16 votes

Would you believe the God of the Bible if you knew the Bible were true?

Although I don't think this thread should be relegated to 'weird stuff', It's probably where it will end up. So, I've done it myself. :)

On to the question, though. I've heard many people say things like, "Well, if God is like THAT, then I don't want to worship Him anyway." My assertion is that a statement like this proves that one is not interested in truth, but only in what he/she would like to believe is truth.

Since I was a child, I have asked questions about everything. One of my math teachers used to laugh because I would never accept "just because" for an answer. I always had to know why something was the way it was. I despised being lied to about anything, whether it was Santa Claus or sex. I suppose that's why I ended up here.

I can't understand why others stop short of finding out the whys. I'm even more surprised that people in the 'liberty movement', don't want to dig deeper when confronted with uncomfortable ideas.

If you want truth, you will be willing to accept it regardless of how you have to change your life to conform to it. If it means that you cannot be a sodomite, you will change. If it means you cannot send your children to public school, you will change. If it means rejecting previous religious beliefs, you will change. And on and on the list could go.

God says in His Word, that if you seek you will find. But, the fact of the matter is, most people don't want truth very badly. They would rather stay comfortable and hope that what they believe is true. If you make up your mind that you will accept and embrace the truth, even if it is the God of the Bible, then you will find. As long as you say, "I'll accept truth if it is.....", you will never find it.

I made up my mind long ago that even if God WAS a brutal authoritarian, I would serve Him--if He was true. Even if He said things I didn't like, I would worship Him if He was really God. Of course, I found that He loves me and wants the best for me and every other human being. But, to find this, I had to be willing to believe truth whatever I found it to be.

Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man cometh unto the Father, but by me." He was (in the words of C.S. Lewis) either a Liar, a Lunatic, or the Lord Himself.

As many hours as I spend researching and reading, this life is not enough for me to understand--it's so short--a tiny dash between two dates on a tombstone. I want to know where I am going when I die---the "me" that is inside my body. If there is a God who will give me these answers, I want to know.

I have now found and can attest to you that Jesus Christ is TRUTH. He is God Almighty come down to make a way for us to God. But, I cannot desire truth for you--that is something only you can do. So, ask yourself today, "How important is truth to me?" And know this, liberty will never succeed without it.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I would believe in God even if

he were to light up a fatty right now and tell me with authority that He does not exist.

Be brave, be brave, the Myan pilot needs no aeroplane.

I'm not really sure what exactly you're asking of us, but...

I'll go with the hypothetical that was asked in your title: "If you knew factually that Biblical God was real and all the main events in the Bible were a fact, then would you "Believe God" "

^I'd believe God for sure, but wouldn't be very happy about it. Because then I would know that God would have no problem killing the world, and blowing up a few cities because he didn't like what they were doing. I would be fearful of the constant threat of vengeance that kills everyone I know and everyone period.

As the saying goes

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom"

No, considering the amount of

No, considering the amount of translation errors, different types of bibles, and the fact that MEN, not God, picked and chose which stories they wanted to included in the book while themselves ignoring truths that were inconvenient to people in positions of power.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

www.simplefactsplainarguments.com

You have set up a straw man

Here is a brief history on New Testament manuscript evidence.

http://www.str.org/site/News2?id=6068

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

^^ Epic Fail

Go back and read the Dead Sea scrolls that are dated 200-300 years before Christ and then the first bible copies 700-1000 years after and you will find 95 percent of the Old Testament contained in both is the same.If the same story is unchanged over 1,000 years I wouldn't worry to much about " translation errors today etc ..."

The problem is with belief

The following is taken from the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus.

"23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried and said , Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. 25 But Abraham said , Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted , and thou art tormented . 26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed : so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot ; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. 27 Then he said , I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: 28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. 29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 30 And he said , Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent . 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded , though one rose from the dead."

The point is in the end of the passage. If people don't believe Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if one rose from the dead.
One did rise from the dead of whom Moses and the prophets testify. Jesus Christ. And yet most people still reject him.

After his resurrection Jesus met two of his disciples on the road to Emmaus and told them " O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."

Jesus Chris is the fulfillment of the Law and the prophets. And the resurrection is the proof.

"38 Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here."

With that type of proof we should all be as Abraham, "20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness."

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

The problem is not God or the bible, it is those who USE Him

Isaiah 28:8
For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no place clean.
__________

Most churches are unclean.

Most modern pastors are liars, not satisfied to be saints alone.

They prefer to usurp and role play God as if they were some sort of prophet (aka, false prophet).

Those who get their religion from such (false) churches are the perfect example of what is wrong with Christianity in American and in the world today.

Those who read their bibles and "seek" God apart from these are much better off in my view. Yet we all can be deceived if God allows it.

The problem is that deception is everywhere, especially in what most consider (falsely) to be the modern churches.

I guarantee you that the God 1controversialchick knows and refers to is very different from that preached by most TV ministries and the many local (false) churches that model themselves more after Benny Hin than after the saints of the bible.

.

evolution is scientific dictatorship

If you look at the diversity of nature in animals all unique in their own environment, this gives testimony of God's created world. If you understood the irreducible complexity of biological systems, example; the eye, if something was missing in it's biology it would not serve it's purpose. So the alternative evolutionary theory can not be true.

Or the flagellum...

...in bacteria -- like an amazingly intricate outboard motor. :) Would like to see how all that could have come about with so many details needed to be in place for the system to work and be preserved via natural selection.

If I knew the Bible were true,

I'd still want to choose my own God.

I believe in the freedom to be what we choose to be.

If I knew the Bible to be true,

I would reject that God as illustrated in the Bible. I do not want a deity to be the king of me: the danger is that I would bind myself to a deity that I do not truly believe in, that I would have to agree with everything that God says or does no matter how I may truly feel about it.

What I want to believe in is a different kind of God, the one that I discovered and chose on my own. Of course, there is always a danger of that God being an idol, a leader, a tyrant that chains others... but if that God were such a hideous being, then I shall reserve my choice to have no part in it.

The God that I discovered on my own... for me, it's Love. Everyone knows it, everyone shares in it. For another, it may be "the inner God called possibility", the God that is Hope; for yet another, it may be the God that is Harmony, or the God that is Nature, or the God that is Liberty

This is the decision I have come to after having been involved in Catholicism for the great part of my life, but only baptised in the last three. The choice that I made was to become a Catholic, since my virtues match closely to Catholicism. But the God that I worship is different to the God everyone else believed in: I do not want to believe in kings, saints, mysteries, icons and the like. That kind of tradition commands people to believe in superstition and miracles, that through such things as prayer good things will happen. Perhaps it does help in it, but it is the kind of tradition that stifles the ability of people to do good as something they wanted to do as themselves, and not because they belonged to any particular faith.

I do not want to believe in some vague and otherworldly monarchy - the Kingdom of Heaven - or a possible cult of personality. A jealous God that claims to be almighty, that does not allow other Gods but his own, is a cult of personality, no matter how good he may be. What I want to believe in is people themselves. I want to believe in other people treasuring other people, and that they do so not because it's a religion, but because they chose to do so out of their own liberty.

I believe in the freedom to be what we choose to be.

You should really start listening to Chuch Baldwin

We are all given a choice to choose God, whether we know Him personally or not.

I am not Catholic, and i personally see many problems with the Catholic Church, same as i see many problems with the other denominations.(no offense to everyone who disagrees with me, this is my own personal opinion, and just where i am spiritually at the moment)

However, you sound like your Christian experience has been more about religion, and less about God.

I do not believe in kings, saints, mysteries, icons. Miracles i have been witness to more than once, i do not have to be superstitious about whether they are true or not. I have seen angels and I have seen God's work being done through prayer. I do believe you will never get your wish of humans helping humans. People are inherently evil. Little kids will steal, lie, cheat you, parents have to teach them to be good, its not the other way around.

You should study the Bible on your own for awhile, do not listen to what any denomination tells you, just study. You will find the Bible isn't what most people(including professing Christians) make it out to be.

One of the pieces you seem to be missing, is that the God you say is unjust and and a tyrant, is really the same God, teaching you Love, Truth, Hope, Harmony and Liberty.

The question I see, is in your definition of 'what is a king'? To me, I run my life, and when i screw up, I blame me, when i do well, I give the glory to God. God does not control my life(although i should let Him), it's quite clear I screw up a lot. I don't think God is quite the tyrant you make Him out to be. God wants us to be free, and just give Him to glory for creating us.

However I really think you should try Chuck Baldwin, he does good sermons in my opinion, and he mixes in our nation and world histories, over all, I always learn something new.

If you don't desire a Living God, then I wish you luck. My studies always brought me back to God. If you have any questions let me know.

Here is his most recent sermon, I'll bet you haven't heard it like this, tell me what you think:


http://youtu.be/H50jCTtBgAM

If I knew the bible was true

I would absolutely believe in god. However, I have a question, did you ever ask why is there a god? Or where did god come from? I have been asking these questions for years and I have never gotten a good answer. After years of bad answers I just stopped believing. I would love for someone to give me a good answer, although at this point I am almost certain no one will.

thoughts.

"However, I have a question, did you ever ask why is there a god? Or where did god come from? "

Where God comes from is kind of an invalid question. It's sort of like walking up to a stranger and asking "when did you stop beating your wife?". It assumes that God had an origin, that he came from somewhere, just as the other invalid question assumes that someone had at one point beat their wife. The Bible teaches that God is eternal, that he has always existed. And some believe that God exists outside of Time, or has existed outside of time prior to creation, either in thinking that time is only experiential within the created universe(s), or in thinking that time did not exist until a timeless eternal God created it and entered into it.

Some verses used to support those ideas are here:

Eternality of God:
Psalms 90:2 "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God."

Gods relation to time being different:
2nd Peter 3:8 "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

God creating time:
Colossians 1:16-17 "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."

Regarding why God exists, you can ask "why we should believe God exists" one can take a classical approach and present things like the cosmological argument, but to ask merely why God exists at all is a tough question to answer in a classical way. the Brute fact approach is used for both theism and atheism, but I suggest looking at the presuppositional approach found in presuppositional apologetics: Here is an mp3 of the most famous debate using presuppositional apologetics addressing the existence of God: http://www.sermonaudio.ca/bahnsen/BahnsenVsStein_TheGreatDeb...
and here is a transcript of the same debate: http://www.bellevuechristian.org/faculty/dribera/htdocs/PDFs...

The strength in the presuppositional approach is found in what it can account for. The presuppositional approach tends to argue that everyone ultimately relies on their presuppositions to explain reality, and that presupposing the Christian God exists accounts for the universe better than presupposing any other view.

Another thought is that God is a very basic and simple concept. Immaterial consciousness as a concept is not complex. So it's not as if God is a complex being requiring explanation for an origin of his complexity. Not that this last point fully answers the question, it might make it easier.

Thank you for the reply

It has given me something to think about. Your explanation of where god comes from is a more thought out way of saying the same old answer "he has always been". I know most people can accept that as an answer and may even find comfort in it. I find it impossible to accept that an all powerful being just exists and has no beginning and no reason for existing in its current form. Does god exist by chance? Did god evolve to his current form, or was he always in his current form? You say god exists outside of time, but I think time would exist even for god in some fashion even if it were outside of our own time. Regardless, to say god has ways been is just bagging the question. It's dodging the question because we are afraid to say, I don't know.

more thoughts.

Re: "I find it impossible to accept that an all powerful being just exists and has no beginning and no reason for existing in its current form."

Why? For something to be impossible it needs to violate one or more of the laws of logic. How does an eternal being violate that? If anything eternal exists, wouldn't it by it's very nature be without beginning or end, without cause? I understand the concern with regards to the principle of sufficient reason(i.e. everything needs a reason), but even that philosophical principle allows for a "self-necessitated Being". The debate I linked earlier kind of get's into some of this with the transcendental argument for the existence of God:

Dr. Bahnsen- "we can prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary. The transcendental proof for God's existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist world view is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist world view cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist world view cannot account for our debate tonight. "

Re: "Does god exist by chance? Did god evolve to his current form, or was he always in his current form?"

I think God exists by necessity, not chance. See Bahnsens debate for details. I might add that many say that if creation exists, then a creator must exist, and we have creation, so a creator is necessary. We have an ordered world which gives rise to things like the fine tuning argument: http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Fine-tuning/FINETLAY.HTM, and then there are things like immaterial laws which can't be accounted for by strict materialism (i.e. laws of Logic). All of these things make sense with God, and don't make sense without him. The bible teaches that God doesn't change, so there would be no evolving of God according to that.

Re:"You say god exists outside of time,..."

I think I said 'some' believe God exists out of time. I know of some Christians who think that God exists within time, that time only exists in reference to God and not as a created thing. I haven't really come to a conclusion on that question myself.

Re: "Regardless, to say god has ways been is just bagging the question. It's dodging the question because we are afraid to say, I don't know."

I don't agree. If anyone is guilty of some sort of presumption it's the person asking how God came into existence, while presuming that an 'eternal' God does not exist. Pointing out the eternality of God simply shows that the question is invalid like asking when you stopped beating your wife. If that doesn't satisfy, then a better question should be asked.

"For something to be

"For something to be impossible it needs to violate one or more of the laws of logic." That is not true. Logic does not need to reside in the world of possibility. A is greater than B and B is greater than C therefore A is greater than C, is a completely logical argument, but a, b and c are imaginary quantities of an imaginary substance that do not exist in the real world. Logical statements very often veer off into a very abstract world. You can have a completely logical argument without basing it on any fact. However for a logical argument to have a true conclusion it needs to be based on axioms, or conclusions of previous arguments built on axioms. Just because your argument (paraphrased) God has always been appears to be a logical argument, that in no way makes it a true argument.

What I learned from Dr. Bahnsen quote is that I would never like to be in a debate with that guy. The last line of that quote is like a knock out blow. Although the build up is based on opinion and unsubstantiated statements.

I liked the link you included. I think it was a well written paper. For the sake of brevity I will state my conclusions only. I would agree that given the evidence it is unlikely a single verse is possible. The "who designed god" section was disappointing. I felt it actually held a stronger argument for the other side. Finally,based on the paper alone I did not see a good argument against the many-universe hypothesis.

"If anyone is guilty of some sort of presumption it's the person asking how God came into existence, while presuming that an 'eternal' God does not exist"

I certainly did not start with the presumption that an eternal god does not exist, although it is fair for you to say that about me now. I started as a devout christian. I never questioned my faith until I was 17. I would say it took over a decade for me to come to the conclusion that I do not believe in god, and I still question that conclusion from time to time.

If you really do need a better question here it is. What evidence do you have that god exists?

Thanks

Regarding logic; You are halfway right, but what you are missing here is the distinction between validity of arguments and soundness of arguments in Logic. It is true that a 'valid' argument can be made up of untrue or hypothetical premises, but a 'sound' argument requires true premises. The truth or falsity of a premise also depends on logic in how it comports to the real world. So in short, I was not referring to validity, but to soundness. If something is deemed impossible, then not only the soundness of all the arguments for it's possibility are in question (and can be addressed with logic), but the impossibility itself is a conclusion which requires true premises and a valid/sound argument.

"What I learned from Dr. Bahnsen..."

Did you listen to or read the whole debate? They kind of went back and forth on some of the points.

"I did not see a good argument against the many-universe hypothesis."

Here is a more detailed response than the 5 points against it in the other article: http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Fine-tuning/Craig7.htm I saw this philosopher present this topic at a university, and it was truly a sight to see all of the atheist challenges from the audience being soundly refuted time and time again. The fact that a multiverse generator just moves the design problem up one level without dealing with the complexity issues was interesting to see back and forths with.

"If you really do need a better question here it is. What evidence do you have that god exists?"

Thanks, here is more on the fine tuning argument: http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Fine-tuning/Abridged%20Ver...

Although the fine tuning argument is mentioned here again from another respected philosopher, there are some other arguments here as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbbE8ZLzcRk

You might also want to check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKU51Hw5kYY

Those are philosophical arguments, I also have some personal experience, answered prayers and such, which count as evidence to me for my own view. You can always ask God to demonstrate his existence to you more clearly, and if he wants to, he just might do it, but it might be done his way rather than yours.

Reading the Bible is also something that changes peoples minds, as it conveys principles which resonate with peoples understanding of God.. The Bible itself is also considered legal evidence by people like Simon Greenleaf who was an authority on law, but that's not what I'm talking about in the above point about the Bible though there is merit in Greenleaf's view as well.

I don't understand...

...why the idea of fundamental reality not having a cause, whether it be personal or non-personal is a problem for folks. Really, it is impossible that there NOT be something for which there is no cause.

The only possibilities seem to be:

- non-personal, eternal fundamental reality (however you define eternal, inside or outside time)
- personal, eternal fundamental reality
- a chain of person creating person creating person, with no beginning or end (which is still a personal, eternal fundamental reality...a procession of persons, rather than THE First Person, but still a process which itself had no cause)
- some kind of eternal dualism of the two, which just is, without cause

So I don't understand why 'what created the Creator' is even asked as if it was a source of bewilderment. Something has to be fundamental without cause, so why is that so puzzling?

The infinitely poorest choice.

" a chain of person creating person creating person, with no beginning or end (which is still a personal, eternal fundamental reality...a procession of persons, rather than THE First Person, but still a process which itself had no cause)"

This concept is over-complex and I think I remember another severe logical flaw being shown for this view in my philosophy of religion class which I can't seem to remember at the moment. Aside from that, it's the poorest choice if one were to consider it a choice at all. Since it is a continuous chain of events, it requires time to exist as well as the complex chain itself. An infinite chain of beings is infinitely more complex than a single eternal unchanging being. An eternal chain of persons is not really an explanation and is tantamount to saying that the entire universe as we know it just exists, without any sort of beginning or explanation. In fact, it is even infinitely more complex to say that an infinite chain of events existed into the past than to say the entire universe just exists as a brute fact. This is why the simplicity of an immaterial God is so relevant, because it requires infinitely less explanation than an infinite chain, and a single God can exist outside of time while a chain of events can not, thus the Christian God is an infinitely better choice than this infinite chain of persons(found in Mormonism) according to Occam's razor.

Even if the entire universe as it is now were to have popped into existence as a brute fact 1 second ago with every ones memories of the past popping into existence also during that second, that would still be infinitely less complex than an infinite chain of persons creating persons.

Yeah...

...I agree. Was just trying to scratch my head and come up with more than just the first two options. :)

I guess my point is that, no matter which view of fundamental reality you hold, you have to grant something, whether it be a single Person, or a quantum mechanical system, or an eternal process, the status of being without cause -- just existing. So I don't get why people ask 'who created God?' as if that's a gotcha of some sort that makes it an inferior view. Every view has to answer a similar question. :)

There has to be...

...some kind of fundamental reality that just is. Either this fundamental reality is non-personal, with just dead stuff or energy or quantum mechanics as that which has always existed (atheism, or nihilism); or the fundamental reality is personal -- things like Person, Love, Reason, etc. are self-existent (theism): the I AM THAT I AM. Either Person is at the bottom of everything, or non-person is. Which resonates with you as being True?

You will have to ask him yourself

I have an inquisitive mind myself. You know, i ask this question all the time, and i receive an answer all the time. Perhaps you are the same way and just didn't like the answer given to you?

Answer i always receive: "That's not for you to know"

However, the Bible DOES give a pretty good example of how God's kingdom works. It takes some study to see it.

One thing i realized is that answer's i want to hear, are usually only answered when i can handle them. I can't learn something from the Bible if i am not ready to hear it, and I can be pretty stubborn.

Oh, you can ATTEST to that

Oh, you can ATTEST to that huh? Ok then that's me convinced.

You would gladly serve god even if he was a brutal authoritarian, and I would tear down even heaven if god existed and was a brutal authoritarian. I wonder who cares more about freedom and liberty -_-

I think what is often

I think what is often overlooked is that Christians who are liberty lovers will appeal to you whereas Christians who are state worshipers will try to shove their views down you throat(usually through the state). Please try to remember that we are on the same side and it is understood that you have every right to disagree about our views of God. Peace, brother.

That was a nice response so

That was a nice response so thank you.

I don't particularly like liberty lovers though. I like liberty for myself, but as far as imposing it upon others, that is as bad as America forcing democracy down people's throats at the point of a gun.

With god, it amazes me how people who know about religions and how they evolved still believe that the foundation of their beliefs should be the bible.

I want these people's minds to work with mine to create a new, better world. A new metaphysic.

Christians, jews, and muslims

Should all learn paganism. Since that is the root of their religions. If Christians took a look at how Muhammad founded his religion and they were like the OP and asked "why?" I'm sure plenty of them would think "if that's how they did it could it have happened to Christianity?" Asking "why" is one of the very best things that make us human.

Researching history and other religions gives us a better understanding of how we have come to where we are today. Looking at how the Greeks were at the height of their ancient civilization and their polytheistic views shows us how in their daily lives they prayed to different gods for protection in so many ways. It varied depending on their trades.

The vikings, Hindi, and Shinto, Aztec, Egyptian, even all the way back to ancient Sumeria. For all that time these people worshipped multiple gods. Then all of a sudden there is only one god.

Religion in some societies was a form of gov't. During the times of the inquisition is a good example of how much power Christianity had during those times. Now, what do we know about gov't here? Government is force. AIPAC is a good example today of how religion uses It's "powers" over our gov't through force.

Back to paganism and Muhammad. Muhammad saw how Christianity and Judaism effected the people who practiced them and he had met travelling pagans and he basically took some of the practices from paganism and decided that if he made his own religion he could control the people better if he got them to accept this religion and he did it.

Religion is a form of control, force and a way to gain power for our ancient politicians to use to bend society as they wanted. Today it is still a great deception as we see by looking at Israel, or by the actions of the modern day muslims.

Homeland security statement: patriotism is now considered terrorism.
I love www.isidewith.com shared it with everyone I know. If anything they realize its not just a red and blue idiot running for reelection.

nope

"Religion is a form of control, force and a way to gain power for our ancient politicians to use to bend society as they wanted."

The First Christians were not doing anything to gain power or effect a new form of political government, in fact the very truth they spoke was getting them put to death and cast out of society.

Well light me up a bush!!!

Well light me up a bush!!! Let me check out that crazy rock writing that hairy dude is toting around. Can't wait to see that dead guy get up again. Great trick!!! How much longer do we have to wait for that again? Glad we got a smart phone cam for it this time!!! All the guys will have to believe me then. By the way where did you guys park the smelly luxury yacht anyway.

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” ― Henry Ford.