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

[Rekeisha]

Why do you ask?

Various documentaries have shown a basic set of morals in the ape family.  Does this mean your god gave morals to the apes?

God is not a person He is God a deity a almighty being. We are made like Him, He is not like us.

If there is no moral absolute then you have no foundation on which to judge anything as right and wrong. You would be just arbitrarily stating what is right and wrong.

I can't trust your judgment on what you say about God and His people because you don't have a foundation on which to make judgements.

If he's not a person, he's not worth worshiping. I might as well be worshiping the trees.

Yes, we do have a foundation. That foundation is consistent data. It's not arbitrary to say something is wrong, when it's been historically proven to cause problems. All you're doing is making special pleading for your god, saying it's not subjective when he says something is right or wrong, even though that's what subjective means.

You keep saying the same thing over and over, ignoring my examples without giving good reasons for doing so. You want to put your god on a pedestal for no apparent reason, and we keep going in circles. Why are we even having this conversation anymore?

I ignore your data because you first told me that all morals are subjective. So it take that to mean based on what they feel and think
 
Society A says that Murder is right
Society B says that Murder is wrong
 
Since in your world view both society are no better than the other and their morals are only subject to their society then neither are truly right.
 
You also stated that you can know right and wrong by researching through history.
 
I have asked you before by what criteria you judge what is right and wrong and you said that it is by your upbringing which is also subjective. So I am going to label your society Society C.
 
Society C now judges Society A and B. The results of Society C is right for that society but it has no authority to tell Society A or B wither their societal morals are right and wrong because it too is only subjectively judging.
 
So all we have are a bunch of societies judging other societies on their arbitrary morals because it doesn't have to do with reality but only societal preferences.

I am talking to you because I would hope you would understand that you borrow from God to judge God because you don't have a true right and wrong from which to judge. He gave us these instincts of what right and wrong are. The fact that you use them to judge Him is a judgment on yourself that you instinctively know that He exist but instead of worshiping Him you reject Him which causes gaps in your thinking. Your refusal of an absolute right and wrong, which as I have explained above, leads to there being no right and wrong. I hope that you would address this contradiction in your thinking. You either have to give up on say that you would never worship an evil God because in your world view there is no true evil or if you want to accept that there is a true right and wrong you consider where true moral come from because the don't come from us.

[Chad32]

There is no contradiction in my thinking. Just because I don't believe in an absolute right or wrong, doesn't mean I have absolutely no basis for right or wrong. You think your god's opinion of right and wrong is absolute, despite the fact that when morality comes from someone it is subjective by definition. Your response is to just say it isn't because god is different. Different how? Different because he's on top? Might makes right, and we can't do anything about it, so we might as well agree with him.

Judging someone as evil doesn't mean I instinctively know he exists, any more than judging any other character in any other book as evil. Or good. Or somewhere in between. I think Batman is awesome. It doesn't make him real, any more than me thinking The Joker is evil.

We're at a standstill now. You claim subjective morals have no meaning because they are subjective, while stating god's morals are objective despite them coming from him instead of just something he abides by himself. I disagree on both, and neither of us is making progress convincing the other. We're just going to have to call this a draw.

[Salacious B. Crumb]

God is not a person He is God a deity a almighty being. We are made like Him, He is not like us.

If we are made like him, then how is he not made like us? How can a human being be made to be like X, but how can X not be like a human being? It says in your bible that we were created in "his" image (Gen 1:27). So, god, according to your book is a deity of a man. He sure sounds like a man, he possesses all the traits of an evil man, such as jealousy and wrath. Maybe, you are right in some way that he is not like us. No human has massacred everything on the planet with the exception of a few of each animal, because of something that was his fault to begin with. If god's morality is objective, then I don't want to be objectively correct on the subject of morality.

[Rekeisha]

There is no contradiction in my thinking. Just because I don't believe in an absolute right or wrong, doesn't mean I have absolutely no basis for right or wrong. You think your god's opinion of right and wrong is absolute, despite the fact that when morality comes from someone it is subjective by definition. Your response is to just say it isn't because god is different. Different how? Different because he's on top? Might makes right, and we can't do anything about it, so we might as well agree with him.

Judging someone as evil doesn't mean I instinctively know he exists, any more than judging any other character in any other book as evil. Or good. Or somewhere in between. I think Batman is awesome. It doesn't make him real, any more than me thinking The Joker is evil.

We're at a standstill now. You claim subjective morals have no meaning because they are subjective, while stating god's morals are objective despite them coming from him instead of just something he abides by himself. I disagree on both, and neither of us is making progress convincing the other. We're just going to have to call this a draw.

If you are going to be intellectually honest with yourself you would have to come to the conclusion that in your world view there is no right and wrong.

God is different because He was never created and always was pure and never changes. Some other parts of God's characteristics are the He is holy good and righteous, He has absolutely no evil in Him. When God made the human race He made us in His image. So His qualities are instinctively built into our being. When someone defames the image of God, let say by lying, we see it as wrong because it is in opposition to our God given nature. Just like we know that there is something wrong with a person who is missing a leg. We don't think that it is some new from of evolution because we know that humans were made to have two legs. You know what is wrong in the physical but when it come to morals it is more convenient to say that morals are subjective so as to never have to come to terms with your own sin. God's has given us an opportunity to live an abundant and full life if you would repent for your sins and accept His sacrifice on th cross for your sins. Through this we are made whole and come to life to the realities that we instinctively know and can experience new life in the love and power of God.

I am saying that if there are only subjective morales without absolute morals on which to judge its worth they become meaningless. When you say there is only subjective moral you are treating morals like certain flavor of food. One person likes spicy another likes sweet. We don't hear people say that it is morally wrong to like spicy because that would be silly. Yet we all know what we ought to do and ought not do and it has nothing to do with whither we like to or not.

I can't say that it is a draw but if you wish to step out of the conversation I understand I would just hope you throughly reviewed your beliefs.

[Rekeisha]

God is not a person He is God a deity a almighty being. We are made like Him, He is not like us.

If we are made like him, then how is he not made like us? How can a human being be made to be like X, but how can X not be like a human being? It says in your bible that we were created in "his" image (Gen 1:27). So, god, according to your book is a deity of a man. He sure sounds like a man, he possesses all the traits of an evil man, such as jealousy and wrath. Maybe, you are right in some way that he is not like us. No human has massacred everything on the planet with the exception of a few of each animal, because of something that was his fault to begin with. If god's morality is objective, then I don't want to be objectively correct on the subject of morality.

The human race comes from God so we are like him because he is the originator. Let take me and my mother for instance. I look like my mother she doesn't look like me because she existed before me and I get some of my DNA from her.

By what means do you judge God? How can you claim what is right and wrong?

[Chad32]

There is no contradiction in my thinking. Just because I don't believe in an absolute right or wrong, doesn't mean I have absolutely no basis for right or wrong. You think your god's opinion of right and wrong is absolute, despite the fact that when morality comes from someone it is subjective by definition. Your response is to just say it isn't because god is different. Different how? Different because he's on top? Might makes right, and we can't do anything about it, so we might as well agree with him.

Judging someone as evil doesn't mean I instinctively know he exists, any more than judging any other character in any other book as evil. Or good. Or somewhere in between. I think Batman is awesome. It doesn't make him real, any more than me thinking The Joker is evil.

We're at a standstill now. You claim subjective morals have no meaning because they are subjective, while stating god's morals are objective despite them coming from him instead of just something he abides by himself. I disagree on both, and neither of us is making progress convincing the other. We're just going to have to call this a draw.

If I said that you have not bases for your right and wrong I apologize you do, but your base is not a good one and if you are going to be intellectually honest with yourself you would have to come to the conclusion that in your world view there is no right and wrong.

God is different because He was never created and always was pure and never changes. Some other parts of God's characteristics are the He is holy good and righteous, He has absolutely no evil in Him. When God made the human race He made us in His image. So His qualities are instinctively built into our being. When someone defames the image of God, let say by lying, we see it as wrong because it is in opposition to our God given nature. Just like we know that there is something wrong with a person who is missing a leg. We don't think that it is some new from of evolution because we know that humans were made to have two legs. You know what is wrong in the physical but when it come to morals it is more convenient to say that morals are subjective so as to never have to come to terms with your own sin. God's has given us an opportunity to live an abundant and full life if you would repent for your sins and accept His sacrifice on th cross for your sins. Through this we are made whole and come to life to the realities that we instinctively know and can experience new life in the love and power of God.

I am saying that if there are only subjective morales without absolute morals on which to judge its worth they become meaningless. When you say there is only subjective moral you are treating morals like certain flavor of food. One person likes spicy another likes sweet. We don't hear people say that it is morally wrong to like spicy because that would be silly. Yet we all know what we ought to do and ought not do and it has nothing to do with whither we like to or not.

I can't say that it is a draw but if you wish to step out of the conversation I understand I would just hope you throughly reviewed your beliefs.

There is no better way to know right from wrong than to see the kinds of things that consistently have a positive or negative effect on the world, then encourage things that have a positive effect while discouraging those that have a negative effect. No one is bringing back slavery in developed countries, despite the bible saying slavery is fine. Or that it's ok to kill groups of people in the streets for not following the bible. These are wrong, and it should be obvious why.

So what if god was never created, is pure, and never changes? None of those things mean you're automatically right. Psychopaths can be pure, and never change as well. Purity is not always a virtue, and neither is stubbornness. Where do you get the idea that he has no evil in him? Because he says he's good, and defines what evil is? That's very convenient. He's lucky he's more powerful than the things he creates. That may be the smartest thing he's ever done. make sure his creation can't successfully rebel against him.

His qualities are instinctively built into our being. I can see that. He has some negative qualities that many humans share. Violence being a big one.

I can come to terms with my flaws, and if I'm judged I can take responsibility from them. I don't call Yahweh evil through some attempts at escaping my problems.

No, they don't become meaningless. They do change over time with new information, but that's a strength. Not a weakness. Otherwise we'd still be treating women like chattel, valued mainly by their virginity. It's not about what we like and don't like. It's about what does and doesn't work for society. Equal rights works for society. Starting wars over the way we interpret a book does not.

I have reviewed my beliefs. that's why they changed over time. Just because my beliefs are subjective, though, doesn't mean there's no point in contemplating moral issues.

[Salacious B. Crumb]

The human race comes from God so we are like him because he is the originator.

That’s a claim that you can’t back up. However, this is something I’m getting very used to, when briefly talking with theists. “I know exactly how many stars are in the universe at any given time.” That’s what your claim looks to non-believers.

Let take me and my mother for instance. I look like my mother she doesn't look like me because she existed before me and I get some of my DNA from her.

You’re wrong there. If one things looks like another, then they look like each other.. If Mountain X looks like Mountain Y, then they look like each other, no matter what order you phrase them into a sentence. If Mountain Y looks like X, you can’t say that Y doesn’t like X, it doesn’t any make sense. This has no relevance to anything, so we can just drop that.

By what means do you judge God?

Well, I don’t know a god, so it would be hard for me to judge one. Nevertheless, I can look at our world as critically as possible, and see a lot of messed up stuff going on every single day. All you need to do is turn on the news for a few minutes to see a murder, rape, people starving to death everyday, etc. To me, if there is a god, that god doesn’t care about us, or is a deistic god that just doesn’t intervene at all. Does god choose one person to save in a natural disaster over another? Does god choose to prevent one rape, but not another? Many christians seem to think he intervenes in these type of ways. If you believe that, then you’re a little crazy. “Thank you god for the food on the table, thanks for answering our prayers.” Meanwhile, in a 3rd world country, there are christians crying out to god, and he doesn’t answer. It seems that your god doesn’t intervene or prefers you to other people starving to death.. which doesn't sound like the characteristics of a god that loves us all the same.

How can you claim what is right and wrong?

First off, I think morality is subjective, so, I  can claim whatever I want about it. You’re allowed to think spray painting a blasphemous phrase on a church is wrong, I’m allowed to think raping someone is wrong, and John Doe may think killing someone for no reason is ok. Some people will disagree with me on some things, some will disagree on many things. Most civilized people can agree that going out and raping, murdering, and stealing is wrong, hence, we as a people, decided that the law should include those things in order to attempt to protect everyone else from those things, that most of us would agree is wrong.

[Rekeisha]

If I said that you have not bases for your right and wrong I apologize you do, but your base is not a good one and if you are going to be intellectually honest with yourself you would have to come to the conclusion that in your world view there is no right and wrong.

God is different because He was never created and always was pure and never changes. Some other parts of God's characteristics are the He is holy good and righteous, He has absolutely no evil in Him. When God made the human race He made us in His image. So His qualities are instinctively built into our being. When someone defames the image of God, let say by lying, we see it as wrong because it is in opposition to our God given nature. Just like we know that there is something wrong with a person who is missing a leg. We don't think that it is some new from of evolution because we know that humans were made to have two legs. You know what is wrong in the physical but when it come to morals it is more convenient to say that morals are subjective so as to never have to come to terms with your own sin. God's has given us an opportunity to live an abundant and full life if you would repent for your sins and accept His sacrifice on th cross for your sins. Through this we are made whole and come to life to the realities that we instinctively know and can experience new life in the love and power of God.

I am saying that if there are only subjective morales without absolute morals on which to judge its worth they become meaningless. When you say there is only subjective moral you are treating morals like certain flavor of food. One person likes spicy another likes sweet. We don't hear people say that it is morally wrong to like spicy because that would be silly. Yet we all know what we ought to do and ought not do and it has nothing to do with whither we like to or not.

I can't say that it is a draw but if you wish to step out of the conversation I understand I would just hope you throughly reviewed your beliefs.

There is no better way to know right from wrong than to see the kinds of things that consistently have a positive or negative effect on the world, then encourage things that have a positive effect while discouraging those that have a negative effect. No one is bringing back slavery in developed countries, despite the bible saying slavery is fine. Or that it's ok to kill groups of people in the streets for not following the bible. These are wrong, and it should be obvious why.

So what if god was never created, is pure, and never changes? None of those things mean you're automatically right. Psychopaths can be pure, and never change as well. Purity is not always a virtue, and neither is stubbornness. Where do you get the idea that he has no evil in him? Because he says he's good, and defines what evil is? That's very convenient. He's lucky he's more powerful than the things he creates. That may be the smartest thing he's ever done. make sure his creation can't successfully rebel against him.

His qualities are instinctively built into our being. I can see that. He has some negative qualities that many humans share. Violence being a big one.

I can come to terms with my flaws, and if I'm judged I can take responsibility from them. I don't call Yahweh evil through some attempts at escaping my problems.

No, they don't become meaningless. They do change over time with new information, but that's a strength. Not a weakness. Otherwise we'd still be treating women like chattel, valued mainly by their virginity. It's not about what we like and don't like. It's about what does and doesn't work for society. Equal rights works for society. Starting wars over the way we interpret a book does not.

I have reviewed my beliefs. that's why they changed over time. Just because my beliefs are subjective, though, doesn't mean there's no point in contemplating moral issues.

So let me drill down a little further. If you don't start with God (who is the source of all life, knowledge and reason) how do you account for logic, knowledge, and uniformity because in your world-view (if you are being honest) humans are just stuff.

Again you still can't honestly claim there is anything that is wrong or right or anything positive or negative. In your world view things just are there is nothing that we as people ought to do because we are just stuff.

God is pure in the sense that He is moral pure. There is no mixture of evil in Him . God being all good wants to restore us since we have been corrupted and are broken in all areas of our lives. He has taken great pains and sacrifice (on the cross) in order to help you understand that He understands and loves you.  He knows what hurts you have and your needs and wants to give you a life that is abundant pure and clean. There is a full life in Jesus but you must first repent and seek forgiveness of your sins. Once He is Lord and Saviour of your life that is when you have the power through the Holy Spirit to live a life that is truly right and good.

[Rekeisha]

The human race comes from God so we are like him because he is the originator.

That’s a claim that you can’t back up. However, this is something I’m getting very used to, when briefly talking with theists. “I know exactly how many stars are in the universe at any given time.” That’s what your claim looks to non-believers.

Let take me and my mother for instance. I look like my mother she doesn't look like me because she existed before me and I get some of my DNA from her.

You’re wrong there. If one things looks like another, then they look like each other.. If Mountain X looks like Mountain Y, then they look like each other, no matter what order you phrase them into a sentence. If Mountain Y looks like X, you can’t say that Y doesn’t like X, it doesn’t any make sense. This has no relevance to anything, so we can just drop that.

By what means do you judge God?

Well, I don’t know a god, so it would be hard for me to judge one. Nevertheless, I can look at our world as critically as possible, and see a lot of messed up stuff going on every single day. All you need to do is turn on the news for a few minutes to see a murder, rape, people starving to death everyday, etc. To me, if there is a god, that god doesn’t care about us, or is a deistic god that just doesn’t intervene at all. Does god choose one person to save in a natural disaster over another? Does god choose to prevent one rape, but not another? Many christians seem to think he intervenes in these type of ways. If you believe that, then you’re a little crazy. “Thank you god for the food on the table, thanks for answering our prayers.” Meanwhile, in a 3rd world country, there are christians crying out to god, and he doesn’t answer. It seems that your god doesn’t intervene or prefers you to other people starving to death.. which doesn't sound like the characteristics of a god that loves us all the same.

How can you claim what is right and wrong?

First off, I think morality is subjective, so, I  can claim whatever I want about it. You’re allowed to think spray painting a blasphemous phrase on a church is wrong, I’m allowed to think raping someone is wrong, and John Doe may think killing someone for no reason is ok. Some people will disagree with me on some things, some will disagree on many things. Most civilized people can agree that going out and raping, murdering, and stealing is wrong, hence, we as a people, decided that the law should include those things in order to attempt to protect everyone else from those things, that most of us would agree is wrong.

What I just read is that you don't have any real foundation on which to judge God. All of you morals are arbitrary because you just do what you feel. I can't tell you are wrong because there is no right and wrong. When you don't start with God you do as you did and start with yourself, but if everyone is starting with themselves then there is not true foundation. People change and are only alive for a short amount of time. You can't build a true coherent existence off of people if you actually want to live by what is right and wrong.

Now if you are going to be intellectually honest with your world view you can do whatever you want to people and people can do whatever they want to you and there will be no right and no wrong. You will also have to stop claiming religion is doing anything positive or negative or that God is good or bad because that definition does not exist in your world view. 

I can claim what is good or bad because I have a standard that doesn't change and that is God. He isn't just the standard for good but for all truth. He wants to correct your brokenness and made that possible by dieing for your sins on the cross all you have to do is repent, or stop living your life on your own terms, and seek His forgiveness as your Lord and Savior.

[Chad32]

We account for knowledge by seeing how the world works, doing tests, and making note of consistency. It's a process, and going back and revising when we get new information keeps things as accurate as possible. This is how we find out how planets actually form, what really causes illness, and such. The universe is full of stuff, and this stuff interacts with other stuff in a way that we can gain knowledge about how the stuff within the universe works. The more we know about this stuff, the fewer things we attribute to gods. For instance, we know lightning doesn't come down because there's a guy on a cloud hurling bolts at the ground. We also know that the reason a church might get struck by lightning is less because of heresy, and more because it was probably built on a hill with a tall steeple at the top.

Yes, I can. You're just ignoring our ability to gather consistent data over time with which to base our views. Since they're not absolute, you want to throw them out the window as useless, and consult a book with outdated views like slavery, discrimination, thought crime, and such. Yet you're accusing me of being dishonest because I believe even a flawed system has value. The more we work at it, the less flawed it becomes.

I suppose since you believe your god defines good and evil, you can safely say he doesn't have evil in him. Which isn't saying much, really. If I was all powerful I could say I'm perfectly good too, while killing and torturing anyone who disagrees.

I don't really see any sacrificing going on. Jesus came back, and either sits at god's right hand or is god himself. What has god lost in the long term? I've heard he carries the burden of sin, so does that mean he has PTSD? That's not exactly clear. I don't think he understands us at all, since he calls us fundamentally evil. I may have said this before, but he can't even get his followers to agree on what his message is, and if its just the christians who are going to heaven it's only a minority of the population that he's able to save. That shows a severe lack of understanding. He sets a bar for us that is impossibly high, and can't get the majority of the population to even believe in him. he can't even keep the people who want to worship him from killing each other over how to interpret the bible. That is a failure on his part if his goal is to gain as many followers as possible.

He's waiting for me to come to him, and I'm waiting for him to come to me. Except that I can live my life just fine without him, so if he wants to be worshiped he needs to show himself to me. He seems to want me, but I could take him or leave him. I cannot ask someone for forgiveness, or dedicate my life to him, if I haven't met him.