Non Christians What If The Bible Is True?

Originally posted by Clearskies
Have you ever read the New Testament?

Enough to know Paul was a sexist, mysoginist freak.

Joseph Smith had some modern extra-biblical 'visions' from an angel. NOT HOLY SPIRIT material.

That's effin' hilarious. Visons from an angel that are invalid because it wasn't the Holy Spirit. How do you know he didn't make the whole thing up?

The Bible was formed by men being moved upon by the Holy Spirit to write , For our use today. If you know God's nature, you can recognize his words.

How do you know? What proof do you have of the "Holy Spirit"? How do you know God's nature and recognize "His words"? Have you met God? Is he on your bowling team or something?

It wasn't what God wanted.

How convenient. If it's not there it must be because God didn't want it there. What was God trying to hide? How do you know whether God wanted it or not? Again, are you on direct speaking terms with God?

Why would the disciples KNOW much about his childhood? They were children too.

They knew about His birth, and that He did some teaching in His early teens. Where's the rest? Did Jesus just sit around doing nothing until He started His ministry? Did He just wake up one morning and say "Well, I think I'll go have my cuz John baptise me and start preaching." And why no Gospel account of Jesus' full life-story from, oh, say, his mother? (actually a Gospel of Mary exists, but it's still undetermined whether it was the Virgin Mary or Mary Magdelene. Again-NOT IN THE PUBLISHED BIBLE!!!) Or Joseph, for that matter? They knew Jesus his whole life. Where's their account of his life story?

Seems to me your whole argument in favor of Biblical truth is, basically, "The Bible says it's true, therefore it's true". And don't feed me crap about prayer and hearing God in your head because that's what most rational people would call mental illness. I could say I hear aliens speaking in my head, but they'd put me away.

Society has for too long put up with the BS of Christianity trying to take over our lives. Putting "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, breaking down the separation of Church and State, preachers on both sides of the political aisle illegally endorsing candidates of choice based on "Godliness", scumbags like Pat Robertson (who owns a f#ing diamond mine and uses his "ministry" as a tax shelter) making what amounts to terrorist threats against Americans (strange he never gets called on that by the authorities--if he was Muslim he'd be in f#ing Guantanamo), the whole anti-abortion (but pro-Death Penalty) movement, all of it just one damn pile of lies and hypocrisy.

You can't even answer a simple question about your definition of the Bible to set the context for a logical debate about whether the Bible is true, and what repercussions its "truth" would have for mankind. You're sheep, bleating in the field, believing exactly what your religious "authorities" tell you without even questioning for a moment whether you've been fed a line of bull, and pushing your version of "morality" on the rest of us. The depth of your intellectual bankruptcy is absolutely staggering. With every post I read from you people I see more and more I was right to leave your whacked-out cult.You have as much legitimacy as Scientology or Heaven's Gate. You spend your lives pretending to be someone else instead of embracing your true, human nature, all the while waiting for the fictional "Rapture" to come pluck you away before Armageddon. It's about damn time the human race grew up and out of this farce.



[edit on 3/20/2008 by The Nighthawk]

Let me ask you folks this:

If the Catholic Church (who, like it or not, the current Bible comes from, it's a fact) decided to hold a council (just like they have in the past) to edit the whole of the Bible, and they added some things and took other things out, would you accept it? They've changed some stuff very recently. Is it acceptable to you? Do you accept their religious authority? If so, why them over anyone else? If not, again, why? What if the Church decided the Book of Mormon was valid and stuck it in the "new Bible?" What if they add the Apocrypha? What if they said they had found, and translated, a real Gospel of Jesus? (Frankly I'd think a true follower of Christ would accept that, and ONLY that, as the definitive "truth"; if you had a Gospel in Jesus' own words, and written in His own hadwriting, what else would you ever need? How convenient such a thing does not exist-leaves all kinds of room open for the "authorities" to make up whatever they want.)

reply to post by Bigwhammy


If the Bible is true (and not to start a fight, but I have personally reached the conclusion that this is unlikely) then I'm probably so screwed that there's no point worrying about the inevitable. I do seem to remember reading that blasphemy is unforgivable.

There are interpretations of the bible that I could live with being true- afterall, there are many translations with subtle but important differences, many contextual interpretations which weaken or strengthen the severity of the trouble I'm in, and in fact some doubt about cannonical standing of certain books both inside and outside of the bible.

All that considered, my plan is to just not worry about it and hope that if I'm wrong that the translations suggesting that God has mellowed out a bit since the Old Testament are correct.

I should know better than to get involved, but when it comes to Joe Smith and his angel, I've got one simple question.

Why is Moroni the only angel (Lucifer not withstanding, and I'm pretty sure Lucifer is a latin translation) mentioned in any messianic scripture whose name does not end in "el" (denoting God, for instance the angels Gabriel and Michael, Strength of God and Who is Like God, respectively)? The rule even seems to apply to the angelic names of the fallen- Azazel, Azrael, etc.

It seems that the biggest problem with "Books of Truth and the Way" are that they are written by men. Many of them try to validated themselves by claiming they are "The Word of God" himself. Muslims believe Allah revealed the Quran to the Prophet and many Christian seem to believe that God himself wrote the Torah and New Testament.

All of these works works are so riddled with contradictions that is most obviously apparent that they written by man. It doesn't really lessen their impact. They are guides for those who cannot find their way.

I apologize to those whom I might offend but God did not write the Bible and Allah did not write the Quran. It was written by those who were "enlightened". They are good books for those who need them.

Those who authored them were enlightened, just like the illuminati.

Nuff said.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I should know better than to get involved, but when it comes to Joe Smith and his angel, I've got one simple question.

Frankly, the only reason I even mention the Book of Mormon and Joe Smith is because the OP's question "What if the Bible is true" is open to so much interpretation, that it is nearly impossible to have any kind of coherent, semi-logical discussion on the subject without first determining exactly what constitutes the Bible. Since a good portion of people believe the Book of Mormon to be the real deal, I want to know if the OP considers it "canon" for the purposes of answering their question, along with the multitude of other volumes not included in the published Bible. Literal Biblical "Truth" and its repercussions for non-believers would vary greatly depending upon what one considers the Bible to actually be. The inability, or unwillingness, of the believers to answer this basic question, in my mind, renders this entire thread moot. It exists only to make people angry. Maybe that's the whole point-make people like me get mad so they can play the "poor, downtrodden Christians" getting picked on by those nasty heathens and get sympathy points. I've seen it before, often first-hand in my own days as a Christian, so it would come as no surprise.:shk:

reply to post by The Vagabond

I do seem to remember reading that blasphemy is unforgivable.

Not really blasphemy or I would be a goner for sure. It says,
"Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matt 12:31-32)

What is blasphemy against the spirit? I think it is unbelief. Which is something that can change over time. I used to be a vehement non believer and I have made a complete 180. So it's not a foregone conclusion, God has a way of grasping a hold of us. Sometimes a major life event or a near death experience causes people to snap awake spiritually.

should know better than to get involved, but when it comes to Joe Smith and his angel, I've got one simple question. Why is Moroni the only angel (Lucifer not withstanding, and I'm pretty sure Lucifer is a latin translation) mentioned in any messianic scripture whose name does not end in "el"

I think he was allegedly the ghost of the last Lamenite (the Jews that supposedly came to America in 75 BC or something). But it is not surprising it doesn't make sense to you. The whole Joe Smith thing is a work of fiction. DNA evidence has conclusively proven there is no middle eastern or Jewish DNA in the American Indian genome. So the entire basis for the book of Mormon is untrue. See this post

This is conclusive proof Joesph Smith Lied.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Not really blasphemy or I would be a goner for sure. It says,
"Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matt 12:31-32)

About a year ago a group called the "Rational Response Squad" had a contest called the Blasphemy Challenge, where they challenged all their members, (devout atheists), to commit the most unforgivable of sins by denying the Holy Spirit on camera and posting it on YouTube. I am not a member of the group, because they seem to be a group of atheists who want to convert the whole world to atheism, but I did participate. I recorded myself denying the existence of the Holy Spirit and posted it on YouTube for all to see. I'm not sure if that qualifies as the blasphemy that is unforgivable, but the fact that I and many others were willing to risk committing a supposedly unforgivable sin to prove our devotion to our lack of belief should tell you just how firm our own foundations are...

I think he was allegedly the ghost of the last Lamenite (the Jews that supposedly came to America in 75 BC or something). But it is not surprising it doesn't make sense to you. The whole Joe Smith thing is a work of fiction. DNA evidence has conclusively proven there is no middle eastern or Jewish DNA in the American Indian genome. So the entire basis for the book of Mormon is untrue.

Perhaps some will feel misled by previous comments of being raised Christian when I admit that the religion I was raised in was Mormonism. I know many "Christians" do not consider Mormons Christian. I find that ironic considering they fit the definition perfectly, and yes, they even believe in the Bible as the Word of God. One of their thirteen Articles of Faith is:

"We believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God. We also believe the Bible to be the Word of God, as long as it is translated correctly."

Joseph Smith made some minor "corrections" to the KJV Bible, and they are in the Mormon version of the Bible as footnotes, but the text itself is not changed usually.

Anyway, back on topic, I think the Book of Mormon is a perfect example to be used to compare to the Bible. Here was a man, claiming to have received revelation from God and Jesus Christ, (Moroni was an angel who was the spirit/resurrected being of the man who had originally buried the plates when his tribe, (the Nephites), had been exterminated by the Lamanites.) Anyway, Joseph Smith received these revelations in a way no different than that of the "prophets of old". Except that he had WITNESSES to the validity of his claims. I know as well as anyone that the Mormon Church is a falacy, (actually better than most being that I know more about its doctrine than most members), but I think its dogma holds as much credibility as the Christian faith's. You can no more disprove the Bible than you can disprove the Book of Mormon. They are the biased opinions of a man/men. If you are so quick to discount the Book of Mormon, I would be quick to call you a hypocrite for not being quick to discount the Bible.

DNA evidence does not disprove the validity of the Book of Mormon, though it certainly doesn't help its case. (You don't need DNA evidence to disprove it, anyway. What a waste of time!)

Anyway, my question to all those who would ignore the Book of Mormon but embrace the Bible as the Word of God is this: How do you know the prophets of old were receiving revelation from God, but that Joseph Smith was not? Joseph Smith had witnesses who validate his claims, yet the authors of the gospels sometimes had contradictory statements about the same events, and some of the "lost gospels" tell a different story completely.

How do you know the prophets of old were receiving revelation from God, but you are so quick to dismiss Joseph Smith?

[edit on 20/3/08 by an3rkist]

As has been correctly pointed out several times, the determination of the canon really does play a big part in this question, which is why although I find reason to question mormons even if the generally accepted protestant bible is taken for granted, I still am actually pulling for the mormons.

My understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, is that Mormons don't believe in Hell (bad people stay on the perfected Earth under the rule of God, if I get it right?)

And Jehova's Witnesses believe that hell as commonly understood only lasts till the apocalypse, then into the lake of fire and nothingness.

So I gotta say, if the bible is true, I'm hoping for a nice wide canon. The narrower the cannon gets, the deeper in trouble I get.

If you start at Genesis and proceed from there, your hopes get a little bit better with each book you read, until you get to revelations, which is sort of a last "now just because I'm not yelling anymore, don't think i won't smite thee". And if you keep going beyond Revelations, things get even better.

Originally posted by an3rkist
About a year ago a group called the "Rational Response Squad" had a contest called the Blasphemy Challenge, where they challenged all their members, (devout atheists), to commit the most unforgivable of sins by denying the Holy Spirit on camera and posting it on YouTube.

That was just discussed here

DNA evidence does not disprove the validity of the Book of Mormon, though it certainly doesn't help its case. (You don't need DNA evidence to disprove it, anyway. What a waste of time!)

Anyway, my question to all those who would ignore the Book of Mormon but embrace the Bible as the Word of God is this: How do you know the prophets of old were receiving revelation from God, but that Joseph Smith was not? Joseph Smith had witnesses who validate his claims, yet the authors of the gospels sometimes had contradictory statements about the same events, and some of the "lost gospels" tell a different story completely.

How do you know the prophets of old were receiving revelation from God, but you are so quick to dismiss Joseph Smith?

Because Joe Smith claims the American Indians are the descendants of the Jews that sailed over back in 75BC or whatever. The DNA evidence does prove he lied. If you watch the video it's more than DNA. A Mormon Anthropologist from LDS calls the BOM inspirational fiction.

There are real Jews and you can even go visit Jerusalem and see many of the sites from the Bible. Not true with the BOM. Not one single piece of corroborating evidence. Huge difference.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

Originally posted by an3rkist
About a year ago a group called the "Rational Response Squad" had a contest called the Blasphemy Challenge, where they challenged all their members, (devout atheists), to commit the most unforgivable of sins by denying the Holy Spirit on camera and posting it on YouTube.

That was just discussed here

Perhaps I've drank a little too much, but I fail to see how the post you linked to has anything to do with the statements you quoted me on. You linked to a post in a thread about the "atheist conspiracy to overthrow Christianity", which almost lends credence to your linking to it, but you linked to a post where the poster keeps replying "It be nice if one of you Atheist could write a post that didn't alway contradict what you say and what you are ." Are you suggesting that I contradicted myself? Or did you just love that particular reply so much that you wanted me to read it? It has nothing to with the subject at hand. Or if it does, please enlighten me...

Because Joe Smith claims the American Indians are the descendants of the Jews that sailed over back in 75BC or whatever. The DNA evidence does prove he lied. If you watch the video it's more than DNA. A Mormon Anthropologist from LDS calls the BOM inspirational fiction.

(I'd like to reiterate that I in no way support the Mormon faith, and I am in fact completely opposed to it, more so than that of most Christian faiths.)

Now, the DNA theory purports that Joseph Smith claims that modern Native Americans descended from Jews, and thus is false because the DNA evidence suggests they are "Mongoloids". And in your argument, you stated that an "Anthropologist from LDS calls the BOM inspirational fiction". (Would have been a decent place for a source, but anyway...)

What you're saying is that the Book of Mormon, despite the over eleven million people who believe it, (not to mention the fact that it's the fastest growing religion in the entire world), is based on a myth.

Well, believe it or not, I do think you have just proven the point that I and other non-Christians have been talking about this entire thread. Popular belief does not equal truth. And just because a lot of people believe somebody received revelation from God, does not mean they necessarily did. In my opinion the Book of Mormon has no less credibility than the Bible, (or at least it wouldn't if we knew as much about the authors of the books of the Bible as we do about Joseph Smith...)

I would like for you to respond to the fact that Joseph Smith had witnesses, whereas, (though I may be mistaken), the writers of the books of the Bible had none. If they did, I would be interested to know. If they did not, I find that even more interesting... I assume you would claim they support each other's claims, but I'm not willing to get into a contradictions battle at the moment...

My point is not that the Book of Mormon has more credibility than the Bible, but that the reasons that people dispute it in the first place, DNA aside, are the same reasons we non-Christians dispute your Bible.

There are real Jews and you can even go visit Jerusalem and see many of the sites from the Bible. Not true with the BOM. Not one single piece of corroborating evidence. Huge difference.

I live in upstate New York, and have visited the Hill Cumorah. This is the site where Joseph Smith supposedly uncovered the golden plates. That's one piece of corroborating evidence! Alright, I'll admit the BOM doesn't have much going for it, but it's a perfect example of how a book of scripture can get blown out of proportion and become holy writ. It just may become the next Bible. Look at how the Mormon faith is exploding in membership. The Bible is just a book like the Book of Mormon, that also got blown out of proportion.



[edit on 21/3/08 by an3rkist]

reply to post by an3rkist

Or if it does, please enlighten me...

There's a whole section about the Youtube thing.

Well, believe it or not, I do think you have just proven the point that I and other non-Christians have been talking about this entire thread. Popular belief does not equal truth.

I never said that. I said there is evidence for faith. I showed some. Some stands some falls. There's enough evidence for me to believe.

I would like for you to respond to the fact that Joseph Smith had witnesses, whereas, (though I may be mistaken), the writers of the books of the Bible had none.

I don/t know what you are talking about. Huh? There were thousands of witnesses to the Bible events.

I live in upstate New York, and have visited the Hill Cumorah. This is the site where Joseph Smith supposedly uncovered the golden plates. That's one piece of corroborating evidence! Alright, I'll admit the BOM doesn't have much going for it, but it's a perfect example of how a book of scripture can get blown out of proportion and become holy writ. It just may become the next Bible. Look at how the Mormon faith is exploding in membership. The Bible is just a book like the Book of Mormon, that also got blown out of proportion.

Yeah where are the Gold plates now He lied so he could have 23 wives.
Mormonism is dead in the water. The source is that video, since you used to be one I highly recommend you watch it. It has LDS scholars calling the BoM fiction. It is fiction. I don't know think you are aware but all real Christian churches have always called Mormonism a cult.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
I never said that.

Oh, I thought that's what you meant when you said this:

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
There are 2 Billion Christians. Atheists are a minority. Common equals the majority. So they do not in fact even have common sense.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying?

I don/t know what you are talking about. Huh? There were thousands of witnesses to the Bible events.

I'm not talking about the historical events, I'm talking about the "mythical" "supernatural" ones. I'm not saying the BOM is true because Joseph Smith had witnesses to his more far-out claims, I'm just saying that he had more than the Biblical supernatural claims that I know of. If you have some references to these thousands who witnessed miracles, etc. I would appreciate a link or a reference or a source of some kind.

Yeah where are the Gold plates now

He lied so he could have 23 wives.
Mormonism is dead in the water. The source is that video, since you used to be one I highly recommend you watch it. It has LDS scholars calling the BoM fiction. It is fiction. I don't know think you are aware but all real Christian churches have always called Mormonism a cult.

I don't need to watch the video to know the falacy in Mormon dogma. I figured that one out on my own. And there are Christian "scholars" who say the Bible is fiction, too, so you're argument is moot. (I suppose I should cite some references, but if you don't want to believe it that doesn't really affect my argument.)

And I'd like to say that Christianity as a whole was once viewed as a "cult" also, so don't be so quick to discount a religion just because others have labeled them as such. You sure do seem to be quick to take other people's words for things.

All I'm trying to say is that the reasons you don't believe in the BOM, (aside from the DNA stuff), are the same reasons I don't believe in the Bible. If you cannot see the correlation then there is nothing I can say that would help you to empathize. I understand why you believe, but you don't seem to understand why I don't believe. I find it supportive of truth to understand the many different sides of every story.

[edit on 21/3/08 by an3rkist]

reply to post by an3rkist


Common sense doesn't equate to proof necessarily, it was really more of a obtuse joke anyway.

And the scientific evidence is way far and above the reason to not believe BoM that and the fact it contradicts the real Bible on key issues. Like salvation through works. If you come from a Mormon background you really should watch that. It is far and above any thing I have ever heard of before. The BoM is not even close to the same league as the Bible cannon. No where near as credible. It's really almost a joke to compare them. It's so academic I don't feel the need to debate you on that. Anyway I am tired, You really should watch that video and send it to your family as well. I predict a massive exodus from LDS in the next few years as it settles in...

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
the scientific evidence is way far and above the reason to not believe BoM

I wish I could put the following sentence into all caps without being yelled at by mods: then why do you criticize we non-believers for using that logic to say we don't believe in the Bible?! If you want to discredit the BOM with scientific evidence as your "way far and above reason" to not believe in it, how can you criticize critics of the Bible for saying we don't believe because of a lack of scientific evidence???

that and the fact it contradicts the real Bible on key issues.

This logic works if you believe the Bible to be truth, so I'll let it slide without argument...

The BoM is not even close to the same league as the Bible cannon. No where near as credible. It's really almost a joke to compare them.

Well, I'll ignore the fact that were it not for your DNA evidence, (which was not around when the Bible was first coming into being), you would have no reason to support your disbelief in the Book of Mormon; and I'll move on to the last thing I wanna say in this reply:

You really should watch that video and send it to your family as well.

Unlike some, I have no desire to change the beliefs of others. If the Mormon faith makes my family happy, whether it is true or not, (and I know as well as I know anything that it is not), I support them in their choice. Period.

[edit on 21/3/08 by an3rkist]

reply to post by an3rkist


Very simply if you could use scientific evidence to prove the Jews never existed Then you would have something comparable to what the BoM is against. There's nothing even remotely close to that level in Bible criticism. That's what I mean.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by an3rkist

 

Very simply if you could use scientific evidence to prove the Jews never existed Then you would have something comparable to what the BoM is against. There's nothing even remotely close to that level in Bible criticism. That's what I mean.

Except, of course, the mountains of peer-reviewed scientific evidence proving the Earth is not 6,000 years old, there was no Great Flood, and Man was not sprung forth from dirt; nor was woman made from the rib of a man. The entire creation story in Genesis is hogwash, and it, along with the fairy tale of Noah's Ark, was directly plagiarised from other myths and legends.

reply to post by The Nighthawk


That's because you do not have a correct understanding of scripture. Genesis is not about how the universe was made. This was already addressed in this thread. Here's a recap:

Hebrew Scholar Dr. John Sailhammer was educated at Dallas Theological Seminary and UCLA. Dr. Sailhammer has studied the ancient genesis account in the original language. He says the creation account is not about the creation of the universe at all but the preparation of the garden for man.

For instance "In the Beginning" the first words in your bible comes from one Hebrew word that always means a period of time not a point in time.

So "in the beginning" could be 7 days or 10 billion years we do not know.

When you see the word "earth" - in our English bibles we think the planet earth right... well it meant dirt --not the planet earth necessarily

Are you starting to see it's not the Bible but our incorrect understanding that gets in our way.

The context of the whole pentatuch (1st 5 books) the story is ::: Man is good god gives him the land , then man is bad god kicks him out -- over &over & over continuing to this day in Israel!

So in that context does it not make sense that what is being described is the preparation of the place for man?

It is not the mechanics of how God made the universe at all. That was all done "In the beginning" and he doesn't tell us how he did that.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


So what you're saying is the whole Bible is open to interpretation, and only if we interpret it correctly is it true? Who, then, becomes the judge of what is the correct translation? You say the word "earth" in the Bible means dirt, yet in an earlier post you were marveling that one of the prophets knew the "earth" was "round". So were you wrong in your interpretation? Did the prophet actually mean the dirt was round?

I don't mean to argue that you're correct in your thesis about interpreting the Bible incorrectly, but it only serves to further validate the point that the Bible is so open to interpretation that anyone who wants to push their own interpretation and belief system of it onto anyone else is arrogant at best. And how can you be sure that you've based your faith on the correct interpretation?

It also lends credence to Nighthawk's plea: define "Bible". If you can open the book up to so much interpretation you open the floodgates to make the Bible be used by people with completely opposing belief structures. Many things get lost in translation. Do you speak the language of the original texts? Or are you basing your beliefs on the interpretations of other "scholars"?

[edit on 21/3/08 by an3rkist]