God know that as well. You are a part of God's plan regardless of your choice. Also Your choice to sin implies that you have an option to give your life over to God and obey Him.
 

If by "all creation" you mean the Universe, then no, the evidence does not support the Bible, or the existence of any of man's gods, for that matter. The evidence on Earth alone proves that various stories in the Bible are demonstrably false, and it only gets worse the more we learn. Geology proves there was no Flood. Archaeology proves there was no Exodus. Biology, geology, radiology, and a whole mess of other fields prove that the creation story is just wrong, and that Earth is much older than the Bible says it is.

 No one is neutral and we all have the same evidence and come to different conclusions based on our presuppositions. There is evidence for God but your presuppositions reject it in favor of what you declare is correct.
 

So are you a covenant theologist or a dispensationalist? Do you even know what those things mean?

I vaguely remember hearing dispensationalist but not covenant theology. I am aware of the trains of thoughts though. I like to follow God and trust that He will guide me. I also listen to a wide range of Christ followers. Those who are excited about loving God, glorifying Him and stick to the bible are the people I listen to.

You're claiming that I'm out of context, but you're not describing how I'm out of context or even what the context is, or how that's even relevant to the discussion. Your claim is that sinful behavior is harmful, and I pointed out several behaviors that are named in the Bible as sins but that aren't harmful in and of themselves. Regardless of the context of the rules themselves, these things are named as sins by the law, and they're not inherently harmful behaviors, so your claim is no good. Jumping into an argument about context is nothing but a smoke screen. If sin is inherently harmful, why aren't all sins from both Testaments actually harmful to the self or someone else?

 I have addressed this before. You didn't believe me then so why would your now? Are you honestly seeking an answer or are you just testing my knowledge?

The world isn't broken because it wasn't designed, moron. To be broken, something has to have an intended purpose that it isn't meeting because it isn't functioning properly. Because the world has neither an intended purpose nor a proper function, it can't be broken in that sense.

(You should have more respect for yourself.)  If there is no proper or intended function to the world then all your previous evaluations on everything I have said thus fare are null and void. Humans evaluations on what is healthy and sick is arbitrary. There is no good or bad/ right or wrong.

Your beliefs are factually incorrect, so in that sense at least they are wrong. They also inspire you to go around telling people they're bad and they're going to hell just for not believing in something that deliberately and systematically hides all empirical evidence of itself, which is wrong in the sense that it makes you a bigot and a cretin.

 
You have just said that there is no intended purpose nor a proper function to the world. Therefore according to your world view there is no incorrect because that would require a proper way of doing things. In order for you to actually be able to make the claim of right or wrong there has to be a real standard by which to evaluate my world view.

Even if that were true, it only makes it more curious that you do believe in Gaud.

 Because He is real and gives purpose to life and all things. He also gives you a standard by which you can judge anything.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

Careful, or you'll fall into infinite regression. If everything has to have a reason to exist, then using Gaud as the reason means that Gaud also has to have a reason to exist, and Gaud's creator must have a reason to exist, and so on. If everything but Gaud has to have a reason to exist, your argument is a special pleading fallacy and it ends right there.

 
Everything that every came into existence needs a reason to exist but God never came into existence He always was and is and always will be.

 

If Gaud knew in advance that I would disobey him and would wind up burning in Hell, and he could have prevented this by not creating me, and he created me anyway, then he is personally responsible for both my disobedience and my damnation because all he had to do to prevent those things was leave me out of existence and put some other poor schmuck's soul in my body. In short, yes, Gaud makes people disobey him because he creates them knowing they will disobey. Gaud's advance knowledge of all future events eliminates virtually any possibility of free will.

He does know everything and your individual existence has consequences beyond yourself and God know that as well. You are a part of God's plan regardless of your choice. Also Your choice to sin implies that you have an option to give your life over to God and obey Him.
 

If by "all creation" you mean the Universe, then no, the evidence does not support the Bible, or the existence of any of man's gods, for that matter. The evidence on Earth alone proves that various stories in the Bible are demonstrably false, and it only gets worse the more we learn. Geology proves there was no Flood. Archaeology proves there was no Exodus. Biology, geology, radiology, and a whole mess of other fields prove that the creation story is just wrong, and that Earth is much older than the Bible says it is.

 No one is neutral and we all have the same evidence and come to different conclusions based on our presuppositions. There is evidence for God but your presuppositions reject it in favor of what you declare is correct.
 

So are you a covenant theologist or a dispensationalist? Do you even know what those things mean?

I vaguely remember hearing dispensationalist but not covenant theology. I am aware of the trains of thoughts though. I like to follow God and trust that He will guide me. I also listen to a wide range of Christ followers. Those who are excited about loving God, glorifying Him and stick to the bible are the people I listen to.

You're claiming that I'm out of context, but you're not describing how I'm out of context or even what the context is, or how that's even relevant to the discussion. Your claim is that sinful behavior is harmful, and I pointed out several behaviors that are named in the Bible as sins but that aren't harmful in and of themselves. Regardless of the context of the rules themselves, these things are named as sins by the law, and they're not inherently harmful behaviors, so your claim is no good. Jumping into an argument about context is nothing but a smoke screen. If sin is inherently harmful, why aren't all sins from both Testaments actually harmful to the self or someone else?

 I have addressed this before. You didn't believe me then so why would your now? Are you honestly seeking an answer or are you just testing my knowledge?

The world isn't broken because it wasn't designed, moron. To be broken, something has to have an intended purpose that it isn't meeting because it isn't functioning properly. Because the world has neither an intended purpose nor a proper function, it can't be broken in that sense.

(You should have more respect for yourself.)  If there is no proper or intended function to the world then all your previous evaluations on everything I have said thus fare are null and void. Humans evaluations on what is healthy and sick is arbitrary. There is no good or bad/ right or wrong.

Your beliefs are factually incorrect, so in that sense at least they are wrong. They also inspire you to go around telling people they're bad and they're going to hell just for not believing in something that deliberately and systematically hides all empirical evidence of itself, which is wrong in the sense that it makes you a bigot and a cretin.

 
You have just said that there is no intended purpose nor a proper function to the world. Therefore according to your world view there is no incorrect because that would require a proper way of doing things. In order for you to actually be able to make the claim of right or wrong there has to be a real standard by which to evaluate my world view.

Even if that were true, it only makes it more curious that you do believe in Gaud.

---

 Because He is real and gives purpose to life and all things. He also gives you a standard by which you can judge anything.

Just remember, one of God's favorite guy's was the nutty Abraham.  He's the guy who spent his life screwing his sister, lying, robbing, and killing.  He was eager and willing to do anything to gain personal fame and fortune.  He had the morals of a pile of camel dung.

[Redbeard The Pink]

Everything that every came into existence needs a reason to exist but God never came into existence He always was and is and always will be.

Let's suppose that everything that begins to exist has to have a reason to do so. You're now saying that Gaud didn't have to begin to exist. If that's true, that means it's possible for things to exist without having to begin existing. If that's true, it means that some form of material reality may have always existed, and is just constantly changing forms. Because it never "began" as such, it wouldn't need a reason to exist. If your Gaud is the only thing that has no beginning and therefore no reason, then you are once again guilty of Special Pleading, and your argument crumbles into the fallacy bin.

He does know everything and your individual existence has consequences beyond yourself and God know that as well. You are a part of God's plan regardless of your choice. Also Your choice to sin implies that you have an option to give your life over to God and obey Him.

Not if every choice I make is predestined and predetermined, which it would have to be if Gaud has foreknowledge of it. Because I have no choice in whether I exist, and because none of my choices can change the predetermined unfolding of my existence, I effectively don't have free will according to your narrative. If Gaud is omniscient, then free will is impossible.

No one is neutral and we all have the same evidence and come to different conclusions based on our presuppositions. There is evidence for God but your presuppositions reject it in favor of what you declare is correct.

No. Theists and theistic groups are notorious for misconstruing, ignoring, and fabricating evidence to support those claims, and for presenting arguments rather than actual evidence (which is basically all you've done here). We're not looking honestly at the same evidence, and you're treating things as evidence that aren't, really.

I vaguely remember hearing dispensationalist but not covenant theology. I am aware of the trains of thoughts though. I like to follow God and trust that He will guide me. I also listen to a wide range of Christ followers. Those who are excited about loving God, glorifying Him and stick to the bible are the people I listen to.

Dispensationalism is the idea that Gaud only imparts information and morals on a level that humanity is able to understand and cope with. Covenant theology is the idea that relevant rules and morals evolve/are adjusted as Gaud makes new covenants with man throughout the Babble.


Dispensationalism fails as a model because Gaud has no issue with the outright prohibition of long lists of weirdly specific behavior, so there's no reason to believe that he would, for instance, allow us to have slavery until we were far enough along as a race to realize it wasn't ok. If he was willing to forbid murder, eating pigs, and working on Saturdays, then he certainly would have banned slavery if he thought it was wrong. Incidentally, slavery is endorsed, celebrated, and regulated in both the Old and New Testaments, which means your Gaud thinks it's wrong to eat shrimp but not to own other humans as property. What the fuck?


Covenant theology fails because the most recent covenant between Gaud and man would probably be the one with Jesus, and Jesus himself stated that he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it, and that not one letter of it was to be erased or ignored. Jesus does not ever officially excuse anyone from any of the Old Testament rules, and neither does Paul, really. If you work on Saturdays, then you're an unrepentant sinner and your salvation wasn't real.

I have addressed this before. You didn't believe me then so why would your now? Are you honestly seeking an answer or are you just testing my knowledge?

If you addressed this before, I either didn't notice or wasn't aware of it. As far as I know I haven't asked you this before. At any rate, do you have an answer or not? Why are seemingly harmless behaviors named as sins if Gaud is only trying to dissuade us from harmful actions?

(You should have more respect for yourself.)  If there is no proper or intended function to the world then all your previous evaluations on everything I have said thus fare are null and void. Humans evaluations on what is healthy and sick is arbitrary. There is no good or bad/ right or wrong.

Ok, we really have been over this part. Just because the Universe doesn't have inherent forces called "good" and "evil" that fight each other constantly, doesn't mean humans haven't invented ideas like "good" and "bad" to categorize the things they experience that they do and don't like, respectively. All this Gaud business is really just an attempt at passing one's personal, unsupported opinions off as proven metaphysical truths.


As for me respecting myself, I treat people with exactly as much respect as they earn. I don't take kindly to being called a moron when I don't deserve it, but if I'm actually acting like a moron then I can't exactly fault someone for calling me one. In fact, if I'm acting like a moron I generally want to be corrected so I can improve as a person. It is because of my self-respect that I'm willing to admit my own stupidity if it's merited. That's the biggest difference between you and me, I think.

 

You have just said that there is no intended purpose nor a proper function to the world. Therefore according to your world view there is no incorrect because that would require a proper way of doing things. In order for you to actually be able to make the claim of right or wrong there has to be a real standard by which to evaluate my world view.

Man, you Gaud people love to muddy up language and definitions. Even though there's no metaphysical meaning to anything, facts still exist, and it's possible to hold beliefs that are contrary to those facts, and if you do then your beliefs are factually incorrect. Not incorrect in the sense that you're doing the wrong thing for believing them, but incorrect in the sense that you simply believe wrong things.

Because He is real and gives purpose to life and all things. He also gives you a standard by which you can judge anything.

Gaud does not meet even the lowest standard of evidence. There is no reason to believe he exists.

[robvalue]

A standard by which you can judge anything.

Ain't that the truth.

Just because you have a standard, it doesn't mean it's a good standard. That's where thinking for yourself comes in. Otherwise you are amoral. You have no way of knowing if you're following God or Satan.

If you do have a way, then you do have your own, independent standard.