Originally Posted by reeves

Thats awesome. That also has nothing to do with what I said. God changed from Old to New Testament.

P.S. if you wanna throw out Jesus quotes, at least throw out the whole passage for context. He was talking about loving Him (as the son of God) before your own blood, not about being a person of discord.

Ya you are right, perhaps it is a poor argument. I probably should have included more of the passage but I didn't want to make it too long (probably for my own sinful reasons).

Anyways the question of whether God changes from the OT to the NT is best answered by Bible scholars, Christian or not, and the answer you choose to believe from them is really decided from which worldview you look through, because both answers seem plausible at first.

I guess I'm saying we all are biased, there is no objective viewpoint. (Except for God's if He exists)

Thanks for calling me out

Originally Posted by Taunton

From Wikipedia (which I believe more than the bible):

The historical existence of Sodom and Gomorrah is still in dispute by archaeologists.

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/sodom_&_gomorrah.htm
http://www.accuracyingenesis .com/sodom.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgQHQ992Wnw


Skeptics point out that the name Sodom is a derivative of the Hebrew word for "scorched" and Gomorrah is from the Hebrew ‘amar, meaning "a ruined heap",[31] surmising that since these names could only have been given after their destruction, the entire story would have to be fictitious. However, the traditional explanation for the use of retronyms in ancient historical literature is that it is retroactive nomenclature. The name Sodom could likewise be a word from an early Semitic language ultimately related to the Arabic sadama, meaning "fasten", "fortify", "strengthen", and Gomorrah could be based on the root gh m r, which means "be deep", "copious (water)

Wikipedia needs updating. I think you also missed the word skeptics, and the sentence which is in bold.

@lawleypop
quite a feat, that is

on a side note, how do you get your name to be bold pink!? l33t haxxing skills? dedicated member of the macinsiders community? I understand if it is a trade secret and you can't tell me

Originally Posted by Ryan V

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/sodom_&_gomorrah.htm
http://www.accuracyingenesis .com/sodom.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgQHQ992Wnw

What terrible sources. Ron Wyatt, the so-called "archeologist" in the provided links is not an archeologist. He is a nurse anaesthetist with no background in archeology.

Archaeologist Joe Zias of Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) has stated that "Ron Wyatt is neither an archaeologist nor has he ever carried out a legally licensed excavation in Israel or Jerusalem. In order to excavate one must have at least a BA in archaeology which he does not possess despite his claims to the contrary. ... [His claims] fall into the category of trash which one finds in tabloids such as the National Enquirer, Sun etc."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyatt

Originally Posted by Theophilus

@lawleypop
quite a feat, that is

on a side note, how do you get your name to be bold pink!? l33t haxxing skills? dedicated member of the macinsiders community? I understand if it is a trade secret and you can't tell me

Lmao. Sad thing is, I do hack some online games I play, LOL.

Click Profile at the top, click Edit Info on the right, click User Control Panel kinda in the middle, click Reward Centre, and then browse around.

(and no, I have no idea if there's an easier way to get there, lolol)

Originally Posted by Ryan V

Malachi 3:6 For I am the Lord, I change not.

Exodus 15:3 (The lord is a man of war) vs. Romans 15:33 (Now the God of peace be with you all)

god of peace...no, war...no, peace...NO, WAR!...NO, PEACE!!!...NOOO!!! WARRR!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by c.erl

Exodus 15:3 (The lord is a man of war) vs. Romans 15:33 (Now the God of peace be with you all)

god of peace...no, war...no, peace..

First of all, you have to take scripture with the context. Exodus 15:3 is Moses and the people of Israel singing to God about what He has done to his enemies. Romans 15:33 is the apostle Paul writing to the Roman church which consists of God's people.

God is holy so his justice must be satisfied. Therefore all sin will be punished. For the people who Jesus Christ died on the cross, their God is a God of peace. God's wrath was born by Jesus Christ. But for the unbelievers, who have not had their sins atoned for, when it says that the Lord is a man of war, that means that He is able to deal with those who strive with their Maker, and it will not go well for them.

Ok, so let's assume that God exists, and, with accordance with the beliefs held in most popular religions, that this divine entity is indeed an entity and not an essence within the universe, or the universe itself. I say the latter point because proving the existence of God as how a pantheist may view God - that is, as the universe in its entirety - is not how God has been, or is being, defended by popular religion. So it follows, then, that we should also assume that this "God" is not a natural essence or the universe but a separate, individual being, and by "being" I do not necessarily imply that this entity has a physical manifestation in the universe - it/he/she/they may be beyond nature.

So, the assumptions thus far are 1) God exists 2) God is a being, not an essence.

Let's also assume that the attributes which are given to God - namely, omnipotence, omniscience, immortal, all-loving, and all-just - are true. Again, I believe this statement is not a radical claim; these are the fundamental character traits which have been communicated to be within God by the religions which adhere to God, capital G.

So now we have a God who is infinite in power, in knowledge, in life, in love, and in justice. Now I shall state my observations:

1) In the aforementioned assumptions, which I posit are derived from the beliefs of religion (principally of the Abrahamic sort), nothing prevents "God" from being multiple beings, and so I ask: why has paganism been called heretical and blasphemous? More specifically, what prevents a Christian from believing in the Greek gods and demigods? Would God/The Gods care by which name or visual representation they were worshiped?

2) If we also assume that everything in the universe requires a cause for its existence (ie, its existence is the result of an preceding event or entity), which I believe most intelligent individuals can accept, how does one explain God's existence? If one were to answer "God is the cause of himself/ God is eternal, and therefore it is in his nature to be self-caused", then the argument for the common conception of the capital G God is not furthered - if God can be the cause of himself, why cannot the universe? Can we not state that the universe, through an infinite process of creation and destruction, is capable of being a self-existent entity? (If one were to say that the infinite process, or infinity in general, is an inadequate explanation, I would state that it is indeed a better explanation than a single, finite event, since for every event which one may ask for its cause, infinity is able to provide an unlimited amount of explanations stretching back into the past. In other words, for every event, infinity has a cause, and a cause for that cause, and a cause for that cause, etc.)

3) If God is described as the originator of the universe, and the entity from which all intrinsically good ideas are derived, then it is logical to state that God is aetiological - that is, his/her/its/their existence explains humanity and its place in the cosmos. On a point divergent from #2, I wish to ask this: why does humanity need a purpose to exist? If one should answer "humanity's purpose can be explained through the existence of life which has been brought about by God", then I would reply that that does not imply that God requires our worship - God would then be being described as a designer and not as an entity which presides over human affairs as asserted by religion, since an entity which causes another entity or entities to come into being (ie, a designer) need not "watch over" their creation. To use an analogy, a clockmaker does not need to watch his/her clock after it has been made.

Side Point: 4) The use of religious scripture as support for verifying the true beliefs and cultural sentiments of one's religion should be done so with extreme caution. For example, let's examine the history of the translation of the Bible widely used in America - the Revised Standard Version:

- The first stories of the Old Testament are written down in ancient Hebrew in the Pentateuch, approximately around 450 BCE - all of which are written by a community of Hebrew writers.

- A cooperative effort of 72 Hebrew scribes compile the original Old Testament stories into the Septuagint, written in Koine Greek around 250 BCE. (Additional point: the Septuagint is written in Alexandria, not in Mesopotamia as was the Pentateuch.)

- From 50 to 100 CE, many independent writers in the Mediterranean write accounts of the life of Jesus Christ; one of them, Marcion of Sinope, is the first in history to propose what is canonical in Christian scripture. The texts are written almost entirely in Koine Greek.


-In 367CE in Alexandria, Bishop Athanasius proclaims only 27 books should be stated to be officially apart of the New Testament, which are the same 27 books used today.

- St.Jerome writes the Latin Vulgate Bible, using both Greek and Hebrew sources, in 405 CE.

- Relying entirely upon the Latin Vulgate Bible, Nicholas of Hereford produces the first Middle English version of the Bible in 1382 CE, introducing the phrases "woe is me", "an eye for an eye", and "humanity".

- William Tyndale produces in London a vernacular version of the New Testament in 1525 CE, extensively using the works of Erasmus who compiled the first printed Greek New Testament in 1516 CE. (Erasmus used both Greek and Latin Vulgate texts, and he also added his own annotations to the text.)

- In 1611 CE, King James I of England orders 47 Biblical scholars to compile a new edition of the Bible for the Church of England, relying both on the works of Erasmus and Tyndale.

- 20 American universities participate in 1952 CE in compiling the Revised Standard Version, which uses both the King James Bible and the vernacular edition of Tyndale.


Thus the Revised Standard Version has been translated from ancient Hebrew to Koine Greek to Latin to Middle English to Modern English, and has been subject to several independent translators and communities of Biblical scholars. All of this, and we haven't even mentioned the revisions made under the reign of the Late Roman Emperor Constantine the Great! Great Scott!


I believe we can all conclude here that there are, based on the above observations, very good reasons for everyone to be skeptical of religion - claims to the possession of the ability of "knowing god personally" included.

As far as the version of the scriptures is concerned, oldest manuscripts is not always best. The KJV is the best version as explained here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qE9SUOOV_kI. This short video takes you through the history of the Bible.

God Himself says there is one God. 44 passages which say that here http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-...ty-one-god.htm .
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Exo 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Exo 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." This is why there is one God. He does care how he his worshipped. He gave extensive commandments how th Old Testament church was to worship Him as well as the New Testament church.

As for the existence of God, before the world was created 6000 or so years ago, there was no time. Just as when God comes back there will be time no longer, there was no time before creation. God just was. He says He is the I am. God says there is no need to prove is existence. "buthe answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: Matt 12:39.
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good." Psalm 53:1
Another place is Psalm 92.
I can show evidence of the Bible, but I will not attempt to prove God's existence any more than what He has done. I cannot do better than Him.

The reason humanity exists is to glorify God. There are billions of stars and things are happening in space that most of us have no idea that they are happening. All this is for God's glory. God knows everything about is creation. He has given names to all the stars. He knows the very hairs of our head. But when Jesus was on the earth, He spoke about salvation which is much more important than creation. If humanity had no purpose, what business do we have trying to stop people from committing suicide?

Wow this thread should be put in the MacInsiders hall of fame, I've seriously learnt alot in the past few days! I say that having never witnessed a civil religious debate thread, the only ones I have were on 4chan /b/

Originally Posted by huzaifa47

having never witnessed a civil religious debate thread, the only ones I have were on 4chan /b/

Comparing MI to 4chan is like comparing doctors to people with down syndrome.

lies. >5years or a new***.

Originally Posted by Ryan V

God Himself says there is one God...

As for the existence of God, before the world was created 6000 or so years ago, there was no time... God just was. He says He is the I am. God says there is no need to prove is existence.

I can show evidence of the Bible, but I will not attempt to prove God's existence any more than what He has done. I cannot do better than Him.

Alright, instead of going off on a huge discussion of the metaphysics of your claims, I will say just one thing;

Your entire argument for God's existence PRESUPPOSES that God already exists. This is known in philosophy as 'begging the question,' more commonly called 'arguing in a circle.'

In layman's terms, you have provided NO evidence; you have proven nothing. You haven't even supported anything.

I'm sure you can see that the logic (or lack of it, no offense intended) in your last post is unacceptable in a debate like this. If you're going to argue for God's existence, you need to give historical/ physical/ scientific evidence (and more than just the Bible, which is not admissible as an unbiased source), not just say "He is because I said so!" (again, no offense).

Shmowen's post is a good example of the use of empirical data to support a claim, I think we should all take a leaf from his book in this debate.

Originally Posted by andrew22

everyone onmacinsiders taht matters is a btard anyways

It's true. -takes a long deserved bow-

Comparing MI to 4chan is like comparing doctors to people with down syndrome.

****ING MADE ME LOL SO HARD.

Ok, so I skipped the last three pages, but I've kept up with everything else. Just wanted to give my thoughts on the science versus religion thing.

While I'm not religious or follow any particular scripture, I think the more I learn about how our world and body functions, the more spiritual I become. I used to think it was all bully...but honestly our body works in such impressively intricate ways, to the point that if just ONE THING were missing we would not exist. I think that's absolutely amazing. Not sure if I think there's some higher power or what, but coincidence and luck leading to the the evolution of such an insanely beautiful capability to have life is...I feel like there could be something more.

But...I'm kinda one of those tree ppl that prescribes to the pocahontas view of life (everyliving thing has a spirit etc.)

tl;dr
Science has made me spiritual