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.)

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.

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 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]

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]