501. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #75943 by BillySands on October 4, 2007 at 6:07 am

Hope Goldy doesn't mind me stepping in for a mo here. One major difference between OT and NT that I think JC brought up recently is the attitudes to the Sabbath. The OT says kill sabbath breakers, but Jesus says otherwise. The OT is also a book where deeds make you right with god, but the NT (at least most bits) claim that faith in Jesus is what makes you right with god.

The NT introduces Hell, but the OT talks of a Hades like place for all called sheol.

Those are just a few examples

502. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #75907 by BillySands on October 4, 2007 at 3:22 am

Irate_atheist,

That is one way of looking at it, but often the term gods is used to mean man made as in

Exodus 20:23 You shall most certainly not make alongside of me gods of silver, or gods of gold for yourselves.

Interestingly, the word for god in genesis 1 is plural (elohim) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim

El from which elohim is derived is part of a community of gods http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_%28god%29

Probably thee was a crossing over of myths between babylon and the jews, the epic of gilgamesh being a good example (some suggest the book of job originates there too) http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/floodorigins.html

503. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #75571 by BillySands on October 3, 2007 at 3:13 am

Hi Mark,
I dont think I have time today to deal with everything, and some we have already been over.
However, on the issue of jealousy, god says:

"You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God..." Exodus 20:4-5

The idea here is that he is not wanting that which he claims belongs to him (worship, service, obedience etc) given to other gods. This is much in the same way you would not want your wife giving undue devotion to other men.
God actually demands the death penalty for those who would entice you to follow other gods (Deut 13:6-8). I would say that was a negative form of jealousy in the selfish way that JC means

504. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #75242 by BillySands on October 2, 2007 at 5:57 am

Don't worry about it Mark, I learned some interesting stuff from the debate, so it wasn't a waste of time.

Billy

505. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #74918 by BillySands on October 1, 2007 at 5:57 am

Maybe a theologian could tell me God's favorite sexual position (presumably missionary). That knowledge would be about as useful as .... well as it gets with theology really.

506. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #74894 by BillySands on October 1, 2007 at 2:59 am

Who would have thought that Devolved would have his uses. Here is the agenda of CMI. note the presuppositions that the bible must be true. Therefore, facts must be distorted to fit their non evidence based prejudices http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/43/61/
I think Tommcc should encourage his son. If it is rebellion, that will just do his head in and stop him rebelling.
If he is just thinking with his little head as Dr Benway implies, I would point out that pre-marital sex is often looked on as a sin - who knows, he may even de-convert a christian :-) Seriously though, I would echo what J says. I do however think creationists ghave a more sinister agenda, so I would perhaps encourage him to try out other churches - especialy ones that are pro-evolution. It is better after all to be a good person (Creationists usually come accross as intolerant homophobes with a general contempt for anyone -even other christians- that disagree with them - check out ken ham's teachings)

507. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #74822 by BillySands on September 30, 2007 at 4:35 pm

Tommcc
That creationist leaflet just threw accusations, and as usual, gave no evidence. This is a fascinating link on molecular evolution - the book (i think any way - although I am a biochemist) is well written and is easy to follow for the non professional http://richarddawkins.net/article,232,The-Fact-of-Evolution,Sean-Carroll--NPR-Science-Friday

508. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #74816 by BillySands on September 30, 2007 at 4:08 pm

Gosh Tomcc,
Where to start?
The Dawkins quote is a clear attempt to confuse. It is very difficult to prove anything, so Dawkins is only being accutate, although the overwhelming evidence supports the idea. You may want to read this post http://richarddawkins.net/article,1685,Teacher-I-was-fired-said-Bible-isnt-literal,Megan-Hawkins-Des-Moines-Register#74805 concerning invisible elephants.

The wellcome trust have some information that may be of some use to you here http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/node5980.html

I would also read him genesis 1 and genesis 2, and note that it disagrees with itself on the order of creation (gen 1 - animals then people, gen 2 man, animals, then woman). There are other differences there too.

I think it is important to point out that Evolution is a theory - just like gravity, or atomic theory. A theory comes about by testing to see if it is true, and as more evidence is produced, and more testing takes place, the theory becomes stronger.

For example, you would predict for evolution to be true, dinosaur fossils will not be found with human fossils, and they are not. Some creationists lie and pretend there are some human foot prints with dinosaur prints, but careful examination of shape size and stride length show they are not human.
If evolution were true, we would find intermediate species at particular times in the fossil record. This is what we find. Acanthostega does not post date modern amphibians,or archaeoptrex predate modern birds etc. This is a good video (may be too technical for your child, but I'm sure you could use what it says to point out what is wrong with ID) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

(the guy giving the talk is actually a catholic)

Intelligent design has never been tested. There is not one published article on it in a proper scientific journal. no one has ever seen god etc.

Its midnight here, but if you have any more questions I'll try and deal with them tomorrow.

509. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74809 by BillySands on September 30, 2007 at 3:19 pm

Interesting observations Dr Benway. I noticed some interesting language earlier.

I accept fully that at times I am sarcastic, mocking and not the best advert for Christianity.

.
Note there is no actual apology, and there is a denial of personal responsibility.

all of which has nothing to do with the subject but all of which is intended to belittle and used as a kind of ad hominem. Foolishly I try and reply to some of them – and sometimes in kind – with the result that it shoots all over the place.

This is a typical one - if you challenge my point of view, you are apparently throwing accusations at him. There is also an acknowledgement of hs faults here, but no apology and he is trying to shift the blame on to others "they made me do it". It doesn't even enter his head that he could be wrong

510. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74723 by BillySands on September 30, 2007 at 6:06 am

I'm with Pewkatchoo, I believe in calling a spade a spade and a liar a liar. Robertson has long lost my respect with his disgraceful tactics and general idiocy. I have no problem letting him know that. Despite his protestations, he does have power. He gets to write some paranoid anti atheist propaganda for the scottish parliament's news letter. I may have a copy somewhere if someone wants a copy, PM me (if I can find it I'll email it).

Anyone notice that he hasn't apologised about misquoting Dawkins in the times. We demand a retraction as well to show that he means it (if he ever gives one)

V
I do plan a trip to Dundee soon to see an atheist friend who is built like Arnold Schwarchenegger, so you never know :-)

EDIT: from the article: "One of the reasons Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion" has proved to be so popular, is that it is a polemicthat appeals to the prejudices and attitudes of much of modern society, one of which is that any public expression of religion is a threat to the body politic."

511. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74718 by BillySands on September 30, 2007 at 5:56 am

From the link by SG

But what about Darwin's argument? He makes one big mistake – he assumes that the world as it is now is the world as God created it. But that is not the case.

Now if a science teacher said that he should be fired. Does wee fannypad really think there were no eathquakes, volcanoes or meteor impacts before man. I wonder what he makes of examples close to home, like the moine thrust, arthurs' seat, ardnamurchan, graded sediments near aberfoyle. What about further afield like chixulub the deccan traps, the african rift valley or the Andean orogeny?

And this guy was talking to some peh* eating fundies on sciene on friday.

Like quetz says, he lies about people not debating. I remember trying to engage him several times on the issue of paleopathology and just got insulted for my trouble.
Mind you, when pressed on the issue of earthquakes and sin, he avoids facts by changing from his certainty above to I dont know? I dont think he knows if he knows or not - or perhaps he is realising (slowly) how stupid his views are http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,300,Dawkins-Delusion-3rd-article-Same-Stupid-Title,David-Robertson,page6#12171

*peh (pie) is the staple diet of dundonians- along with marmalade.

512. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74710 by BillySands on September 30, 2007 at 4:37 am

How disgusting was that cheap shot by flea concerning the baby? What kind of person would use such a tragedy to make a cheap shot and lie about atheists?


Religion cheapens life, not atheism. I remember going round the armoury section of the Kelvingrove museum recently, and there is a quote from a crusader's creed, which says something like "give no explanation to the infidel other than 6 inches of steel in his bowels"

J I think you have been light on him, but you are a better example of fairness and respect than he could possibly be, so dont let him make you think you are being unduly hostile. You have handled the wee shit very well.

Anyone else laugh at his proof of the invisible elephant. In case he is reading, most elephants are not invisible, so why do you attribute other normal elephant attributes to it?
I feel a random (and justified) expression of contempt for this wilfull liar comming on - Dicksplat!

btw anyone else remember this attempt to use a human tragedy to try and have a go at the object of his obsession?
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1326,God-Hates-the-World,Westboro-Baptist-Church#51894

513. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74518 by BillySands on September 29, 2007 at 8:14 am

Just as we suspected, it wasn't a mentally balanced audience as david implied by by omission

Wouldnt be a talk to the Christian Union would it by any chance, given in this events page:

http://www.dundeecu.co.uk/events.html

In the language of Batman ZAP! THWOK! KA-POW!

Russell
If god didn't actually create the earth in 6 days, if he didn't actually send the flood, or take the hebrews out of Egypt, if he didn't actually make the walls of jericho fall* or actually sweep Elijah up to heaven, then what did he do? If the claim is that all this is just a "moral story" then that really is a problem for theists. If he didn't actually do any of this, then what reason could there be to believe he i real.
I find it amusing that the more "interpretive" believers claim they are metaphors and god doesn't interact with nature. If so, then how did he "inspire" their stories - this limits god to the imagination of people

*actually, there was no wall at the time

514. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74514 by BillySands on September 29, 2007 at 8:01 am

So I didn't misquote you. However, you fabricated a quote about Dawkins in your letter in The Times, didn't you? And you don't even have the integrity to admit to it, despite being caught red handed. Why did you lie about Dawkins? In order to try to discredit him? Do you think that is an acceptable tactic for a Christian to use?

The false god of the bible says this:

Mark 10;19 "You know the commandments: Never murder. Never commit adultery. Never steal. Never give false testimony. Never cheat. Honor your father and mother."


Prov: 19:5 " A false witness will not go unpunished,and he who breathes out lies will not escape."

prov 19:9 "A false witness will not go unpunished,
and he who breathes out lies will perish."


David, why do we atheists know more about how christians are required to behave than you do?

You do it all the time - every time you twist, misquote or blatantly lie

It wouldn't be quite so bad if you were sorry about it and tried to changed. Really disappointing behaviour

515. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74508 by BillySands on September 29, 2007 at 7:41 am

J
One of the definitions of a fundie that david likes to keep pointing out is someone who refuses to listen or consider someone else's point. Everyone can see that in David. Presumably he cant because being an ugly MF, all his mirrors are broken.
For what it's worth, although it's been a thankless task for you, i dont think of it as a waste of your time. I'm sure you have helped many on the path to enlightenment - hopefully some in david's own church - ooh, that's got to hurt - probably why he censors everything.
I've helped a member of the wee free's start to overcome their delusion in that past - it was a joyous experience - that one lost sheep is worth the effort.

It is very disapointing when you discover someone is not treating the debate with respect. The atheists put in the most work and david's and devolveds just sneet and insist they have a personal invisible elephant.

It only took three exchanges for me to work out he is a fundie and a dick. You have been a better example of respect, tolerance and rationality than this follower of the so called god of love - I love it when atheists show up the hypocrites!

516. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74499 by BillySands on September 29, 2007 at 6:56 am

Has someone farted? Oh no, it's just wee fleas post, as usual it stinks.

I'll ask him and see what he says

Don't expect an answer. Love the way you try and twist Nothern bright's point and think yourself so clever - Padded ambulance for Robertson!

DISPROVE THE ELEPHANT! I see you miss the point about it. Were these students bigoted wee free homopobic yec pope is the antichrist jail nelson mandel type fundies like yourself? I'm sure you were incredibly liberal with the truth too.

Perhaps, and i know this is a big ask of you, you could provide proof of the supernatural, or why you thing it is reasonable to believe in it and not fairies - wont hold my breath reverend retard.

By the way, hear the one about the christian president and PM that killed muslim civilians because god said so - Muppet!

517. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74195 by BillySands on September 27, 2007 at 3:55 pm

J

Nice to see Quetz has resurrected you on the other thread. One more incarnation and you could form a trinity. It was nice to see Revcort have a change of position, although I dont see him deconverting. If only Wee troll had the balls to be that honest. Anyway,

Always nice, if you can manage it, to misquote Hamlet.

And I thought it was just athiests that he misquoted.

There is an alternative discussion with David that appears frequently too

David: "typical atheist fundies adhereing to your creed - you cant accept the supernatural because of your irrational pre suppositions"

Us: "Explanation of reason, evidence, open mindedness, willingness to discuss.

David: "Random personal insult, I have proof, You are deluded by your faith - banana, wibble, more personal insults - a few lies thrown in".

Us: "really David? please tell us this proof so that our souls can be saved if we are wrong".

David: "you are all fundies, it will be wasted on you. I'm off to whack off in my tool shed - erm, I mean, I'm off to the netherlands for a few weeks - erm, you're all ignorant, bigoted fundies ...."

Now David can cut and paste these at Will, afterall, he never changes it

Robert s
I would include mathematics as a science. What do you think of the role of mathematics in physics? There is a great deal of truth in what you say though. Atomic theory was the result of compelling and increasingly self supporting evidence. These days though, we can "see" atoms

http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/whittle/astr124/matter/atom_lattice.html

518. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74159 by BillySands on September 27, 2007 at 1:39 pm

Thanks for that Nothern bright, I remember reading some of them before on his troll thread. You have to laugh at the hypocricy of some of those comments - as well as their intelletual illiteracy. The one that made me laugh out loud was the one about the ot god being wonderful and concerned for people - tell it to Egypts first bor (exodus 11) for example, You have to worry about the mental health of someone who believes in that.
The biblical christianity being tolerant was also a howler. Tell that to the Phelps's. Did you know the Rack was developed by the inquisitors based on numbers 9:12? - something to do with not breaking bones. Biblicist also claim this is a crucifixion prophecy that jesus would not have his bones broken on the cross - dream on boys!

Really love the fact that SG can produce all these embarrassing wee free facts, it really makes me laugh that David thinks he is morally superior

519. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74096 by BillySands on September 27, 2007 at 8:14 am

J

I much prefer Luca Signorelli's depiction of hell- lots of nude chicks :-)http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=9382&rendTypeId=4
Don't fancy seeing Mary whitehouse in the Scud - oooh

520. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74088 by BillySands on September 27, 2007 at 7:42 am

SG,
Sounds like Dave Allan, hope they re run him soon.

There was a similar blackadder scene when Edmund is made archbishop to steal land from the crow from dying noble men

521. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74086 by BillySands on September 27, 2007 at 7:38 am

could have only wished for that in my case. As I struggled with my faith, God didn't show up. I didn't hear his voice. I didn't see him. I didn't sense him. He didn't send anybody along with a direct message about me . The bible brought no relief or answers either. I felt nothing of God. His absence became a great disappointment. I was left only with my own mind to sort things out and come to the realizations that I have.

I'll second that! I also found that you started believing god's absence was because you did something wrong. I really hope Revcort can get himself out of this type of negative thinking - life's too short to waste feeling bad because of the most important "relationship" in your life. If god were a person, you would have broken up long before it got to that stage.

Wooooo J is speaking through Quetz

522. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74084 by BillySands on September 27, 2007 at 7:29 am

SG,

The headline that came to mind was "Appearing at a village hall near you"

It's not like he's filling Hampden or Murrayfield. I might go to the one at Edinburgh U. I'm told he chose that location because he was looking for someone to debate, and the university would make it sound like a creationism debate was something that had scientific credibility. I dont know if anyone has stepped forward.

"Shine Jesus shine" ooohhh shudder, the thought of a bunch of spaced out fundies getting up at 7 am and singing this with their arms raised and led by Cliff Richard makes me want to go to hell

523. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74077 by BillySands on September 27, 2007 at 7:02 am

Was that the lovely Ken Ham in Dowanvale Free Church by any chance?

It certainly was, and there were some scary fundies there. John mckay is doing the rounds too. He may appear somewhere near you http://www.amen.org.uk/cr/where/itinerary.pdf

I cant imagine the wee frees distancing themselves - not if all their priests are like Robertson (or the crazies at Hams talk)

524. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74054 by BillySands on September 27, 2007 at 6:02 am

Richard Morgan
Flea and his followers go to great lengths to condemn anyone who inserts objects in their anii - especially if pleasure is gained from the experience. I even attended a wee free service recently where the "esteemed" invited speaker read out poems saying how evil such peopleare - isn't that right flea?

525. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74038 by BillySands on September 27, 2007 at 5:39 am

Nothern Bright,
I remember posting some of his comments on his own site, and he couldn't delete them fast enough. After the third time I reposted it, he threatened to ban me. He really is dishonest.
I've been thinking, he has clearly judged us and condemned us to hell in his mind. Surely that's blasphemy. The bible says that only god can look into your heart, and only god can judge - I remember a blasphemous carpenter getting nailed to a tree for something similar.
I think its nice we give him some attention, it helps fill the relational void in his life that he needs to fill with an invisible friend.

526. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74014 by BillySands on September 27, 2007 at 4:42 am

SO handy for dropping into future books and articles, aren't they?

In a way I kind of hope he does. Imagine the backlash when people actually see how he has been acting. Then we can show the quotes and misrepresentations in context. Hell, who knows, there may even be a libel suit or two in it.

527. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74010 by BillySands on September 27, 2007 at 4:38 am

Brother John,
Thanks for your summary. I think most agree that treating other well is a good think, but it is not a specifically christian thing. Confusious for example saod (500 years before christianity) "force not on others that which you would not choose for your self".
I also think moral values are relative and depend on context; as evidenced by history. I believe that evolution is the source of our moral behaviour. Have you seen this thread on monkeys with a sense of justice? http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,1676,Monkeys-show-sense-of-justice,Dr-David-Whitehouse-BBC

528. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74009 by BillySands on September 27, 2007 at 4:28 am

These pretend-religion bits?

Let's face it, it's impossible to tell the difference with real and pretend religion.
I think Hobbit needs the comfy chair
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnS49c9KZw8

529. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74007 by BillySands on September 27, 2007 at 4:24 am

What's wrong with Steve's post?

530. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73994 by BillySands on September 27, 2007 at 3:27 am

Pewkatchoo,

I think his medicine needs to be administered rectally, using a rolled up bible as an applicator.
Shame he has a problem with sticking things up his bum

531. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73984 by BillySands on September 27, 2007 at 2:40 am

When you can't cope with the argument change it and then hit them really low - 'you can't really be a Christian because you're not nice and you don't fight fair!'

Touch a nerve did she :-) Gosh, that has been your entire strategy here. I love the way you are so unrepentant about your bad behaviour too - a real advert that jesus transforms character - he would be so proud - Not!

Maybe some wet weekend when I have the flu, Iill collect all davids abusive posts and post then in a single thread - you know, the ones he doesn't like his mindless sheep seeing

But I can guarantee it will in no way be considered proof by the fridge elephant atheists!

Elephants are gods? I see you are too scared to give your proof here then. Do you honestly believe that an elephant could Be in your fridge? Elephants arent normally invisible, so what qualities have you arbitralily given this elephant in your fridge, and the justification for them?

PS Coel - please don't attribute quotes to me that I did not use.

What? like "Religion is a virus and must be eradicated" - Allegedly said by RD - but we all know he didn't say that,, and you are a deliberate liar.
Are you still fuelling religious hatred by proclaiming that the pope is the antichrist? Of course you are you little lying priest. People like you are the real disease - feel free to misquote that as you usually do, and say I said all religios people are bigots.

Shouldn't you be off poisining young minds against atheists?

532. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73921 by BillySands on September 26, 2007 at 2:55 pm

Captain underpants,

That has been going on in a few places - You could argue that the catholic position on condoms is a violation of the commandment concerning murder. Personally, I think it is just evil - another example of jesus being one of the worst things inflicted on humanity

533. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73916 by BillySands on September 26, 2007 at 2:50 pm

J
dont listen to him, you dont have a choice: Rom 9"14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden"

534. Critical Analysis of Case for a Creator

Comment #73910 by BillySands on September 26, 2007 at 2:42 pm

Ewan D

Is this any use? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis

535. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73901 by BillySands on September 26, 2007 at 2:18 pm

Bugger me, and Quetz just appeared, confirming his omniscience - PRAAAIIISSSEE BE, My tea breweth for ever

bonsai its here http://richarddawkins.net/goodBadUgly

536. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73899 by BillySands on September 26, 2007 at 2:16 pm

oh no, revcort has made nothern bright sin Matt 18 "6But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."

That verse wasn't wasted after all. Praise Quetz - my first prophecy :-)

537. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73896 by BillySands on September 26, 2007 at 2:13 pm

gr8hands

Damn this interpretation business, it's so unreliable! I'll blame it on the fact that I was cooking my dinner at the time :-)

538. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73890 by BillySands on September 26, 2007 at 2:08 pm

Ah, good old hebrews 6 - the cause of much fear and anguish for so many believers - I once worried about it myself.

Who would it benefit for revcort to point this verse out to? 1 none of us believe it and 2 if god were real and we had commited it, what good would it do to tell us so?

Fear is good for keeping the believer believing, but does nothing for your quality of life

539. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73885 by BillySands on September 26, 2007 at 1:43 pm

Billy - what shall we do, what does the bible say?

Well, CHeard could try and restore him gently to his fold Galatians 6:1 "Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted."

Although, if someone speaks falsly on behalf of the truth, them must be killed deut 13 :5 "That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you."

If the bible has taught us anything (and it hasn't) itsays that when in doubt, KILL - (in love, not in venom) And let god get all T.D. Torquemada on his ass in hell: Hebrews 10 "29 How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge his people." 31It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."

Verily, the lord does not like people who make others sin/disbelieve by telling lies about 6 day creationism Matt 18 "6But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."
So, to sumarise, the bible says either help them or kill them. Being the noninspired incoherent book it is you can choose which verse best suits your personal agenda, and feel justified by god. It seems revcort and Cheard are believers separated by a common book - although I'd happily have a pint with Cheard. I may have to call the police to check out the rev though.

We atheists are free from such dilemas - we employ the mental health act on the rev and hope he gets beter

540. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73835 by BillySands on September 26, 2007 at 10:00 am

SRWB, weren't they visible? :-)

541. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73831 by BillySands on September 26, 2007 at 9:53 am

I CAN prove there is not an invisible elephant in my fridge.

Go on then, this we have got to see.

By the way, does Elvis talk to you?

I would think that any "laws" he gave would be valid forever, wouldn't they? Or does he issue memos clarifying new procedures and interpretations of existing rules periodically?

Not only that, but Jesus says in matt 5:17 ""Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. "

Furthermore, Wee flea claims to believe in moral absolutes - I think he is losing it.

Dave's world, Dave's world. Party time Excellent!

542. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73821 by BillySands on September 26, 2007 at 9:18 am

I guess you should keep trying to prove He doesn't exist- either that or seek Him to find out whether He does exist.

Interesting, I was't aware that 1 we try to disprove god's existence, or 2 that there was a burden of proof to show that something that has no evidence backing up its claim of existence had to be disproved.

Anyone here ever actually sought god then and found him to not be there? Quetz? Nothern bright? J? 0h, wait a mo, we all have.

Pascals wager eh? How unbiblical is that? belief for selfish motives - What if allah is real then? Revcort better pray that he isnt.

543. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73818 by BillySands on September 26, 2007 at 9:08 am

Flea bag

Presupposition? No. We dont believe in the supernatural because there is no evidence for it. Give us some and we will change our minds. You are the sad one with the presuppositions not based on a shred of evidence.

By the way, those nasty laws you dismiss, lets not forget that they were given by your god in the first place - regardless of context! Dont try and excuse god by saying slavery already existed. He gave so many laws about things that he didn't like, but seems to have no problem with Slavery. Ask yourself, word of "loving" god or word of a man with a vested interest in slavery?
Where does the bible condemn slavery? It doesn't! A god who gives a command to treat others like yourself has nothing to say against slavery - come on!

Oh and that bit about sabbath breaking and new covenants, Jesus broke the sabbath before the new covenant - No gold star for you, poor flea, must try harder!

Have you invited Ken Ham for your group of intellectually challenged fundies to read homophobic poems to then? He seems to like telling them, and the wee frees enjoyed listening to them.
I know you dont take the bible too seriously as a guide as to how to live your life, but you may want to read this "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank that is in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye" (Matthew 7:3-5).
Useful advice. Notice how people respond positively to CHeard, but dont think too much of you. I wonder why that could be? Perhaps your fundamentalism

544. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73797 by BillySands on September 26, 2007 at 8:07 am

At the risk of sounding nasty, I think that if the Bible said that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on the back of a giant six-legged purple elephant- Revcort would believe it.

Ah, there lies another error Matthew 21:7 And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon."
Was Jesus riding both at once?

545. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73784 by BillySands on September 26, 2007 at 7:32 am

gr8hands

I must confess, I've not been reading revcorts responses after he showed an inability to reason early on. Does he actually believe all translations are inerrant? even the ones where Micah 5:2 translates as village and not clan? of Isaiah 7:14 translated as young woman (eg NJB) and not virgin?
Here is my favorite concerning the greek translation of Genesis: Methuselah would have died 14 years after the Flood, for it tells us that Methuselah was 167 when his son Lamech was born, and Lamech was 188 when Noah was born, and Noah was 600 when the Flood came. Adding these together, we get 955 years from the birth of Methuselah to the Flood. Yet the Greek text agrees with the Hebrew text in saying that Methuselah lived 969 years.

Hmmm

546. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73741 by BillySands on September 26, 2007 at 3:50 am

I have to say that this smells of eschatology to me.

Smells of pish to me

547. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73598 by BillySands on September 25, 2007 at 12:12 pm

Captain Underpants

I'm sure he wont see it that way. Once he realises that is what it is, he can be cured

548. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #73596 by BillySands on September 25, 2007 at 11:58 am

It seems that in the absence of evidence from the rest of the posting team they resort to mudslinging and abuse.

Opsin genes? chromosome 2? you retard

Why am I not suprised that you ignore them?

Goldy Notice how devolved picks up on the word hypothesis, then in his own mind decides that is all it is - even though the authors say they have tested their hypothesis - what a goofball!

549. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73590 by BillySands on September 25, 2007 at 11:38 am

How do you manage to do that?

That's easy, you ignore it and live in denial

550. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73555 by BillySands on September 25, 2007 at 9:20 am

If you knew but a small fraction of basic theology then you would understand that part of what defines "God" as "God" is his self-existent nature.

Ah, I missed Biz. He needs to start following quetz.

And what is the foundation of theology? Where is the evidence that we should accept the bible? If you knew anything about logic, you would know you have to establish that god exists before you can start discussing what his favorite pudding is. The fact that you have given god a definition does not make him real. You just seem to think your definition should be accepted, and then discussion should follow from there.

What do you make of them chickens with teeth then?
Found any out of place dinosaur fossils?