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.

Comment viewing options

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

Yes! God commanding Israel

Yes! God commanding Israel (the ancient religious sect) to conquer the promised land cannot at all be used to justify the US overthrowing foreign governments who don't fall in line behind our government. The US is NOT God's chosen people. And, if we followed God, I would speculate there would be far more Ron Paul's in Washington, instead of only one.

SteveMT's picture

The US believes that we are "God's chosen people."

Ever heard of the "Manifest Destiny?" The Native Americans sure have.

"The belief in an American mission to promote and defend democracy throughout the world, as expounded by Thomas Jefferson and his "Empire of Liberty", and by Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush, continues to have an influence on American political ideology."

"Historian William E. Weeks has noted that three key themes were usually touched upon by advocates of Manifest Destiny:

1. the virtue of the American people and their institutions;
2. the mission to spread these institutions, thereby redeeming and remaking the world in the image of the United States;
3. the destiny under God to do this work."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny

We are the world's policemen, and we seem hellbent on either conquering or enslaving the entire world. Someone must still believe in the Manifest Destiny.

I think it would be wiser to

I think it would be wiser to speak for yourself rather than making blanket statements about the beliefs of 313 million people. I do not believe in manifest destiny, and I doubt anyone else on this website does. Perhaps our government officials do, and they perpetuate that lie. But I don't think anyone knows of any civilization ever to exist where the masses believed everything the government told them. We must continue to educate people about things such as this. As Ron Paul said, this is a revolution of ideas. We have a responsibility to understand the issues and to be able to intelligently explain them and debate them.

How can one believe one iota

How can one believe one iota of the bible when we will never know, unless the vatican opens it's archives, what the REAL bible said. What we have today, from my understanding, is a highly molested book which probably bears little resemblance of how it was originally written and worded.

I guess you haven't read

I guess you haven't read antichristian scholars like Bart Ehrman who say that the original would say relatively the same thing as the modern bibles and that it wouldn't be different enough to produce a different religion.

You don't need to go the the Vatican. There are ancient manuscripts available from multiple textual families, which is why there are different manuscript traditions like Byzantine and Alexandrian, then there are things like Syrian texts, the Gothic bible, and early patristic quotations of scripture which can also be considered. The Bible was never under unified control, it went out in several directions at once.

You have to have faith, didn't you read the bible?

it says it right there.

yes, I know, faith is such an outdated concept.

Truth is, faith is so much a part of our lives, that we can't seem to exist without it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P8dJ0ozEec

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

Like faith in my government?

Like faith in my government?

The church cannot control God.

He said He would protect and preserve His word, and He has. Read, "Did the Catholic Church Give us the Bible?". There are about 5000 extant manuscripts that agree with each other and were translated into the Authorized Version of 1611.

The Vatican only owns two manuscripts--Vaticanus and Sinaiaticus. They are both in decent shape because true believers through the centuries knew they were fraudulent and didn't use them.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

That's nice for you

Personally, I find that ripping fetuses out of women and smashing them onto rocks, as the god of the Bible commanded, is immoral. It is murder and primitive savagery.

Even if that deity exists, I am very comfortable knowing that my morality and my thoughts on liberty, as in not killing others for conquest, is superior. I am sorry I am superior to your god - that's just the way it is. I refuse to accept slavery and incest just because your god thinks it is OK. I refuse. If that deity punishes me for being superior, so be it, it makes them even less worthy of worship.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

Dear Mo

Even if God is real, it is clear he doesn't force you to conform to his moral law. However if he is not real, there is not now, nor has there ever been any moral law at all. So if God is not real, on what lawful, or ethical ground do you condemn his actions? You make a lot of judgements but I don't ever see you tell us where you get your law from.

Strawman fallacy

I did not make the claim that there is no god. I merely pointed out that if the god of the Bible exists, then I have a higher moral standing - especially based on our idea of individual liberty and nonagression principles.

As far as any existence of a deity, it is up to the person making the claim of existence to demonstrate that existence. Not my job to prove a negative, for that is impossible to do. Go ahead and try it - prove the purple dragon who talks like Groucho Marx and lives in my underwear doesn't exist.

You are welcome to make the case that killing innocent children or owning another human being is moral and follows the principles of liberty. I think it would be nearly impossible....but feel free to try. It would be an interesting read at least. Again, it is not my job to explain basic human rights or the principles of freedom to you. Read John Locke and Thomas Paine.

And, before you say it again - the idea of "laws" are an abstract concept, yet physicalized in their codification after writing was devoloped. All of these "laws" are based on social axioms developed over tens of thousands of years as our species congregated in larger groups in combination with natural instincts and genetic markers of behavior.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

if

If you are really interested in conversation I'll continue on here. I know I won't change your mind that's fine. Please don't throw around strawman and fallacy so quickly because because you don't seem to be doing much in the way of straight forward argumentation to my points.

I never said you made a claim about God's existence did I? No I did not.

I never said that killing innocent children was moral, or owning another person is moral and "follows the principles of liberty" because that would be backwards. First we have to believe that we have the "right" to liberty or that ethics even exist before I could make that case. But one can't make that case unless A God of some type exists and has created a moral law for us to follow. Then if we deviate from it, we have done something unethical.

If however he does exist, he can create laws for us to follow as best we can. Though for us it would be a stretch to even fathom or understand them, we could work at it. I believe that liberty is something that is a sort of "best case scenario" but not anything we're owed. Because no one is owed anything from God, but having our heads bashed in by rocks and being thrown into hell for all eternity, no matter our age. That is my honest stand. However he has deemed that we should treat each other with kindness.

Without God there is no "ought". No reason to follow any law, because if we transgress we've only gone against human norms that are not absolutes in any real sense. We might existentially not like to be killed but that doesn't mean that murdering is "wrong". In fact, some people quite like murdering and think it's just fine. Case in point, Barrack Obama, ha. Now he may have a still small voice put into him by God testifying to his guilt, but he seems quite happy to override that as do you and I in many different instances.

You seem to make yourself a God. How rude and ridiculous to claim that you're "better" than God. Based on what standard? As my father would say, you seem to "think that your crap doesn't stink". But believe me it does.

For all the big words you trotted out, codification, physicalized (not a word), they still amounted to this. "Ethics are just made up things that most people agree on". That is not much of an argument for why there shouldn't be slaves.

In fact, many people were sold as slaves by their parents, knowing they'd have a better life. I believe that the most repugnant thing about slavery in our country was brutality. But some slave masters were quite kind. Imagine if you will a person sold into slavery to their neighbor who is a wealthy land owner by their own poor family. The Land owner gives them work to do, gives them clothes, a roof over their head and good food, perhaps even enough to spread a little of that to their poor family who they perhaps still see next door and are able to spend time with. Would I want to be owned by that person? Perhaps I would if I was poor and destitute.

One thing is certain, slavery has existed since man existed and it still exists today. You'll have a very hard time convincing people of your arguments for why people should come around to your way of thinking on ethics and on slaver if ethics are just something that herds of people made up and then wrote down, making them physical. That Constitution can be burned, ignored spit on. My case is that since God is real, many things in that Constitution are in keeping with his will and plan for all humanity and that to defy them is to defy him and will bring about retribution from him and despite what you think Mo, he's tougher than you. I mean all he did was create a cosmos.

..

"You are welcome to make the case that killing innocent children or owning another human being is moral and follows the principles of liberty. I think it would be nearly impossible....but feel free to try."

Here is a little slide show for children that might make things clearer for you regarding mentions of slavery in the Bible, but you will have to click "next" at the top right of the image to get to the following slides:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=418554&id=533841022&l=...

Regarding killing innocent children; The passage I think you are referring to in psalms is not entirely clear and has produced multiple interpretations, some of which are not literal. It doesn't say they are innocent, and it doesn't say how old they are. The principle of charity would have you opt for the most cogent form of an ambiguity in assessing a concept, but most people who criticize the Bible are anything but charitable and care more about making their points than learning the truth about the things they criticize. If the verse is literal, it's a fact of nature that the actions of parents affect their children, whether they are not feeding them well or if they are subjecting them to horrible things. The culture that God wanted to bring judgement upon in that verse of psalms was one that sacrificed their own children to idols, performed all sorts of immoralities and spread communicable diseases as well. There may have been some reasoning behind the death of children for the greater good in the light of communicable diseases, or as some say in the form of mercy killings for those who would otherwise suffer a slow painful death without parents to care for them and their diseases. The fact that God is the creator and designer of those people who corrupted their culture and themselves, would imply that God has ownership rights to them and could do with them what he wants. You can ask God who made him God, but that question and the approach you seem to be taking is really only meant to be used with created people who unjustly take God's role upon themselves. In the case of God bringing just judgement on his creation, why couldn't he use any means he wants, even if it's other people who would otherwise be punished for proceeding with that action on their own? But the text isn't really a command as much as a recognition of part of a positive result of an event.

I should have known....

That slide show is apologetics for kids. It picks pieces of the Bible and makes the old "they only had debt slaves" BS. I've been through this too many times and I don't have the time nor the interest in finding quotes or to counter your idea that owning people was a good thing. Owning someone, no matter the cause, is wrong.

You do not acknowledge that god commands the taking of slaves and the killing of children and the raping of women it the Old Testament, I cannot read it for you. I'm not interested in your denial that those things happen in the OT. I used to go back and find the appropriate quotes and deal with stuff like this in the past. And, no matter how many times I demonstrated I was correct, fundamentalists just made up side intentions of their god.

As long as we agree that owning people and killing children is wrong - we are all good. I just don't need your magic sky-daddy that lives in the clouds to know that.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

I doubt you went through the

I doubt you went through the whole slide show. The terminology you use is misleading, anachronistic, and not representative of the Hebrew situation. Service as an alternative to prison allows the debt of crime to be paid to the victim rather than to society. Instead of making license plates in jail for 3 cents an hour, the criminals would have to plow the fields of their victims for a few years before being freed, while they retained human rights the entire duration of their service.

Have you ever considered using this principle: http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html

Marrying someone is not the same thing as rape. If you are married, it is possible to have sex with your spouse with or without rape, and it is also possible to marry and abstain. To exercise charity in assessment would not entail assuming that rape is commanded where arranged marriages are mentioned. You just seem to have an anti-bible bias in assessing the Bible, which is not a good path for understanding it accurately.

It's notable that a lot of the people who condemn the bible for God bringing judgement on entire cultures, are usually the same people who support abortion rights. It's also notable that People who criticize God's decisions always assume that the only factors in the decisions are the ones they are aware of, and that God couldn't have other good and holy reasons they are unaware of. It is really an unreasonable assumption due to the omniscience of God. If he knows a child he lent life to is corrupt in their heart and will do horrible things given the chance, and that the more evil they do, the more severe their punishment in eternal hell would be, it could be considered a form of mercy for God to restrain them from heaping up more judgement upon their souls, by God taking back the temporary life he lent them in a timelier fashion than others. There are just too many factors involved in an infinite God for finite humans to be able to judge him. It's also notable that the sense of the things you say the bible commands(which always seem to be different than what the bible actually says) are the sense of things the bible condemns. To assert that the Bible teaches rape, murder and slavery misses it's teachings entirely. Someone who believes that is either entirely ignorant or just wants to believe their own lies.

The Christians on DP are just sharing their Faith,

as they are wanting the rest of the world to understand the joys of knowing God's true love for all His people. We understand that there will always be those who will not "get it" and will be enemies of the faithful, as even Jesus Himself was crucified by those who did not "get it", and He was the greatest master of the truth that ever existed on earth. One reason why we have a thread in this liberty movement is because we, like our founding fathers, understand the importance of God in the natural law for mankind and history. If you take the time to read the bible, it is a history of the love relationship between God and man. The message is clear however, in that man is not God, although he continues to try to be. The problem is when man usurps God, and goes against His will and His commandments, all "hell" breaks loose, pun intended. All through out history, when the Jews worshiped God and did His will, eveything was fine in Kansas. But when they decided to follow after false gods, commit crimes agaisnt their neighbor, cheat, steal, and no longer follow God's laws, they were punished or exiled, and/or became slaves, as in the Egypt exile in the time of Moses. We christians are trying to introduce this "law of God", basically the 10 commandments, into the liberty movement so that our goals can be accomplished, because we know that without God, nothing happens for the good. Before you start throwing stones at us, is not this same picture in the United States repeating itself again.... a country founded on christian principles and laws, now being usurped by heathens who say everything is ok, including men having sex with men, and killing babies is legal and considered a choice, and we expect blessings and prosperity from God, who is about to send us into exile for our sins against Him and nature.... Think about this, and the History of man with God and without God (Atheistic communism which is responsible for millions of deaths in the last century) and tell me which one you think is better...and maybe you will join the faith, as is our prayer for all of you. You are all so logical, so apply your logic to the way the world history has revealed itself to the peoples who worshiped God and those who didn't. The joy of being a Christian is undeniable, and we would love it if you all would join us. God Bless you all and the liberty movement!!

Too many fallacies to address, but I'll hit a few

1. People who do not believe in your deity are not "enemies of the faithful" - that is the thinking behind genocides and cruel and anti-freedom theocracies like Saudi Arabia. I am not your enemy, I am not forcing you to do anything. I just think you are deluded - as long as you don't force me to do anything or encroach on my liberties, I'm all good. It is precisely that type of attitude that is reinforced by the Bible. One of the 27 Commandments (not "the 10" you are so fond of) is to kill infidels.

2. Speaking of "The Ten" - 6 of them are against principles of freedom and the free market. 4 of them violate the constitution. Then there is the overly simplified "Do Not Kill" brought to you by the born-againers, which they violate on a daily basis, and actually commands the Israelites that they cannot murder a fellow Israelite, everyone else if fair game.

3. The US is the most religious nation on earth and almost exclusively Christian. That doesn't exactly hold to your accusation that Americans are anti-your god. Quite the contrary. I know....I know.....they are not real Christians because your church is the only Christian cult that knows the real god. Blah, Blah, Blah....

4. I don't know how so many people are historically retarded. But, the Soviet attrocities had nothing to do with religion. In fact the Bolshivek's used your god to encourage the workers to rise up against the Czar. And, even if that wasn't the case, millions were not killed because those in power were atheists (even though even that isn't true), they were killed because they were like us, they believed in liberty and freedom and knew it was the banksters taking over.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

um..

regarding what you said here: "1. People who do not believe in your deity are not "enemies of the faithful" - that is the thinking behind genocides and cruel and anti-freedom theocracies like Saudi Arabia. I am not your enemy, I am not forcing you to do anything. I just think you are deluded - as long as you don't force me to do anything or encroach on my liberties, I'm all good. It is precisely that type of attitude that is reinforced by the Bible. One of the 27 Commandments (not "the 10" you are so fond of) is to kill infidels."

You are obviously an enemy of the faith/religion/bible of the faithful. Always attacking it through uncharitable misrepresentations, accusing it of teaching all sorts of evil which christians don't practice. You seem to pay no attention to the good lives of faithful people or the good that came from the bible throughout history, but base your assessment of a religion on your poor interpretation of obscure passages describing a judgment on specific individuals God performed at some point in history, or on the actions of people who misuse it for their own gain. You throw in disparaging affectual insults and misrepresentations whenever you get the chance, and then say you are all good? How are Christians encroaching on your liberties now? That would be more helpful to hear about than listening to all of your hate for the Bible?

Yup....

Thanks for addressing and responding to nothing. Typical....

Oh, and calling me an enemy, well done libertarian.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

.

"Thanks for addressing and responding to nothing. Typical...."

look in the mirror.

"Oh, and calling me an enemy, well done libertarian."

I only said you were an enemy of the faith because you treat the faith as an enemy and not merely as something you merely disagree with. Is there something unlibertarian about pointing that out? I don't see you as a personal enemy and don't wish you any harm, but I wanted to point out that you've not been as 'all good' or friendly as you'd like to think. Slander is not really peaceful. From my perspective, you've bent over backwards to present a caricature of the Bible not much different than how the media has presented a caricature of Ron Paul. It doesn't matter how many times he explains himself, the media still portrays him as the isolationist who wants to make heroine available to children.

Nope

I do not "treat the faith as an enemy". I frankly couldn't give two sh*ts. Your delusions are your own, I just try pointing them out. I have said many times the only time the idea of faith or non-faith even brushes my cranium is when Christian apologists come on DP and try to associate my political philosophy with their imaginary sky daddy. Other than that, I never even think about it.

On the other hand, Christian wars of genocide against Muslims are about to ruin my country - I am justified in speaking out.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

Your affect carries more sway than your stated position.

Regarding: "I do not "treat the faith as an enemy". I frankly couldn't give two sh*ts. Your delusions are your own, I just try pointing them out. ...their imaginary sky daddy"

If you really didn't care about people having faith in God, why would you use so much disparaging and affectual language? (i.e. delusions instead of opinions, imaginary sky daddy instead of God or Deity, etc.) You always speak of the subject in an insulting manner and talk down to people. Do you treat your neighbors like that? Do you think that it's at least possible that you might be mistaken on the subject?

Dishonest....again...

First - you misquoted me. And, second, you conveniently left out the crux of my arguement in the rest of my response. Typical...

I never said I didn't care "about" people of faith. I care greatly about my family and they are religious. Then, you use false comparisons.
"delusions instead of opinions" -- A person of faith doesn't have an "opinion". It's not debating whether a movie deserves the Oscar or not. A religious person as a belief that efffects their relationships, their life, their willingness to kill little brown children, how they view me. That is a lot more than an opinion. And yes, I think it is a delusion, and unfortunately a very powerful one that effects my life on a daily basis and I think is about to be part of the ruination of my country. I don't use terms lightly.

Secondly, insulting is not the same as hating. Using language you disagree with does not make me an "enemy". If my neighbors accused me of the same things you do and made false accusations - yeah, I would treat them the same way.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

I didn't realize there was a

I didn't realize there was a near ambiguity in my sentence. When I said "If you really didn't care about people having faith in God", the object of the verb 'care' in that sentence is not 'people' but rather 'having' (i.e. The idea that you didn't care about what they were believing, even if you did care about them). I didn't say you were an enemy of the people, only of their faith, though I think your attacks are personal at times(eg. when you said someone needed therapist a few posts below). The misunderstanding of my sentence demonstrates two things; one, you misinterpreted a statement rather easily, and two, you didn't exercise charity in interpretation, but went with the most obnoxious option. That option, in my view is not even a plausible interpretation of my sentence, since syntactically the way the verb "having" is used would put it further up the syntax tree.

I didn't see any 'arguments' worth addressing, as the main problem seems to be some sort of slant which prevents you from interpreting things charitably. That slant is what causes your misrepresentations of Christianity, conflating nominalism with theological Christianity, and producing unpersuasive arguments with the appearance of hate.

Insults are the fruit of hate. I've only ever seen you insult people when faith was the subject, initiating disparagement, so I don't see your behavior as done in response. But the fact that your insults are based on caricatures of Christianity rather than Christianity itself only compounds this. I don't think that Christianity would worsen someones view of you, how you treat people would be a larger factor. I suppose Christianity would move Christians to pray for you to gain better understanding and less negativity. "Little brown children" are rescued and cared for on a regular basis because of Christianity through organizations like these: http://www.worldvision.org
http://www.childcareworldwide.org
http://www.wordsower.org

You seem to be straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, focusing on slanted views of obscure judgements of corrupt societies in antiquity by an all knowing God, and ignoring all of the service/hospitals/schools/crisis-pregnancy-centers/etc. Christianity has created in the world.

Nope

A Christian has never gone to war, only those in the name of Jesus have gone to war. Big difference.
grant

Ok

So "in the name of Jesus" and "Christian" are unrealated.

All...righty...then.

See a therapist.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

Absolutely.

Yes, "in the name of Jesus" and being a "Christian" are unrelated. (As unrelated as Bush or Obama claiming to be Constitutionalist's).

For many will come in my name ("in the name of Jesus"), claiming, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many.
Matthew 24:5

I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him.
John 5:43

fuck you for calling me a heathen!

And you wonder why people don't want to be christian? There are so many things wrong with your statement, but I just wanted to tell you to go fuck yourself for calling me a heathen and telling me that I don't deserve the same liberties that you already have. True Liberty doesn't exist unless it's extended to everyone.

heathen is not a bad word.

I wasn't the one calling you a heathen but heathen is not a bad word. the German word for heathen is also translated as nations. It's just a word used to describe people of the world, which is basically everyone. People who consider themselves as part of God's kingdom don't consider themselves to be "of the world" anymore, so for that reason they don't consider themselves to be heathen anymore. But it doesn't mean sinful or wicked. The fact the world is full of sin and wickedness is sometimes referenced in a derogatory use of heathen, but that is only done by extension, and requires a derogatory context to convey that kind of affect. If it is an accurate description in either case, it isn't necessarily an insult.