Jump to content
IGNORED

Apologetic on Slavery & Rape in the Bible


Seeking1

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  7
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  24
  • Content Per Day:  0.01
  • Reputation:   13
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/22/2014
  • Status:  Offline

 

That isn't a fair comparison.  Muslims kill "infedels" on the grounds that they don't convert to Islam.   Muslims kill other Muslims.  In fact more Muslims die at the hands of other Muslims than from any other people.

 

God used Israel as a tool of righteous judgment on the pagan nations.   God used pagan nations a tools of judgment on Israel (Assyria, Babyon, Rome, for example).  The Canaanites were people who murdered their own children as sacrifices to their gods.  They were sexually immoral to the point that the people right down to the children were infected with sexually transmitted diseases, not to mention other ailments that stemmed from their self-destructive lifestyles and practices.

 

God gave the Canaanite over 400 years to repent and they would not repent and God judged them and He used Israel to do that.  We read in the book of Revelation about all of the judgments God is going to inflict on the people of earth because they will stubbornly refuse to repent of their sin.  None of that is immoral on God's part.

Sure it's fair, we're talking about a principle here. If God is not to be judged and he is good by definition, then this would be true for the Muslim as well. You can't just give this special protection to one God but not another. I've been told [not by you necessarily] that God created the Universe and he can do what he wants with it.

I probably wouldn't disagree with you that the God described in the OT is superior [in terms of behavior] to the God that bloodthirsty Muslims worship. I'm saying that if this principle is true, it'd be true for any creator of the Universe.

 

 

Hi Bonky, I am actually in sympathy to your position here! I do NOT consider it be anti-Christian in and of itself, like some others on this forum do, particularly Calvinists, but I think you could already figure that from my previous comments. I feel this reasoning amounts to "might makes right" and even person respect, and YES, I agree you could utilize it to defend ANYTHING, including Islam, Nazis, or yes, even the Anti-Christ or Satan! I strongly believe God can indeed be tested righteously, to see if He follows His own moral code, which basically says, "Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself!"

 

I know some things about God are beyond human understanding and must be taken by faith alone, but I also believe God would not do anything that would break His own Holy Laws. Honest questions in my opinion are good. You have asked some interesting ones that I am thinking and even praying about. You do not seem that hostile to the Christian faith to me (although of course I could be wrong). I think those using this reasoning may have good intentions, but I STRONGLY disagree with it and I think it is actually detrimental to defending the faith.

 

I think this line of reasoning is even strongly consistent with that used by Muslims to defend Allah. Do NOT take the reasoning and words of men as your only resort for finding truth! Seek God for the truth, and ask Him for an indicator of something you wish to know! Men can and do get it wrong! Including me! I am a woman also, so beware too! (1 Timothy 2:12) Please understand that I am not here to teach people with authority, but to offer my honest opinion in non-church setting, yet at the same time, I also believe women according to Scripture are more prone to deception than men! So, don't just take mine or anyone else's word for it! Test all things! It is the duty of all men to seek the truth! 

 

I hope God helps us all in our quest for the truth!

Edited by Seeking1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  35
  • Topic Count:  99
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  40,796
  • Content Per Day:  7.95
  • Reputation:   21,263
  • Days Won:  76
  • Joined:  03/13/2010
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  07/27/1957

In the most intimate communication ever recorded:
John 17:17
17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
KJV


To know and be known by Him:
2 Tim 2:15
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman
that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing
the word of truth.
KJV


sanctified in assurance:
2 Peter 1:10
10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make
your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things,
ye shall never fall:
KJV

Love, Steven

Edited by enoob57
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  7
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  24
  • Content Per Day:  0.01
  • Reputation:   13
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/22/2014
  • Status:  Offline

In the most intimate communication ever recorded:

John 17:17

17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

KJV

To know and be known by Him:

2 Tim 2:15

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman

that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing

the word of truth.

KJV

sanctified in assurance:

2 Peter 1:10

10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make

your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things,

ye shall never fall:

KJV

Love, Steven

 

Thank you Steven! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  7
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  24
  • Content Per Day:  0.01
  • Reputation:   13
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/22/2014
  • Status:  Offline

I have recently realized that my apologetic is best used to defend slavery from the standpoint of the OT Jewish nation of Israel. Roman slavery indeed did have more similarities to New World Slavery than OT Israelite slavery did. However, the Bible does allow for slavery in the New Testament, particularly Roman slavery. When I realized this, I was bothered by it. However, I just found a good article this morning addressing this very issue for me. Here it is:

 

Why was slavery allowed in the New Testament?

 

The story of slavery in the Roman Empire at the time of the New Testament is a complicated one. Many have asked why the early church didn't universally denounce slavery, but the characteristics of slavery were not universal enough to allow for such a simple, sweeping response. Slavery in New Testament times had shades of early American chattel slavery, modern sex trafficking, Old Testament debt bondage, and even apprenticeships and internships. Some slaves were kidnapped, and other slaves owned slaves of their own. Some worked at hard labor their whole lives while others became business partners with their owners. These individual situations call for individual judgments.

Source of slaves
Slavery in the Roman Empire was not based on ethnicity or color, although ethnicity did play a role in determining what a slave might do. Greeks and Egyptians tended to be better educated while Europeans were valued more for strength and stamina. Most valued were Greeks, who were already educated in medicine or teaching, or any slave who could cook.

- Most slaves were foreigners defeated in war. Enslaving them was an alternative to killing them outright or letting them go free to cause problems later.

- In times of hardship, it wasn't uncommon for a family to abandon a newborn baby. There were no social services or ministries to care for them, and many of these babies were "rescued" and sold into slavery.

- A child born to slaves was automatically a slave. But if the parents were freed slaves, their children had all the rights of a Roman citizen.

- An impoverished family could also sell a child as a slave to raise money for the rest of the family. Often, the transaction would benefit the child, as well, as he would be in a more financially secure household.

- If someone had an extensive amount of debt but no children to sell, he or she could be taken into debt bondage and forced to work off what was owed.

- It was also possible for someone to sell himself into slavery. An ambitious man with few connections could gain access to education and the contacts necessary to be successful once he earned his freedom.

Types of slaves
Slavery in New Testament times could involve anything from manual labor under harsh conditions to a nine-to-five job with little oversight. Many slaves were abused, but others were treated almost like family.

Mining:The Roman Empire needed resources and used slaves to obtain them. The lowest rural slave was probably kidnapped or taken in war and had very little education. Conditions were horrible. Release was not an option. The slave was owned as chattel by the state with no personal interaction with his master and no way to gain favor.

Agriculture:Conditions for slaves working in agriculture depended on the wealth of their owners. A wealthy owner might own hundreds or thousands of agriculture slaves. The slaves lived in communal houses, led by a higher-ranking slave or freeman, and were often branded for identification. Their job was to work the fields, and, although their conditions were better than those for a mining slave, agriculture slaves were still chattel with little chance for release.

An agriculture slave owned by a middle-class family was generally better off. He had more chances to earn a little money on the side and, if not released, could hope to attain a status similar to sharecropper, in which he worked the owner's land and paid a portion of the harvest to the owner. Some of these slaves would have been purchased from a slave trader, but others would have sold themselves for material support or to pay off a debt.

Prostitutes and Gladiators:Women in the sex trade and men chosen to fight to the death lived in the worst urban conditions. Their lives were short and brutal. They were owned as chattel and, like miners, were often kidnapped by slave traders or through war. Chance for release was negligible.

Tradesmen:The Roman upper class was too good for actual work, but they still needed shoes, weapons, furniture, and the like. Many tradesmen were technically slaves, and many more were freemen who had been released from slavery but continued on in their former owners' shops. Tradesmen often had a great deal of autonomy, as their owners had better things to do than monitor all their investments, and records from Pompeii show that even women held management positions. There was a good chance a tradesman would be released and, as mentioned, continue to work as a freeman with pay. Many down-and-out Romans sold themselves into slavery for the purpose of receiving room and board while learning a trade.

Domestics:The vast majority of urban slaves were domestics who lived in their master's house and had regular interaction with the family. Domestic slaves were needed to cook, clean, sew, garden, care for the horses, carry litters, teach the children, and even provide musical entertainment for guests. Treatment varied depending on the personality of the owner; some slaves were undoubtedly abused, while others were released and married into the family.

White collar:The rich Romans had no more time for paperwork than they did for carpentry. Many enterprising young men sold themselves to important families for the purpose of learning accounting, medicine, or politics. These slaves could generally trust to be freed after a time and allowed to continue their career. A freed slave could hold almost any position besides elected office, and their freeborn children could rise as high as their ambition could take them. Their position in society was a strange one; the established families looked down on them as nouveau riche, but also lauded them to their own slaves as an example of the rewards to be had if they worked hard.

What does the Bible say about slavery in the New Testament?
The Bible does not categorically condemn debt bondage. In fact, in the Old Testament it was regulated as a type of welfare. The New Testament speaks more about exhibiting Christian character within the context of slavery.

- Slaves are not supposed to stay in the master's house forever (John 8:35)

- Slavery is not ideal, and "if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity" (1 Corinthians 7:21-24)

- Being a slave has no bearing on salvation or the spiritual state of a person before God (1 Corinthians 12:13;Galatians 3:28)

- Slaves are to respect the world's system of authority while knowing that God is the only true authority (Ephesians 6:5-8;Colossians 3:22-24)

- Masters are also to keep in mind that their position in Christ is no different from that of their slaves; they themselves are slaves to God (Ephesians 6:9)

- Christian slaves are authorized to act on conscience if their master commands them to do something wrong, but they need to humbly accept the punishment for their justified rebellion, just as Jesus did (1 Peter 2:19-20)

Indirectly, the New Testament has even more to say about slavery:

- Kidnapping is a serious offense (1 Timothy 1:8-10)

- Giving to the poor (which would prevent debt-bondage) is promoted (Matthew 6:2-3;19:21;26:11;Luke 14:13)

- The church is responsible for giving to the poor (Romans 15:26;Galatians 2:10)

- Widows and orphans are to be supported, not owned (James 1:27)

Slavery as a metaphor
Several places in the New Testament, slavery is a metaphor for a more honorable position.
- Prophets (Matthew 21:33-41)
- Believers awaiting the Lord's return (Matthew 24:45-51)
- Ministry workers (Matthew 25:14-30)
- Evangelists (Luke 14:16-24)
- Obedient Christ-followers (Luke 17:7-10)

Is slavery sin?
This is a difficult question because of the different facets of slavery.

- Kidnapping and selling and/or maliciously restricting the movements of another is wrong.

- Leasing another's labor for a set period of time in return for support and monetary compensation doesn't fit the modern understanding of slavery, although it was called slavery in New Testament times.

- Raising an abandoned child with the intent that he will work without compensation is not biblical.

- Taking on an older child or adult who promises future work as compensation for training isn't slavery unless the provider refuses to let him go once the debt is fulfilled or calculates unfair wages for the work.

- Abusing anyone by beating, emotional manipulation, or withholding necessary food and care is sin.

- Assuming that any person can own the humanity of another is misguided; actually doing so is evil.

- Selling a child for money to support the rest of the family is not right; arranging fostering for the purpose of support and/or training for the child might be.

- Demanding absolute obedience is wrong; acknowledging that everyone is under the authority of God is right.

Why doesn't the New Testament directly condemn slavery?
Even though not all of the slavery in the Roman Empire was evil (and some was more beneficial to the slave than to the master), why doesn't the New Testament take a stronger stand against slavery?

- Many of the slaves were young children or old and infirm. Freedom for them would have meant exposure to the elements and likely death since there was no support for freed slaves except that which Christians later provided.

- Many slaves didn't want to leave. They were there for a purpose, and the training, prestige, personal effects, and opportunities they received far outweighed any pay they could earn as freemen.

- Estimates vary, but up to 30 percent of the urban Roman populace were slaves. The immediate release of that many people with nowhere to go, combined with the sudden cessation of so much work, would have been socially and politically catastrophic. Millions likely would have starved, in part because the newly freed slaves wouldn't be able to feed themselves, and in part because most of the farmland was tended by slaves. The Roman Empire was dependent upon slavery for its very survival. Eventually, as the Roman Empire declined and fewer slaves were taken by military conquest, slavery morphed into serfdom where the poor did as much or more work for very little pay and even less support from the ruling class.

Why didn't Paul push Philemon to free Onesimus?
There are a couple of reasons why Paul may not have tried to help Onesimus escape from his master Philemon. One is that Roman law dictated that harboring a runaway slave for more than twenty days was punishable by labor in the mines or crucifixion. The Roman Empire had several alternatives for an abused slave to receive justice, and running away wasn't usually necessary. In restoring the relationship between Onesimus and Philemon, Paul planted the seeds of freedom: he emphasizes love (verse 9); he calls Onesimus "my child" (verse 10) and "my very heart" (verse 12); he points out that Onesimus is "no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother" (verse 16 NIV); and he tells Philemon to "receive him as you would receive me" (verse 17). Everything that Paul writes to Philemon counteracts the cultural acceptance of slavery. Also, personal autonomy is not the point of the Christian life. Mutual submission through the love of Christ is far more important. The demonstration of brotherly love between servant and master would trump Onesimus's freedom.

The Christian response
In later years Christians went to great lengths to free slaves—sometimes even selling themselves into slavery to raise the money to free others. Christians have been at the forefront of modern abolition movements, from William Wilberforce's efforts to theInternational Justice Mission. The expectations God has of His followers regarding slavery have never changed: support the poor to keep them out of slavery, ensure fair and generous treatment of slaves, and proclaim liberty for the captives and freedom to prisoners.



Read more:http://www.compellingtruth.org/slavery-New-Testament.html#ixzz34d3EGcIm

Edited by Seeking1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  738
  • Content Per Day:  0.21
  • Reputation:   346
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/28/2014
  • Status:  Offline

 

I know some things about God are beyond human understanding and must be taken by faith alone, but I also believe God would not do anything that would break His own Holy Laws. Honest questions in my opinion are good. You have asked some interesting ones that I am thinking and even praying about. You do not seem that hostile to the Christian faith to me (although of course I could be wrong). I think those using this reasoning may have good intentions, but I STRONGLY disagree with it and I think it is actually detrimental to defending the faith.

 

 

I've been traveling for work and I've had a hectic schedule lately, so I just wanted to respond to the part of your post that caught my eye.  You would be correct I'm not hostile to Christians at all.  Lastnight I was just at a Christian woman's house who was having a get together.  I really enjoyed the evening with her and I consider her a good friend already [i've only met her twice, she's my girlfriends good friend].  

 

I'm not hostile to Christians, but I am somewhat hostile to the concept of religious faith.  If God exists, and he is completely logical, he wouldn't step near faith.  If you look around, you can see the widespread damage religious faith has caused.  I believe it's vital to believe that which you have good evidence for.  To do otherwise just doesn't make any sense for me.   Interestingly enough this Christian woman had all of the attendee's of her dinner to take the Myers-Briggs personality test.  She used to work with people before she retired giving them this test and going over the results.  I ended up in the ISTP category.  I think perhaps my skeptical nature may shed light on why I think the way I do.  I like cold hard facts, not daydreams or "flights of fancy".  

 

I don't rule out that there could be a creator of some sort for our Universe, I just highly doubt that our earthly religions properly capture the nature of this being.  I would be shocked to find out that this being at one time was very concerned about women's menstrual cycles, or whether people wore mixed fabrics or not.  Getting back on topic, if I believe something it is because I was shown evidence for it's veracity.  The more wild the claim, the more evidence I'll need.  Imagine if you were asked to believe that black holes exist in space, but we didn't have any evidence.  Even if it's true that they exist, it wouldn't make sense to believe it unless you were provided evidence.  

 

The main argument I see for God seems to be the teleological variety.  What I counter with is, how many times in human history did we point to the supernatural to explain something?  How many times did that pan out as a good way to explain anything?   Why think that *now* is finally a time where it'll pay off?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
 If God exists, and he is completely logical, he wouldn't step near faith.

 

Biblical faith is logical, rational and evidentiary by nature. 

 

 

 

If you look around, you can see the widespread damage religious faith has caused.

 

No, the widespread damage you see around you is caused by sin, not by faith.

 

 Imagine if you were asked to believe that black holes exist in space, but we didn't have any evidence.  Even if it's true that they exist, it wouldn't make sense to believe it unless you were provided evidence.

 

Fortunately, God doesn't ask us to believe in Him without providing us evidence for His existence.

 

Getting back on topic, if I believe something it is because I was shown evidence for it's veracity.  The more wild the claim, the more evidence I'll need.

 

If you were shown evidence for the veracity of the claim that God exists, what would you do, ultimately with that evidence?  If you felt that enough evidence existed for you to be able to comfortably claim that God exists, what would you do with God's existence?  What difference would it make in your life one way or the other?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....What I counter with is, how many times in human history did we point to the supernatural to explain something?  How many times did that pan out as a good way to explain anything?....

 

:thumbsup:

 

Good Question

Why Don't We Point To The Supernatural?

 

This I recall to my mind, therefore have I hope.

It is of the LORD's mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not.

They are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness. Lamentations 3:21-23

 

And Why Oh Why Doesn't A Just And A Good God

Just Crush All Evil Off The Earth Today?

 

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9

 

And Why Should I Have Hope Anyway

 

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: Romans 8:14-16

 

And Beloved, Why Don't You?

 

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:17

 

~

 

Believe

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

 

And Be Blessed Beloved

 

Love, Your Brother Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  738
  • Content Per Day:  0.21
  • Reputation:   346
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/28/2014
  • Status:  Offline

If God exists, and he is completely logical, he wouldn't step near faith.

Biblical faith is logical, rational and evidentiary by nature.

Can you state your case? Why should I believe what the Bible says about God?

 

 

If you look around, you can see the widespread damage religious faith has caused.

No, the widespread damage you see around you is caused by sin, not by faith.

That seems convenient, faith becomes sin when the use of religious faith ends up badly.

 

Fortunately, God doesn't ask us to believe in Him without providing us evidence for His existence.

How do you know God *wants* us to believe in him? What evidence is there for this God?

 

Getting back on topic, if I believe something it is because I was shown evidence for it's veracity.  The more wild the claim, the more evidence I'll need.

If you were shown evidence for the veracity of the claim that God exists, what would you do, ultimately with that evidence?  If you felt that enough evidence existed for you to be able to comfortably claim that God exists, what would you do with God's existence?  What difference would it make in your life one way or the other?

What would I do with this new knowledge? I'd shift from non belief to belief. I wouldn't assume the God is of the Christian variety so I don't know that there would be anything to do upon this change in position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would I do with this new knowledge? I'd shift from non belief to belief. I wouldn't assume the God is of the Christian variety so I don't know that there would be anything to do upon this change in position.

 

:thumbsup:

 

I

 

Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.

 

Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar:

 

And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged. Isaiah 6:5-7

 

See~!

 

Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.

 

And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Isaiah 6:8-9

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

Shiloh357, on 16 Jun 2014 - 03:13 AM, said:snapback.png

Quote

If God exists, and he is completely logical, he wouldn't step near faith.

Biblical faith is logical, rational and evidentiary by nature.

Can you state your case? Why should I believe what the Bible says about God?

 

Faith by nature is evidentiary and that should be self-evident.   What do we base faith on in any context?   I can get in my car without hesitation because I know from past usage that the car has operated safely.  I don't have to work up the courage to get out drive around town.   I have friends I can trust because I have evidence that they are trustworthy.  I have past history of trustworthiness with them and I know that if they say something, I can trust that they are being honest in their claims. 

 

We put faith in things and in people because we have evidence that enables us to do so.  True faith is never blind. 

 

There are tons of archeological evidence and historical evidence for the Bible's claims.  So much about the Bible's historical claims have been verified that add to the Bible's reliable track record of history.

 

All of the Bible's theological/doctrinal claims are rooted in historical and geographical fact.  All of the lines of evidence are in a setting of real people, places and events, many of which we can historically verify.   So there is plenty of real evidence for faith.   Is there enough evidence to prove God exists?  No.  But there is evidence for faith.

 

Shiloh357, on 16 Jun 2014 - 03:13 AM, said:snapback.png

Quote

If you look around, you can see the widespread damage religious faith has caused.

No, the widespread damage you see around you is caused by sin, not by faith.

That seems convenient, faith becomes sin when the use of religious faith ends up badly.

 

No, most of the damage you point to doesn't come from faith at all.  The 20th century was the bloodiest century in terms of war.  The Chinese and Russian revolutions, the rise of Nazism, Communism, Fascism, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the First Gulf War, Abortion, that's over 250 million people dead and had nothing to do with "faith" or religion.

 

It is sin that causes such hatred and bloodshed.  There are people who pervert faith in order to kill in God's Name, but that isn't faith.  Faith in God isn't to blame.

 

 

shiloh357, on 16 Jun 2014 - 03:13 AM, said:snapback.png

Fortunately, God doesn't ask us to believe in Him without providing us evidence for His existence.

How do you know God *wants* us to believe in him? What evidence is there for this God?

 

Look at the world around you.  All of creation is evidence of it's Creator.  The world we live in far too complex to have been an accident.  The laws of probability just don't allow for that.  Everything in our human experience tells us that things don't just pop into into existence.  If you pick up a book, that book's existence testifies of the person who wrote the contents, the people who milled the paper,  made the ink, set the type, bound the pages in the cover, etc.  The book is evidence that the people who made the book exist or at least did exist at one time.  If you hear a song on the radio, that song didn't just come out of thin air.  The song is testimony to the person(s) who composed the music and the lyrics.

 

In the same way all of what we see in nature is testimony of the one who created nature and that someone would have had to have been trillions of times wiser and powerful than anyone on earth to make it happen.

 

 

shiloh357, on 16 Jun 2014 - 03:13 AM, said:snapback.png

Quote

Getting back on topic, if I believe something it is because I was shown evidence for it's veracity.  The more wild the claim, the more evidence I'll need.

If you were shown evidence for the veracity of the claim that God exists, what would you do, ultimately with that evidence?  If you felt that enough evidence existed for you to be able to comfortably claim that God exists, what would you do with God's existence?  What difference would it make in your life one way or the other?

What would I do with this new knowledge? I'd shift from non belief to belief. I wouldn't assume the God is of the Christian variety so I don't know that there would be anything to do upon this change in position.

 

But my question assumes that you are shown enough evidence to believe that the God of the Bible (not some generic deity) exists.  My question runs from a specific speculative premise. 

 

Let's say someone somehow shows you enough evidence to show that the God as represented in the Bible exists.  What would you do with that information?  I assume you would switch from nonbelief to belief.  That is given.  More to the point, if you believed God existed, would you believe HIm?  Would you follow Him, trust Him?   Would it make any difference in your life if God existed, or would you merely assent to His existence, but otherwise ignore Him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...