Why Should God Bless America?

[Elledan]

<< Of course, people who have obviously performed all of these empirical tests will tell me that I'm stupid and that there is no God. Not like they can prove it, but it's "obviously" a more intellectual stance to take. If you're going to tell me that there is no God, at least be prepared to tell me why. >>

Because there's not a single shred of evidence to support the idea of 'gods'.

Even worse, the ever lasting whining about how perfect and good those gods are is making me sick. If we can't even prove, or simply find a reason why we should assume that there might be supernatural beings, how do we know that gods are 'perfect'? I say that gods, if they exist, are not perfect. They are not all-knowing, and they're hardly conscious of their own actions. In short, they're reduced to a lower lifeform than we Humans are.

This 'theory' is just as valid as any other 'theory' on supernatural 'beings', for the simple reason that all of this talk about supernatural powers and stuff is based on no solid evidence, observations or experiments.

Religious ideologies rely on blind faith: superstition.

<<
Oh, and don't tell me that Buddhism isn't a religion. >>

If Buddhism is a religion, then just about everything is a religion. I say that Buddhism isn't a religious faith. This is correct.

Buddhism a religion? A religion is an intolerant ideology. Buddhism can hardly be called an ideology, let alone intolerant.

 

[JupiterJones]

I'm glad then that you agree that one must not accept Christ in order to know god. Or are you just trying to have your cake and eat it too?

What exactly does it mean to "know God"? Certainly, God's promises to Isreal are still valid, so they can know God.

Romans 1:20 says For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

This verse shows that Everyone can know about God, and are in fact without excuse for now knowing God. This would include those who have never heard the name Jesus.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

The God from the Bible is the God of Israel. Jesus said several times that he had come for the people of Israel as well, not for the people of a country that would rewrite the Bible to get rid of the 'Thou shalt not kill' line in favor of 'Thou shalt only kill whom we want dead, and all others killing someone are bad'. The US is not Israel, amd most of it's inhabitants have no ties with it. Only a few of the Jews living there may have ties with it. This would mean that only those people have a chance of getting blessed, the rest of you won't make it to Heaven.

 

[Mephistopheles]

<< Romans 1:20 says For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. >>




<< This verse shows that Everyone can know about God, and are in fact without excuse for now knowing God. This would include those who have never heard the name Jesus. >>



I really don't understand how you can cite this as evidence. And furthermore, why you expect people to accept any dogma that is offered them. One shouldn't believe something to be true until they believe it to be true.



<< Even worse, the ever lasting whining about how perfect and good those gods are is making me sick. If we can't even prove, or simply find a reason why we should assume that there might be supernatural beings, how do we know that gods are 'perfect'? I say that gods, if they exist, are not perfect. They are not all-knowing, and they're hardly conscious of their own actions. In short, they're reduced to a lower lifeform than we Humans are. >>



Here's something to ponder: what if we are those supernatural beings? what if we are those gods? Even without hard evidence, I think you can 'feel' that there is something more to us than meets the eye. (no, we're not Transformers!)

Whad'ya think?

 

[xirtam]

People who kill and feel good about killing are still sinning. But I don't think anyone, including serial killers, is born with the idea that killing is morally justified. Consciences lose their effect, though, as we rationalize sin. Guilt caused by sin allows us to rationalize. When we rationalize, we try to convince ourselves that something is morally correct that we know in our hearts is not morally correct. When I speak of sin being based on conscience, I'm talking about an unadulterated conscience. Once we start rationalizing, we begin to forfeit our ability to discern right from wrong. So yes, the killing spree is still just as much of a sin. And ultimately, who decides what is a sin and what isn't? God, would be my guess. Where do you think your conscience comes from?

Elledan, I've given you "a reason why we should assume that there might be supernatural beings" in another thread, and you've rejected it. If you're just going to dismiss everything I say that you can't counter, there's no point in me addressing your arguments. For example, according to your view, I don't see how you can explain emotive states. Or conscience. Or rational thought. Or even some standard whereby you can determine values like "justice" or "perfection." However, I will address one point you brought up:



<< religion is an intolerant ideology >>



Did you think that definition up all by yourself, or are you going to cite where you got this? And I know you think I'm illiterate, but I still don't think that's what it says in my dictionary. You then use this induced standard to argue that Buddhism doesn't fit this definition and is therefore not a religion. Nice springboard. If Buddhism is a religion, then almost everything is a religion? You've got me laughing so hard... Buddhism branched from Hinduism. Is Hinduism a religion? And, for the record, were you talking about Therevada Buddhism or Mahayana Buddhism when you claimed that Buddhism isn't a religion? Funny how they teach this "non-religion" in religion classes. That's where I learned it.

I think a fairer definition of "religion" is the human response to perceived ultimacy. That's taken from my Religion 105 book. I can get you the ISBN number and other info if you really want it. It's a basic Intro to World Religions book. You should be able to find any introductory religion book. Bet you it'll have Buddhism in there.

 

[Moonbeam]

PastorDon: "<B>For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."
</B>
The problem with this verse is that it is clearly a lie. Creation actually points in an entirely different direction and anybody who tries to fob off the notion of no excuse is trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat. The verse could as well read, We who suffer a mass psychosis point to our mutual psychosis as proof of our sanity.

 

[xirtam]

<< Creation actually points in an entirely different direction... >>



Than what? If it's a "creation," that implies a "creator." Your word, Moonbeam.

And I like the mass psychosis line. I think it may come in handy one day. But I don't think it applies here.

 

[Mephistopheles]

<< And I like the mass psychosis line. I think it may come in handy one day. But I don't think it applies here. >>



Does the story 'The Emperor Wears No Clothes' fit any better. It seems like he's saying, "No, dear cattle, that isn't a slaughterhouse we're going to. It's Bovine University!"

 

[Moonbeam]

landagosean, creation, dagnabit, all the same, figures of speach, xirtam. That which was created in the big bang, etc. The universe I see says nothing about a creator. Science indicates to me that everything has a material explanation. That's what I see.

 

[Mephistopheles]

<< The universe I see says nothing about a creator. Science indicates to me that everything has a material explanation. >>



Explain intent.

 

[Bluga]

America is going down.

Its inevitable.

Just a matter of time.

 

[Moonbeam]

meph, xirtam seems to think that becasue I used PastorDon's word 'creation' that that would mean that I must acknowledge the existance of a creator. I just used the word creation, in the usual sense, all the stuff we see with the assumption that there was a monment in which it all came into being.

 

[Elledan]

<< Elledan, I've given you "a reason why we should assume that there might be supernatural beings" in another thread, and you've rejected it. >>

Yes, because it was unacceptable. At least try to base your arguments on facts and verifiable information.


<< If you're just going to dismiss everything I say that you can't counter, there's no point in me addressing your arguments. For example, according to your view, I don't see how you can explain emotive states. >>

Science is starting to discover how emotions 'work'. It's only a matter of time.


<< Or conscience. >>

A result of consciousness.


<< Or rational thought. >>

A logical result of consciousness.


<< Or even some standard whereby you can determine values like "justice" or "perfection." >>

Believe me, it's very easy to see what's justice and what is perfection.

Keyword is 'logic', something you do not appear to be capable of.


<< However, I will address one point you brought up:



<< religion is an intolerant ideology >>



Did you think that definition up all by yourself, or are you going to cite where you got this? >>

It's the only possible conclusion. Refer to the dictionary to verify that religions are ideologies and because they can not accept different explanations for those would destroy the ideology, religions are intolerant.


<< And I know you think I'm illiterate, but I still don't think that's what it says in my dictionary. >>

Funny, my dictionary is then more accurate than yours


<< You then use this induced standard to argue that Buddhism doesn't fit this definition and is therefore not a religion. Nice springboard. If Buddhism is a religion, then almost everything is a religion? You've got me laughing so hard... Buddhism branched from Hinduism. >>

ROFLMAO!! Buddhism is unrelated to Hinduism. At least verify your facts before making such embarrassing stupid statements.


<< Is Hinduism a religion? And, for the record, were you talking about Therevada Buddhism or Mahayana Buddhism when you claimed that Buddhism isn't a religion? >>

Theravada.


<< Funny how they teach this "non-religion" in religion classes. That's where I learned it. >>

Uh uh, and everything you're taught at school is correct.

The reason why Buddhism is taught in religion classes is because it deals with 'spirituality' and that kind of stuff, which is not very appropriate in other classes.



<< I think a fairer definition of "religion" is the human response to perceived ultimacy. >>

Nay, I think that the best definition of 'religion' is 'superstition'. The definition given for 'superstition' fits religions perfectly.

 

[Elledan]

<< Here's something to ponder: what if we are those supernatural beings? what if we are those gods? Even without hard evidence, I think you can 'feel' that there is something more to us than meets the eye. (no, we're not Transformers!)

Whad'ya think? >>

It's just as plausible as every other 'theory'

 

[Amused]

An unansered question, is not proof of a god.

A book cannot be evidence of it's own validity.

I've never seen more convoluted, illogical BS in my life.

 

[GSOYF]

1) we are the best

2) god damn are you long-winded, cut that $hit down!!

 

[Athanasius]

Pastor Don:

I will respond to your response to my response

Pastor Don Quote:

<< What you say is true. If you will reread my post, I did not apply II Chron 7:14 in an unqualified way to the United States today. I quoted this verse because it is useful (as is the vast majority of the OT) in knowing the nature of God. This verse has meaning and application. There is an application for the New Testament Church. I did not use the verse as a promise (as it is often misused in revivals). I quote this as a follow-up to the immediately preceding sentence where I ask if the fact that God judges nations is of any concern. >>



Well, I believe that the typical "judgement" that God gives nations in this life is more the absence of God than anything else. To those who don't think that the knowledge of God is worthy to be retained, it is not retained. Then we reap the consequences of our own mindsets and crumble from within.

You said that you did not apply 2 Chronicles 7:14 directly to the United States. Yet you end your whole post with the following quote:

<< No, if we are to be delivered from the enemies we have made as the result of our constant foreign meddling, we must humble ourselves and confess our sin before the one true, triune God, and seek to restore him to his place of sovereignty over our people. We delay at our own peril. I welcome comments at wcarlson@i-plus.net -- Wayne Carlson >>



My question would be: When was the "one, true, triune God" ever the God of the United States of the America? The Constitution certainly does not call on him. If America ever turned away as a nation from the triune God, it did so at the Constitutional Convention, which cites no higher authority than "We the People." None of our first four presidents were Christians. Some might suggest that Washington was, but if he was I find it odd that he never partook of Communion. And how can we "restore him to his place of sovereignty" over this people? What is meant by "sovereign?" God is by nature sovereign over all people.

What the author seems to mean by "sovereign" is that at some point the United States as a nation recognized the triune God and now it doesn't. There is a difference between many individuals believing in the God of the Bible and the nation as a corporate group placing itself under him. You said that you did not say that America is a Christian nation but then end your post with a quote that says we must restore the one, true, triune God as sovereign over our people.

If that caused me to put words in your mouth, then I apologize.

If you want to apply 2 Chronicles 7:14 to the Church of Jesus Christ, than fine. Perhaps I overeacted to that reference because of exactly what you pointed out: its misuse in revivals. I agree that the Old Testament reveals the character of God, particularly in how he deals with his covenant people. But it does not reveal grace and truth in a clear way like the New testament does. Jesus reveals grace and truth. But tell me, what "land" do the Christians possess that would be healed by God? How would God's promise to heal Israel's land be legitimately applied to Christians today? The people of God have always been their most faithful when they admit that they are strangers and aliens on earth, that no earthly country is their home, and that therefore they have no "land."

The "land" referred to the physical blessings to national Israel contained in the Mosaic Covenant. By spiritual application, those who have Christ's life in them have a fullness of spiritual blessings in this life: love, joy, peace, gentleness, kindness, self-control. In other words, the blessing of God that we should most seek is the righteousness of God that comes only by grace. So, God Bless America! In fact, God Bless the Taliban! Bless and do not curse.

If we want to consider God's commands to Old testament Israel, and apply them to the U.S. today, I would suggest looking at one: God's ban on usury. Though this is a less obviously moral precept of God, the United States is in such egregious violation of that precept that to "repent" would be the undoing of our entire economic system. In short, God forbade Israel to lend money at interest to its own countrymen. The entire U.S. economic system is founded on compound interest. God commanded Israel to forgive all debts every seven years. To even attempt to do that now would cause our entire financial system to collapse. Yet it was Israel's refusal to forgive debts that set the timetable for their seventy years of captivity, the worst judgement they faced until 70 A.D.

Funny, I don't hear many Christians in America mentioning this aspect of the Old Testament law. Far be it from us to think that the righteousness of God might hurt our pocketbooks.

Christians would do well to consider Paul's advice:

<< I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave the world. . . What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? >>


Why are Christians railing against non-Christians who do not honor morals prescribed by Christian belief? Is that really going to solve anything? Why lament the non-Christian morals of a society on a BBS of 80,000+ people that are overwhelmingly (it seems) non-Christian? The only rationale for such an action would be if one equated the "U.S." with "Christian," at some level, whether conscious or subconscious.

Furthermore, I do not think that deism is compatible with a Christian worldview. How can you say that deism is not compatible with Christianity but that it is compatible with a Christian worldview? If you mean that deists often share a common sense of ethics with Christians, I might agree. But there is much common ground with Confucian ethics, or Taoist ethics, or Aristotelian ethics as well. Historically, deism was simply the first step into naturalism. Deism places reason over revelation. The earliest Christian apologists of the church recognized that reason itself was a revelation.

I agree with glenn1: "God Bless America" is little more than a colloquialism. If it has any relevance to Christ, I would put it on the same level as the Athenians' "Altar to the Unknown God." Paul did not bash the Athenians for invoking a God they did not know or follow. Rather, he used it as a bridge to show them Christ's way.

 

[Athanasius]

Hey Moonbeam:

If you are going to type posts in Word first to avoid the risk of losing them in the Abyss of the Cyber Demon, you have to translate "Word Speak" into "AT BBS Speak" if you want things to be bolded and italicized properly.

Curse that Abysmal Cyber Demon!. . .




Oops, I mean: Bless that Abysmal Cyber Demon!

 

[Zenmervolt]

<< This is a pretty good example of a view of rights outside of a Christian worldview. This site THE LONG FAQ ON LIBERALISM is a good example of the anti-thesis of a Christian worldview. I think that you will agree with most of what this guy has to say. >>

To be completely honest, I was so disgusted with the table of contents of that page that I could not bring myself to read it further. The page was nothing more than so much liberal/socialist BS propaganda. I do believe in self-evident rights, and the idea that all "rights" are actually "priviledges" is somewhat sickening. As a matter of fact, I disagree with almost every argument presented on that site. The only instances where I agree to any degree at all deal with religion and evolution, and even there it's not 100%. (For example, I cannot stand moral relativism.) I'm among the last of the true Lasiez Faire Capitalists, and if it were not for the issue of religion I would be as hard Right as any Republican.

ZV

 

[xirtam]

<<
Yes, because it was unacceptable. At least try to base your arguments on facts and verifiable information.
>>



I see. Unacceptable according to whom? And why? Because you can't make a rational counterargument? It may not be a fact, but my argumentation was based on completely verifiable information. Granted, it's not a scientific fact any more than evolution is a fact. We can't prove that there is a God any more than we can prove that I evolved from an amoeba, scientifically anyway. It's the nature of science. That which we cannot observe or repeat, we cannot prove. Thus, the existence of God or the validity of evolution must be considered on a philosophical level since they are not scientific. And if you reject the philosophical approach, then there's nothing I can do.



<< Science is starting to discover how emotions 'work'. It's only a matter of time. >>



Reference? Web site? Book?



<<
<< Or conscience. >>

A result of consciousness.


<< Or rational thought. >>

A logical result of consciousness.
>>



Whoa! Hold on! Where'd all this "consciousness" come from? What makes us any more "conscious" than anything else? Define the term. I think the reason humans are conscious are because they are designs, fashioned after a designer. But, of course, if you're going to argue that consciousness comes from completely random processes, then consciousness means nothing in and of itself.



<<
Believe me, it's very easy to see what's justice and what is perfection.

Keyword is 'logic', something you do not appear to be capable of.
>>



Every time I use the forms of logic approved by the discipline of philosophy, you decide to cast it out on the grounds that it's not a "fact" or it's not "verifiable" or it's not "scientific." Granted, you don't explain why. You just reject it. How is that logic?



<<
It's the only possible conclusion. Refer to the dictionary to verify that religions are ideologies and because they can not accept different explanations for those would destroy the ideology, religions are intolerant.
>>



So the very existence of an ideology mandates that it's intolerant? That's BS.



<< Funny, my dictionary is then more accurate than yours >>



According to you. This argument is fastly degenerating to a "my daddy can beat up your daddy" conflict. But just to humor you, dictionary.com under the entry for Buddhism has the following information:


Bud·dhism (bdzm, bdz-)
n.
1. The teaching of Buddha that life is permeated with suffering caused by desire, that suffering ceases when desire ceases, and that enlightenment obtained through right conduct, wisdom, and meditation releases one from desire, suffering, and rebirth.
2. The religion represented by the many groups, especially numerous in Asia, that profess varying forms of this doctrine and that venerate Buddha.


Hmmm... did it call Buddhism a religion? I think so! Just like my -->gasp<-- religious studies class!



<<
ROFLMAO!! Buddhism is unrelated to Hinduism. At least verify your facts before making such embarrassing stupid statements.
>>



Why do you insist on maintaining your ignorance? Is it blissful? Jainism, Sikhism, and Buddhism: "offspring" of Hinduism.



<<
<< Is Hinduism a religion? And, for the record, were you talking about Therevada Buddhism or Mahayana Buddhism when you claimed that Buddhism isn't a religion? >>

Theravada.
>>



Just making sure, because some forms of Buddhism accept the idea of deities.



<< Uh uh, and everything you're taught at school is correct. >>



Certainly more correct then what you're teaching me.



<< The reason why Buddhism is taught in religion classes is because it deals with 'spirituality' and that kind of stuff, which is not very appropriate in other classes. >>



Spirituality? Can you scientifically verify that humans even have spirits?



<< Nay, I think that the best definition of 'religion' is 'superstition'. The definition given for 'superstition' fits religions perfectly. >>



You're taking a bunch of liberties here. You won't find that definition in any dictionary. Besides, that definition would also have to apply to your beloved Buddhism. Religion is by nature not based entirely on natural and scientifically "observable" processes. That doesn't necessary invalidate it -- it just allows religion to complement science by seeking answers to questions outside the domain of science.

 

[JupiterJones]

Athanasius,

If we want to consider God's commands to Old testament Israel, and apply them to the U.S. today, I would suggest looking at one: God's ban on usury.

None of the OT instruction is directly applicable to the Christian. It is ALL valuable for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. The promise of 2 Chron 7:14 directly applies to the Promised Land, and directly to it alone. You seem to be aware of the theology surrounding the Land, and I am sure you understand that this stretches from Eden to the Millennial Kingdom.

That being said, it is perfectly valid to apply this to us, as far as it goes. My context in using the verse was in demonstration of judgement, rather than blessing. The healing of a land is not the same as abundant blessing of the land. This is not a formula to be filled (as it was for Isreal), but rather an indication of the nature of God. If God would heal the Land of Isreal, then God will heal the kosmos (organized society) in which Christians live. There are no promises in Scripture that apply to the US, any favor that we receive from God is simply His favor on His people.

Your parallel between this promise to (heal the land) and a command to not charge interest is improper. I sort of see where you are going, but the difference is that each of the proposed actions in 2 Chron have a parallel in New Testament theology. The ban on usury doesn't. Thus you can apply 2 Chron, but not the vast majority of specific OT Laws. There are, I think, 600+ OT laws. I would say that very few are direcly applicable to Christians. Even in the much vaunted 10 Commandments, I do not keep the Sabath. This is Saturday, and as much as I tell my wife I'm supposed to rest she usually has a list of chores.

Note: For a pretty good explanation of how 2 Chron is applicable, I would see the entry in Thru the Bible by J. Vernon McGee. (A great first commentary).

Why are Christians railing against non-Christians who do not honor morals prescribed by Christian belief? Is that really going to solve anything? Why lament the non-Christian morals of a society on a BBS of 80,000+ people that are overwhelmingly (it seems) non-Christian? The only rationale for such an action would be if one equated the "U.S." with "Christian," at some level, whether conscious or subconscious.

I could give some lame "preach to the sinners" answer, but the truth is that I have made this same case in a number of forums for two reasons. One, to rail against Christians who do no honor morals prescribed by Christian belief. Two, because of the innate value of presenting ideas where they will be most challenged. This forum provides both. While there is a much higher percentage of people hostile to Christianity here, there are also many Christians.

If you mean that deists often share a common sense of ethics with Christians, I might agree. But there is much common ground with Confucian ethics, or Taoist ethics, or Aristotelian ethics as well.

A great example is the idea of God-given rights. A Deist can readily agree with this idea that originated in Judeo/Christian traditions.

 

[Moonbeam]

You have to forgive Elledan, xirtam. He is building a neural net and is very busy. You just have to accept the fact that when he says you are wrong, you are wrong. I, for example recently debunked one of his pet theories on the origin of religion, I should really say, 'I thought I debunked' but anyway, and I did so by pointing out that studies in comparative mythology from cultures around the world disproved the first principal of his thesis. Well what do you know! It turns out that my whole argument was completely decimated by his stunning reply. Archaeology says I'm wrong. I am still recovering from this blow to my psyche so felt a need to warn you that you are dealing with a very shrude and slippry character and you don't want to be chewing on pretzels or anything when you read his replies.

I will have to confess, though, that he and I, unfortunately, do come from something of the same place, if with different emphasis, on the gods thingi. For example, your opinion that evolution is philosophical rather than scientific because of the repeatable thing is not accurate, in my opinion. I think that evolution is a scientific fact and any other kind of fact because it makes deep logical sense and explains what is evident in the rocks of the earth. What Elledan means is that science is on the march to account or explain everything. Masses of superstition and ignorance have fallen to its probing and that will likely continue. Where I differ with him and enter the world of..., the world of....., well the world of I don't know what, is that when it comes to a scientific explanation of experience, love etc. what happens scientifically explains nothing about the inner experience. We don't live scientific theories, we live with an inner experience and knowledge of that inner experience, traditionally the provence of religion, is as oppen to scientific understanding of a kind, as anything else. But a science of the mind, a phrasing that is, I think, in use elsewhere, is not a thing from which the observer can be divorced. If people experience God, or have an experience that can go by that term but may fit other concepts, then knowing about it's biochemical nature in great exactitude will shed no light on what the experience does to the way we perceive reality. Before Mohammed, Mecca was a dessert.

Athanasius, super post as usual. I know linuxboy suggested word, but I'm still just using the fusetalk window or whatever it is, with obvious great inefficiency. I got no word on this machine and even if I did the temptation to use the spell checker might impare my attempt to rectify the ridiculous and highly inaccurate decissions made by dictionaries as to how words are actually spelled. If your up for a blessing instead of a curse, help me reelect Gore.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

You said yourself that God has written his laws into the hearts of men. That means the bible is unneccesary, as we can see people throughout the world, of all different faiths, who don't know of or have never read the bible, still following his laws of peace and good will towards fellow man.

 

[Nil]

Judge Orders God To Break Up
Into Smaller Deities


WASHINGTON, DC? Calling the theological giant's stranglehold on the religion industry "blatantly anti-competitive," a U.S. district judge ruled Monday that God is in violation of anti-monopoly laws and ordered Him to be broken up into several less powerful deities.
Full story

 

[Athanasius]

EngineNr9 Quote:



<< You said yourself that God has written his laws into the hearts of men. That means the bible is unneccesary, as we can see people throughout the world, of all different faiths, who don't know of or have never read the bible, still following his laws of peace and good will towards fellow man. >>




Well, I may disagree with PastorDon on some things, but I don't think that he was suggesting that the Bible isn't needed.



<< The Word became flesh and lived among us. . . From the fulness of the Word's grace we have all received one blessing after another. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God at any time, but the unique generation of God, God's own Word, he has made Him known. (Athanasius' paraphrase of John 1:14a, 16-18) >>



God's moral law is written in man's heart. That moral law was encoded in the law of Moses (with a bunch of other stuff that was case specific to OT Israel).

That law is self-evident to man's greatest sages throughout history because man is created in the image of God. to run from these things is to run from ourselves.

But the real story of the Bible is of the long, historical process by which God became Man to redeem man and show man his love.

The Bible's core message is really very simple: Want to know God? Look at Jesus. Want to know what real love is? Look at Jesus. Want to live forever? Then catch the good virus of God's own divine life infecting man through the entry point, Jesus of Nazareth.

If you ask how men should treat each other, the best men of all ages will reach significant agreement. But that is a far cry from Imitating Christ. A just society allows all kinds of things that might seem harmless because they don't directly injure somebody. But as soon as I move beyond morals and start thinking about "putting on Christ" and trying to think like him and have his attitude about people and things, then I am into a whole different dimension.

Without the Bible's testimony about Jesus, we would be oblivious. We would know God's law but we wouldn't know the Source of grace and truth, from which real meaning comes.