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

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Sorry about that. Have the giant KFC chef instead:

I live atop that guy's hand.

[Cyberman]

I just realised that if you combine this map with the bible belt one, that KFC guy is having either the worst or the best day of his life.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I just realised that if you combine this map with the bible belt one, that KFC guy is having either the worst or the best day of his life.

[Redbeard The Pink]

I still find you are oversimplifying the facts to back up your viewpoint

You don't say.

Hitler being born a Roman Catholic is one thing and following the tenets of Catholicism is another thing. Also even if he followed those tenens doesn't make him a christian. Many of the Roman Catholic practices are not biblical hence the Martin Luther's 95 theses starting the protestant reformation. His behavior was contrary to what the bible calls for like "loving your neighbor as yourself". The fact that he targeted the Jews as a problem is a big issue as a christian since Jesus was Jewish. Also that link I showed you, do you even know what it was? Well I have linked the New York Times article that will explain it and also the link to it again so that you can take a look.  (Article from the New York Times The Persecution of the Christian Churches')

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?

Yes our lungs helps us breath but are willing to ask yourself why do they work this way. Not, how this works but why does this work.

This is a nonsense distinction that you're making so you can ponce around with your semantics later. If I fill in any answer but Gaud, you'll just say "No, that's not the why, that's the how, I want to know why." Watch, I'll prove it.

Why do we work so well in our environment?

If you're talking about humans specifically, it's because we've been adapting to our environment generation by generation for roughly the last 100,000 years, and the organisms we descended from came from a process of adaptation that was billions of years long.

If we are supposed to be evolved how long does it take a being to change enough to work like we do.

Billions of years of gradual change as new generations breed and die.

You need a heart lungs and brain and we don't work right without them.

Evolution of the Heart


Evolution of the Brain


Brains most likely came first, in case you were wondering.

We also need a male and female to create more humans but single celled organisms don't.

Evolution of Sexual Reproduction

 It would seem better not to need two different sexes just split from yourself so how are we better to have two sexes.

It might seem that way to you, but no, that's not the case. Creatures that reproduce sexually (with a male and a female) exhibit more genetic diversity, which generally makes for greater disease resistance and better adaptation across generations.

Think deeply about this.

Trust me, I have.

Just saying people evolved is simplistic and doesn't tackle a lot of the real issues.

I'm guessing by "real issues" you mean "imaginary issues," right?


So it's simplistic to say that humans are the end result of billions of years of gradual change and adaptation because of a mountain of evidence from the fossil record, genetics, etc., but it's not simplistic to say that humans are the result of an all-powerful, invisible person scooping up a fistful of mud and breathing on it because a dusty, old book says so?


 

Why in the world do things function.

There's that metaphysical "why" again.

 

Why does it seem like things are pre-programmed?

The Universe exists as it is and functions as it does for no apparent reason. It just is and does. Your Gaud does not suffice as a reason for the origin or configuration of the Universe because he has not been demonstrated to exist, and you can't posit something as the reason for a phenomenon if you can't demonstrate that the thing you're talking about exists. You're trying to solve a mystery by appealing to a greater mystery. It has no explanatory power, and it raises more questions than it supposedly answers.

What makes a thing move from nonliving to living?

Most experts say that the line between life and non-life is when a cell forms, but some think that that definition is too narrow because it doesn't include viruses, which technically aren't a complete cell that can duplicate on its own and yet do behave as if they were alive in many respects: they often have some level of cell motility, they do reproduce themselves (even though they require a host cell to do it) and convey genetic information, they can adapt genetically from generation to generation, etc.

Your claim that most people are christian in jail as proof that christianity is corrupt is again another simplistic argument. Have you asked what was the polers definition of Christianity? Then you have asked when did these people in jail say that they became christian? Also Christianity is for those who realize their brokenness so it is easy to come to this realization in jail. There is a place in Louisiana the Angola prison is full of christian and that is because a prison warden. When he became the warden it was one of the most dangerous prisons in the United States. Then he started to plant churches in the prison and crime and violence dramatically dropped. Here is a documentary about the prison.

Do the same that I suggested above with the statistics you find about crime being more serious in religious culture than non-religious. You have to ask yourself about their history and the values of the culture. You have to think about population density, what they think about weapons, what is the the climate like, is food plentiful? What kind of government do they have what do they think about a person's autonomy? Also, when they were doing a survey what did they define as religion? Which religion predominates the culture because not all religion teaches the same thing. Do those who claim that religion actually practice the tenets of the religion?

What I'm demonstrating is that godlessness and illegal/immoral behavior are not positively correlated. People are about as likely to do bad things regardless of whether they're religious or what religion they belong to.


The vast majority of Christians behind bars were Christians when they went in. Look it up if you don't believe me.

You keep disparaging me for following what preachers say then you admit that you follow the crowd of what the culture says about the correct moral view. I am not sure if you are realizing that making these statements are hypocritical because you are saying that when I follow people it is wrong but when you follow people it is right.

My morality, like everyone's, is a cross between what's in my mind and what's in my environment. I openly admit that. It's not right for me to "follow people" but wrong for you to do it. 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.

Also since people haven't made a committee to figure out what is right and wrong then how did they find it out? Why do they even want rules? Why do people in society want order? Why do we even understand what order is? Why do things work correctly when there is order? It is as if we are pre-programmed to want structure and order.

What you're describing is a function of the fact that we're a social species that has evolved to survive and thrive by cooperating and socially interacting with each other.

You say that the bible can't prove it self but this is also a simplistic view. You know that it is a collection of 66 books written by 49 different writers over a span of thousands of years. The fact that that they are unified is amazing.

They aren't unified any more or less than anybody else's religious texts. There is nothing amazing or remarkable about the Bible in terms of consistency, content, historical accuracy, or anything else. It actually contradicts itself on various points of doctrine. I'm sure I've linked to that already, and I'm sure it bounced off your skull like a little bean.

This book was formed throughout time and they didn't just fall from the sky but have links to human culture.

...because it was written by humans...

Your circular argument

You mean your circular argument.

is too simplistic to actually address the way we got the bible and the content in it. There are multiple books about World War II and when someone adds in an alternate fiction about WWII we can tell it isn't true by comparing it with the other books. Same with the Bible. If they were written throughout time like there were with the changing cultures they would not back themselves up like they do.

Based on that logic, we should be able to dismiss all but one of the gospel stories as fiction, since no two of them agree with each other.

When you come to the Bible do you seek to disprove it? If this is true your bias makes it possible for you to be lied to. You may not look for the things that will actually back up the bible and only look for the things that support your viewpoint.

I have always approached the Bible with either the presupposition that it was true or the desire to find out whether it was true. I have never approached the Bible with a presupposition that it was false.

Your view of Jesus' sacrifice is still simplistic. When Jesus rose from the grave he still had a human body and when he ascended he still had a human body. Also the crucifixion is more than just physical pain but he took on the sin of the world past present and future for all who would believe in Him would have everlasting life. You don't understand the wrath of God for just one person it is destructive but Jesus took everyone's. He and his relationship with His father is perfect and close and He never had been separated from him. Yet, he pretty much took hell and separation in order that we would not. He paid for us so that we wouldn't. 

An all-loving, all-powerful god wouldn't demand a blood sacrifice for sin. The very idea of blood sacrifice is barbaric and immoral, as is the idea of punishing an innocent victim for the crimes of the guilty.


This video sums the scenario up nicely:

I spoke about slavery multiple time and again that is a simplistic view of what slavery is in the bible and how it was different from the culture in the area. He condemns it in both testaments in the way it was practiced in that time, the Americas and now (kidnapping people and treating them as subhuman to grow their own wealth). The slavery spoken of in the Bible had stipulations and it also ended after a certain time. People were still given dignity. In some cases it was a way to be gain shelter and protection. Some slaves could even inherit the wealth of the land owner. When you just take your cultural views of what slavery is now and don't look at what God has laid out in the Bible then you make errors like this. 

I have already explained why your views on slavery in the Bible are patently wrong. The text you're pointing to states very clearly that the limitations only applied to Hebrew slaves; Jews were encouraged to buy and capture slaves from foreign lands, and those slaves were slaves for life. Furthermore, the "stipulations" you're talking about were things like "You can totally beat your slaves, just don't knock their eyes or teeth out or kill them. If they die more than a day or two later, though, then that's not your fault." The limited time thing could be loop-holed if you gave your slave a family from among your other slaves; if he doesn't want to leave his wife and children, you can pierce his ear and he'll stay a slave forever.

This again is simplistic. People are liars and love to be in power. If the the way to be in power is to be a priest then they would become priest whether they even cared about God or not. Most people use religion to get them what they want not to get God. Did the people ever encounter Him? Did/do they follow God as Jesus says by being born again and living life by faith or did they just follow what the religion says.  Or did they live double lives, say they believe it in the public and then in private live another. Did they only get to be a priest because it would be a comfortable occupation?

So every Christian who abuses power just isn't a True Scotsman then, right?


Man, I'm getting sick of seeing that shit all over this board.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Redbeard, I just want to say how much I enjoy watching you work. If you're ever in the Kansas City area, please let me and DrFuzzy buy you a beer!

[drfuzzy]

Redbeard, I just want to say how much I enjoy watching you work. If you're ever in the Kansas City area, please let me and DrFuzzy buy you a beer!

I agree! -- But I still haven't met Rocket yet! -- We need to get to work on this, neighbor!   

[Rekeisha]

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. 

So it's simplistic to say that humans are the end result of billions of years of gradual change and adaptation because of a mountain of evidence from the fossil record, genetics, etc., but it's not simplistic to say that humans are the result of an all-powerful, invisible person scooping up a fistful of mud and breathing on it because a dusty, old book says so?

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. Then there is the problem of the start of life which none of the proposed methods have been been proven. Then there is the problem of how all that information got into DNA/RNA. 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). 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?

This is a nonsense distinction that you're making so you can ponce around with your semantics later. If I fill in any answer but Gaud, you'll just say "No, that's not the why, that's the how, I want to know why." Watch, I'll prove it.

No, I want to know why and I guess it doesn't really matter because you have already said that you don't have the answer for why and you are willing to leave it at that.

The Universe exists as it is and functions as it does for no apparent reason. It just is and does. Your Gaud does not suffice as a reason for the origin or configuration of the Universe because he has not been demonstrated to exist, and you can't posit something as the reason for a phenomenon if you can't demonstrate that the thing you're talking about exists. You're trying to solve a mystery by appealing to a greater mystery. It has no explanatory power, and it raises more questions than it supposedly answers.

no apparent reason and it just is...  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. (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. 

...because it was written by humans...

Do you trust the news? Or science textbooks. Those are also written by men. You have said that you trust them because they line up with objective truth. 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. 

What I'm demonstrating is that godlessness and illegal/immoral behavior are not positively correlated. People are about as likely to do bad things regardless of whether they're religious or what religion they belong to.



The vast majority of Christians behind bars were Christians when they went in. Look it up if you don't believe me.

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. 

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.

They aren't unified any more or less than anybody else's religious texts. There is nothing amazing or remarkable about the Bible in terms of consistency, content, historical accuracy, or anything else. It actually contradicts itself on various points of doctrine. I'm sure I've linked to that already, and I'm sure it bounced off your skull like a little bean.

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

Based on that logic, we should be able to dismiss all but one of the gospel stories as fiction, since no two of them agree with each other.

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. 

An all-loving, all-powerful god wouldn't demand a blood sacrifice for sin. The very idea of blood sacrifice is barbaric and immoral, as is the idea of punishing an innocent victim for the crimes of the guilty.

First, from what unshakable absolute truth do you stand upon to make such assertions that a "blood sacrifice is barbaric and immoral"?  For if you read on i will explain what cornerstone i will lay measure to all else...
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. 

So every Christian who abuses power just isn't a True Scotsman then, right?

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.

I have already explained why your views on slavery in the Bible are patently wrong. The text you're pointing to states very clearly that the limitations only applied to Hebrew slaves; Jews were encouraged to buy and capture slaves from foreign lands, and those slaves were slaves for life. Furthermore, the "stipulations" you're talking about were things like "You can totally beat your slaves, just don't knock their eyes or teeth out or kill them. If they die more than a day or two later, though, then that's not your fault." The limited time thing could be loop-holed if you gave your slave a family from among your other slaves; if he doesn't want to leave his wife and children, you can pierce his ear and he'll stay a slave forever. 

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/)

[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.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I don't get it. How can anyone "look into" the evidence for our evolution and not understand that our DNA proves it unequivocally?

Seriously! Even evangelical Christian and head of the Human Genome Project, Dr. Francis Collins, wrote an entire book about why DNA proves we evolved the way that science claims we did, and shows in layman's terms why it is proof of same.

Arguing about only fossil bones at this point is ridiculous. Oh, by the way, the DNA analysis backed up what the bones guys were saying all along, 100%, even though we didn't develop rapid-enough DNA scanning techniques (to use for such analysis) until the mid-1980s.

[Rekeisha]

Before I start talking about what Christianity is and why Christians look like the world. Would you mind explaining what you believed when you practiced Christianity, or what you think your parents believe as Christians?
 
Biblically a Christian is someone who accepts the Gospel (that Jesus died for their sins). Having agreed that they sin (wanting life on their own terms, which leads to death and separation from God) and ask for forgiveness. This entire process is done by faith (belief but into action), which leads to their salvation.  Then as a guarantee of their salvation God will give His Spirit. Once this happens a Christian will begin to mature into their new spiritual life. Much like a child matures into adulthood. People don't come out of the womb walking and talking; a Christian doesn't become a mature Christian at the moment they believe. They have to learn to navigate their new life by God's word. Overcoming their past sinful habits by the power of the Holy Spirit. This process varies and has setbacks, but there is a move towards God in love, with devotion, and through obedience. A Christian may look/act like the culture they are from, because that is all they knew before.  Also, one is not simply a Christian because they "say" they are, or were brought up by Christian parents.  There should be some evidence of change, and a desire to change more.  Their life as a Christian isn't a whim or tradition and but a worthwhile sacrifice for something infinitely better. I believe the experiment of the reverse bike is a good metaphor for the Christian life except that God will finish the work he started so no matter a Christian's bumbling god will make sure we mature.
 
Any religion or system of thinking that promotes working your way to God is false (No matter its degree of correct theology). In other words no Jesus +, the book of Galatians covers this topic I am speaking of. 
 
You spoke about not seeing certain elements of the gospels as being cohesive. So I was thought about your objection and God brought to mind the resurrection account, and how many women were at the tomb. It isn't a problem if you allow them to harmonize. In a musical composition parts are written with variation to create depth and richness in the piece. I propose this is what's happening in the Gospels. In the book of Matthew, Mary Magdalene and another Mary (28:1) find the empty tomb. In Mark Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (16:1) find the tomb. In Luke Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and others (24:10) find the tomb.  Lastly in John Mary Magdalene (20:18) finds the tomb. The writers of the Gospels focus on certain parts of the resurrection account that satisfies their reasoning. If you allow the gospels to harmonize then you see the full account in more detail than any one Gospel gives.  This one may not be what you were thinking of and there are other apparent "contradictions" in the gospels so I am willing to discuss those if you wish.
 
As you said in you previous post there was an type of indentured slavery in Israel, which afforded the poor and indebted a way out of their poverty. Then after 6 years they were set free.  Greco-Roman slavery is the slavery system of the new testament. Up to a 3rd of the people in Rome were like employees, teachers, craftsmen, managers, cooks, government officials and some slaves even owned slaves. Some become slaves to gain Roman citizenship and a social standing. It provided security and stability and many slaves were released by 30 to stand on their own. However this doesn't mean its inclusion in the Bible therefore concludes God's will was for man to own slaves.  The slavery in America was built on human-trafficking and sub-humanism propaganda. This was done by people, yes even Christians, who were more interested in their own gains than the personhood of the slave. They were abused and misused and the repercussions of that still affects America today. Some people were "Christians" out of tradition and others allowed themselves to be blinded to the reality of this evil. Much like in today's society we are blind to abortion and pornography. The slave owners rapped when the wanted, killed when they wanted and become hardened by the cruelty. This is not the same type of slavery written about in the New testament when Paul tells a slave to return home and for the master to forgive him. Knowledge of past cultures in the Bible helps us to put into perspective what is actually being said and how that applies to our lives in the 20th Century. There is another type of slavery spoken of in the bible and that is spiritual slavery. When anyone worships anything other than God they become a slave to sin. No matter what kind of outward change they perform they'll never be free. God, through Jesus' sacrifice, buys us out of our slavery to sin and death. God uses the theme of slavery as a picture of our bondage to sin.
 
Now the question is are you supporting the degradation of humans? There are men, women, boys, and girls who are sex slaves for the production of pornography and when you support that you support slavery. This industry is destructive to all involved it dehumanizes people making it easier to abuse them. It also robs all involved of their humanity. The only hope is God He and His ability to free slaves from every from of slavery.
 
DNA is genetic information and people are trying now to use DNA as a storage system. It is a far more advanced storage system than anything we have created (you can look at this CNN article). Since computer code act similar to DNA if it were to evolve or change randomly it would degrade long before it had a positive mutation. You offered up time as a solution to this problem. The problem is that there isn't enough time to move through all the possible combinations of proteins to create a positive mutation. Here is a debate with Stephen Meyer (my main source) and Charles Marshall. The question is where did all that information come from?
 
I don't see your "just is" as equivalent to my statement that God is self-existent. He isn't a thing but a being possessing infinite knowledge, immutability, all power and is eternal. He is therefore able to work in every moment and can accomplish what is necessary for the out come that He wants. It is reasonable to believe God created us simply because of the information in the Bible let alone the information found in DNA. Information always traces back to a mind, why would it be different with DNA. When we find information in books or on a disc we don't assume it evolved, but that it was created.
 
Finally; human beings are categorized as "Hominids" and the word ape is an English word not a taxonomic category. If you could point me to the fossil information you sighted, because my search was mostly fruitless.