God Can't Lead Me If I Won't Follow

[dB-Paradox]

This was what my father in law said over the weekend, and while it made me think he was at his delusional low, I am still trying to think of a proper Christian counter response. Off the top of my head, Paul comes to mind...a man who, according to Christian tradition, was blinded and basically forced to believe. If he wasn't a man who wasn't willing to follow, then I don't know who was. The Christian response would likely be to follow Paul's example, but Paul didn't follow the examples of the apostles before him, so the argument still stands. And of course, there may be the responses like, "Why should God have to reveal himself to you, or to anyone else...he already did it!" And maybe God really isn't omnipotent, and therefore would tire of revealing himself to everyone! Ha! I wonder how a Christian would respond to that? Anyway, I may be getting a little off topic....what would your response be to the quote in the subject line?

[BrotherJosh]

If Bible God really cared about your destiny and that your current path would lead you to hell he would omnisciently know the correct amount of evidence or intervention that would convince you. Of course if we enter the whole free-will argument well most if not all of the major characters in the Bible had some manner of intervention by or interaction with God. It's kind of like saying in order for Santa to deliver presents to your house, you have to believe in Santa first. We can't believe things into existence. On top of that, God had plenty of opportunity to "lead" you while you were still a Christian so why wait?

 

Following this line of reason means you could believe in anything. It's almost like a pyramid scheme, you have to buy into it first in order to receive super secret awesome information and then the more you buy into it, the higher up the pyramid you go.

[MagickMonkey]

When I was a doubting christian and especially when I was on the verge of losing my faith, I thought it was so fucking unfair that god basically forced belief on Paul but would not do that for me.

[chosendarkness]

My response would be 'which god?' There are lots of imaginary gods that people follow. Maybe I'm following one of the other ones. Maybe I'm following a god that doesn't want to be prayed to or worshipped, but wants me to rely on myself. I realize a Christian couldn't accept that answer though. But that's their problem not mine.

[par4dcourse]

"God can't lead if you won't follow."

But you can't follow if he won't lead.

[TMJ]

If he knows that you are an athiest, you could always say that a lot of imaginary beings(Easter Bunny or Peter Pan) can't lead if you don't follow them either. The reason that they can't lead is that they are nonexistent.

[Ouroboros]

When I was a doubting christian and especially when I was on the verge of losing my faith, I thought it was so fucking unfair that god basically forced belief on Paul but would not do that for me.

I remember having those feelings too. And I also thought how unfair it was that the disciples, the "pillars of Christianity," deserved to see Jesus both before and after his death, and doubting Thomas even got a chance to touch the holes. Why did they deserve physical evidence like that, and I did not? Obviously faith without evidence was not enough for the people Jesus handpicked to lead the core team of his church!

 

Oh, and talking about the disciples, I always wondered why God needed Paul to really get his church going. Jesus picked the 12. One got lost. 11 left. No one of them really made any huge noise. No, it was Paul, who never met Jesus in person, who marketed this new religion. Was that really God's plan? Why didn't God pick Paul from the start instead of the 12? Weird... And why were the 12 so unsuccessful? Paul was the Bill Gates of Christianity. The 12 were more like Atari and Commodore, which only had a short period of spotlight and now are gone. In other words, Jesus picked the losers, who failed their mission. Good job Jesus--he with the prophetic eye.

[MagickMonkey]

When I was a doubting christian and especially when I was on the verge of losing my faith, I thought it was so fucking unfair that god basically forced belief on Paul but would not do that for me.

I remember having those feelings too. And I also thought how unfair it was that the disciples, the "pillars of Christianity," deserved to see Jesus both before and after his death, and doubting Thomas even got a chance to touch the holes. Why did they deserve physical evidence like that, and I did not? Obviously faith without evidence was not enough for the people Jesus handpicked to lead the core team of his church!

 

Oh, and talking about the disciples, I always wondered why God needed Paul to really get his church going. Jesus picked the 12. One got lost. 11 left. No one of them really made any huge noise. No, it was Paul, who never met Jesus in person, who marketed this new religion. Was that really God's plan? Why didn't God pick Paul from the start instead of the 12? Weird... And why were the 12 so unsuccessful? Paul was the Bill Gates of Christianity. The 12 were more like Atari and Commodore, which only had a short period of spotlight and now are gone. In other words, Jesus picked the losers, who failed their mission. Good job Jesus--he with the prophetic eye.

 

Yep, Paul won that popularity contest.

[Eugene39]

I also thought how unfair it was that the disciples, the "pillars of Christianity," deserved to see Jesus both before and after his death, and doubting Thomas even got a chance to touch the holes. Why did they deserve physical evidence like that, and I did not? Obviously faith without evidence was not enough for the people Jesus handpicked to lead the core team of his church!

 

That reminded me of John 20:39, "Then Jesus told him, Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." I wonder who he was talking about because everybody he was talking to had seen him.

 

If God reveals himself to someone, then when that person tells somebody else, it merely becomes second-hand information. It's amazing to me how all these different people who have gotten all these revelations from God, never do have any witnesses.

 

 

[MagickMonkey]

I also thought how unfair it was that the disciples, the "pillars of Christianity," deserved to see Jesus both before and after his death, and doubting Thomas even got a chance to touch the holes. Why did they deserve physical evidence like that, and I did not? Obviously faith without evidence was not enough for the people Jesus handpicked to lead the core team of his church!

 

That reminded me of John 20:39, "Then Jesus told him, Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." I wonder who he was talking about because everybody he was talking to had seen him.

 

If God reveals himself to someone, then when that person tells somebody else, it merely becomes second-hand information. It's amazing to me how all these different people who have gotten all these revelations from God, never do have any witnesses.

 

 

 

 

Hehe, if there really is a god, I'd prefer the lowly shitty first-hand knowledge kind of faith over damnation.

 

 

[chosendarkness]

I also thought how unfair it was that the disciples, the "pillars of Christianity," deserved to see Jesus both before and after his death, and doubting Thomas even got a chance to touch the holes. Why did they deserve physical evidence like that, and I did not? Obviously faith without evidence was not enough for the people Jesus handpicked to lead the core team of his church!

 

That reminded me of John 20:39, "Then Jesus told him, Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." I wonder who he was talking about because everybody he was talking to had seen him.

 

If God reveals himself to someone, then when that person tells somebody else, it merely becomes second-hand information. It's amazing to me how all these different people who have gotten all these revelations from God, never do have any witnesses.

Hehe, if there really is a god, I'd prefer the lowly shitty first-hand knowledge kind of faith over damnation.

Nice. I remember they'd always rag on me for wanting to see miracles. I was a lowly, inadequate Christian because according to them I 'needed' to see a miracle. That's bullshit, I just wanted to see them because I thought they were supposed to be happening. They'd always say something like 'the only miracle I need is Jesus dying on the cross', or 'I see little miracles everyday and that's enough for me.' So, basically they'd rather it not be 'too real', but just enough so they can feel comfortable. Doesn't matter though, the whole thing was bullshit anyway..

[oddbird1963]

. . . what would your response be to the quote in the subject line?

 

The reason why "God Can't Lead Me If I Won't Follow" is a stupid statement is because it is just another form of "you're just being rebellious" or "you're just mad at god." It's just an ad hominum argument. Where in the Bible does it actually state that you and I today should not expect god to show himself to us in a convincing way? What reasonable argument can your f-in-law give as to why god remains hidden to you? There may be one, but "God Can't Lead Me If I Won't Follow" isn't valid.

 

To me, the best response is to put the hot potato back into the accuser's lap and accuse him of being judgmental. "You don't know my heart. You're accusing me of being childish and rebellious. You need to follow Jesus who said 'judge not that you be not judged.' God can't lead you if you won't follow Jesus."

 

I really like par4's response :

 

But you can't follow if he won't lead.

 

That ought to go on a bumper sticker or a t-shirt.

[dB-Paradox]

. . . what would your response be to the quote in the subject line?

 

The reason why "God Can't Lead Me If I Won't Follow" is a stupid statement is because it is just another form of "you're just being rebellious" or "you're just mad at god." It's just an ad hominum argument. Where in the Bible does it actually state that you and I today should not expect god to show himself to us in a convincing way? What reasonable argument can your f-in-law give as to why god remains hidden to you? There may be one, but "God Can't Lead Me If I Won't Follow" isn't valid.

 

To me, the best response is to put the hot potato back into the accuser's lap and accuse him of being judgmental. "You don't know my heart. You're accusing me of being childish and rebellious. You need to follow Jesus who said 'judge not that you be not judged.' God can't lead you if you won't follow Jesus."

 

I really like par4's response :

 

But you can't follow if he won't lead.

 

That ought to go on a bumper sticker or a t-shirt.

You said something that struck a chord! The quote is absolutely non-biblical, except for maybe the story of Abraham. (But Abraham's story is more of a story of trust, not faith.) In all of the Christian writings, not once is it mentioned that God will lead only if you follow. Even the damn story of Jonah and that friggen fish flies absolutely against the quote! I think there are far more biblical examples of God leading people who DON'T want to be led.

 

And I also agree about par's quote. I wonder how many fingers I would get if I had that stamped on my car! Ha!

[Ouroboros]

I also thought how unfair it was that the disciples, the "pillars of Christianity," deserved to see Jesus both before and after his death, and doubting Thomas even got a chance to touch the holes. Why did they deserve physical evidence like that, and I did not? Obviously faith without evidence was not enough for the people Jesus handpicked to lead the core team of his church!

 

That reminded me of John 20:39, "Then Jesus told him, Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." I wonder who he was talking about because everybody he was talking to had seen him.

And honestly, what is that blessing? What blessing is it to believe without seeing? I never experienced any particular additional blessing because of it, rather the opposite. It's obviously just an excuse by the author to explain why no miracles, no visible Jesus, and no God present in the generations after. This passage is most likely something that was added to the story at a later date when no one of the Christians could get any confirmation about God's or Jesus's existence. They started to ask questions:

- We can't see Jesus? We can't see any fancy miracles? Why?

 

- Well, don't you know, I just remembered that Jesus also said... If you don't see Jesus or miracles, you're better off because you're "blessed." Yay!

 

- Really?

 

If it's so much better to not see and still believe, then why didn't God do that with the disciples?

 

This is probably the biggest problem I have with Christianity. It's this whole denial and delusion going on.

 

If God reveals himself to someone, then when that person tells somebody else, it merely becomes second-hand information. It's amazing to me how all these different people who have gotten all these revelations from God, never do have any witnesses.

Yeah. They never do.

 

Oh, I just got a revelation from God. God told me he's real and he's a blue rabbit! Yay! But I'm a mere servant and not so important. But anyone who believes me and believes that God is a blue rabbit, they are much more blessed than I am! Whoopdedoo!!!

[dB-Paradox]

If it's so much better to not see and still believe, then why didn't God do that with the disciples?

I'm totally using this next time someone tells me it's better to have faith! Thank you for that tid-bit of wisdom!

[MagickMonkey]

I also thought how unfair it was that the disciples, the "pillars of Christianity," deserved to see Jesus both before and after his death, and doubting Thomas even got a chance to touch the holes. Why did they deserve physical evidence like that, and I did not? Obviously faith without evidence was not enough for the people Jesus handpicked to lead the core team of his church!

 

That reminded me of John 20:39, "Then Jesus told him, Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." I wonder who he was talking about because everybody he was talking to had seen him.

And honestly, what is that blessing? What blessing is it to believe without seeing? I never experienced any particular additional blessing because of it, rather the opposite. It's obviously just an excuse by the author to explain why no miracles, no visible Jesus, and no God present in the generations after. This passage is most likely something that was added to the story at a later date when no one of the Christians could get any confirmation about God's or Jesus's existence. They started to ask questions:

- We can't see Jesus? We can't see any fancy miracles? Why?

 

- Well, don't you know, I just remembered that Jesus also said... If you don't see Jesus or miracles, you're better off because you're "blessed." Yay!

 

- Really?

 

If it's so much better to not see and still believe, then why didn't God do that with the disciples?

 

This is probably the biggest problem I have with Christianity. It's this whole denial and delusion going on.

 

If God reveals himself to someone, then when that person tells somebody else, it merely becomes second-hand information. It's amazing to me how all these different people who have gotten all these revelations from God, never do have any witnesses.

Yeah. They never do.

 

Oh, I just got a revelation from God. God told me he's real and he's a blue rabbit! Yay! But I'm a mere servant and not so important. But anyone who believes me and believes that God is a blue rabbit, they are much more blessed than I am! Whoopdedoo!!!

 

+1 (except I can't really give you a point, but pretend)

 

Oh, I've got several revelations from god. Happens all the time. (I like talking to myself.)

[Vigile]

When I was a doubting christian and especially when I was on the verge of losing my faith, I thought it was so fucking unfair that god basically forced belief on Paul but would not do that for me.

 

The big one for me was basically the opposite. A girl from our church did a short mission stint in New Guinea. She came back telling us that people there begged her to send other missionaries to tell them the gospel because most had never heard it. At the time this broke my heart, but later I reflected and thought why is it I was raised in an xian home, heard the "gospel" literally thousands of times, and given every possible opportunity to be saved while others die never hearing it once -- and, and -- they are judged like me at the final judgment.

 

I could find no justice in this whatsoever. The apologetic response I got was that they would be judged based on their hearts, not their beliefs. Begs a big question, huh?

[MagickMonkey]

When I was a doubting christian and especially when I was on the verge of losing my faith, I thought it was so fucking unfair that god basically forced belief on Paul but would not do that for me.

 

The big one for me was basically the opposite. A girl from our church did a short mission stint in New Guinea. She came back telling us that people there begged her to send other missionaries to tell them the gospel because most had never heard it. At the time this broke my heart, but later I reflected and thought why is it I was raised in an xian home, heard the "gospel" literally thousands of times, and given every possible opportunity to be saved while others die never hearing it once -- and, and -- they are judged like me at the final judgment.

 

I could find no justice in this whatsoever. The apologetic response I got was that they would be judged based on their hearts, not their beliefs. Begs a big question, huh?

 

Yeah, if that's the case, christians should shut the fuck up. According to that theory, spreading the gospel might actually damn people to hell.

[Vigile]

 

 

Yeah, if that's the case, christians should shut the fuck up. According to that theory, spreading the gospel might actually damn people to hell.

 

The Spanish conquistadors bashed the skulls of Aztec babies on a rock wall after baptizing them so they wouldn't be raised heathen. I never understood the anti abortion position of xians for this same reason.

[MagickMonkey]

Yeah, if that's the case, christians should shut the fuck up. According to that theory, spreading the gospel might actually damn people to hell.

 

The Spanish conquistadors bashed the skulls of Aztec babies on a rock wall after baptizing them so they wouldn't be raised heathen. I never understood the anti abortion position of xians for this same reason.

 

Yeah, no shit.

[Ouroboros]

When I was a doubting christian and especially when I was on the verge of losing my faith, I thought it was so fucking unfair that god basically forced belief on Paul but would not do that for me.

 

The big one for me was basically the opposite. A girl from our church did a short mission stint in New Guinea. She came back telling us that people there begged her to send other missionaries to tell them the gospel because most had never heard it. At the time this broke my heart, but later I reflected and thought why is it I was raised in an xian home, heard the "gospel" literally thousands of times, and given every possible opportunity to be saved while others die never hearing it once -- and, and -- they are judged like me at the final judgment.

 

I could find no justice in this whatsoever. The apologetic response I got was that they would be judged based on their hearts, not their beliefs. Begs a big question, huh?

 

Yeah, if that's the case, christians should shut the fuck up. According to that theory, spreading the gospel might actually damn people to hell.

Exactly.

 

Here's another problem I have with some (most?) Christian dogma. What will happen to people who never hear the gospel? The standard answer is that God will deal with them separately and individually, judging their lives based on what they did know about what is right or wrong. So... then the problem is, if you tell someone, who is a in general a good person, about salvation, but you do a crappy job doing it, you now have increased the chances that the good person will reject salvation and guarantee an infinite punishment. If you had let him be, he would have had a great chance of going to Heaven. That sucks!

 

Perhaps my loss of faith has something to do with crappy apologetic from half-ass hearted Christians? If the only Christians I met had it wrong, and now I'm an unbeliever because of it, how is it fair that I will suffer for eternity and God not come down in his almighty glory and fix my misunderstanding?

[Vigile]

how is it fair that I will suffer for eternity and God not come down in his almighty glory and fix my misunderstanding?

 

You bring back so many memories with this. This is so close to my thinking as I was just beginning the deconversion process.

[Ouroboros]

how is it fair that I will suffer for eternity and God not come down in his almighty glory and fix my misunderstanding?

 

You bring back so many memories with this. This is so close to my thinking as I was just beginning the deconversion process.

I noticed from some other members and their testimonies that this is quite common. If knowing God and God's existence is so important, it just doesn't make sense that this knowledge is based on rumors and second hand "prophetic" words.

[mwc]

This was what my father in law said over the weekend, and while it made me think he was at his delusional low, I am still trying to think of a proper Christian counter response. [...] I wonder how a Christian would respond to that? Anyway, I may be getting a little off topic....what would your response be to the quote in the subject line?

How long has this back and forth between the two of you been going on? Awhile now that I know of.

 

If this was me, by now, my response to this would be: "I don't fucking care what you have to say about this anymore. I've been polite for what seems like forever and you're still up my ass with all this nonsense. Leave me alone with your superstitious bullshit. If your imaginary friend is 'for reals' he can put up for himself but until then you can shut up because I've had enough of your unconvincing apologetics to last multiple lifetimes."

 

mwc

[Guest Valk0010]

I would say the bible story itself is a violation of free will, because there are many times, were if it wasn't for a appearance by god, people wouldn't have necessarily made the "proper" choices. So to the point of a person needing to follow, so god can lead. Simply read the bible, a lot of people who followed god, would have been real idiots, to not, if the stories are true.