1301. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #13945 by BillySands on December 20, 2006 at 8:17 am

I stil don't get this line of thinking that if we cant explain something, then god must have did it. All that does is show the limitations of human intellect.
Theists. I have been trying in vain to get david robertson to tell me the evidence that god exists outside of space and time. Does anyone here want to provide their evidence for this. There is no rush, some of you have other people to answer first. That is a credit to you. If only DR were the same:-(

1302. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13912 by BillySands on December 20, 2006 at 3:41 am

And one final thing for now, snow flakes look designed. Are they?

1303. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13911 by BillySands on December 20, 2006 at 3:37 am

David, still waiting for those verses on god existing outside space and time. Did you see the 2 headed lizard I posted earlier?
Has everyone seen the merry mithras link yet. You know David, the god that pre-dates jesus, was a saviour born of a virgin in a stable, who was killed and rose again, and whos followers commemmorated him by eating bread and drinking wine.
David, You claim there is a god out of ignorance. We say there is none through fact. We say yours definately doesnt exist because the bible is so useless at everything, and you ripped off mithras, dionysis, Horace, El, Enki etc

1304. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13910 by BillySands on December 20, 2006 at 3:25 am

Whoa, martin's on a roll,
David, how exactly did you defend that program? Is insulting atheists defense?
Actually, by ignoring me, you are proving jesus wrong (something about judges and persistance?) oh well, no suprise there. Carry on ignoring me and I WILL come on your site and I WILL make believers doubt, Your call (unless of course you want to ban me).
You do a good job of turning people away from faith here. I hope you have been measured up for your mill stone.
Mark 9:42 "Whoever will cause one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for him if he was thrown into the sea with a millstone hung around his neck."
Keep up the good work

1305. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13901 by BillySands on December 20, 2006 at 2:37 am

David, in reference to your comment that the bible claims that death and disease are a result of mankinds sin, have you seen todays metro? It has a picture of a two headed (abnormal) reptile that predates man. Unfortunately the link does not show the fossil. It is in the paper version though, if you can get hold of it. http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=30060&in_page_id=2
How do you reconcile this FACT with the mythology of the holey babble?

1306. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #13900 by BillySands on December 20, 2006 at 2:32 am

Hi Mark, the bible does both support and deny the trinity, and I guess it boils down to which onw you want to believe. I would agree more with your point though, simply because the main trinitarian verse in the bible is a late addittion (which doesn't bode well for general reliability of it) my point was Isaiah says thee is only one god. The word elohiym is plural. There is a whole sumerian mythology behind this and I think the jews just happened to pick this one. Anyway, the prophecy is more important.
On a different note, there have been some discussions about how disease etc only came into the world after the man sinned. I pointed out that this is not so, because there is evidence of predation, pathology, volcanic disasters, unhatched eggs and fossil parasites. I found this interesting article today, of a two headed (abnormal) reptile that predates man. Unfortunately the link does not show the fossil. It is in the paper version though, if anyone can get hold of it. http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=30060&in_page_id=2

1307. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13839 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 4:27 pm

just realised, david will say that what he actually said means something different in Dundonian. Good job I lived in St Andrews for a few years and can translate Dundonian accurately :-)

1308. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #13837 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 4:15 pm

Brian, now that you have eplained how to do bold (not that I can DOH!) I now ralise that you are not god, but brian of the gaps :-)

Mark, I don't see hoe you can possibly link deut 28 to rome. You no doubt believe that was written before the alledged conquest of canan, I know the bible mentions many of these things happening elswhere, so, what has it got to do with rome? Also after the alledged taking of jericho, the israelites disobeyed god and were defeated at Ai, but god did none of these things to the people. He told them to stome Achans' family and helped them defeat Ai (josh 6-7). This seems a little inconsistant.
I also have to disagree with Isaiah 43:10-12. The bible actually mentions that there are other gods eg pslm 97:7 "oh worship him all ye gods" Psalm 82:1 "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty, he judgeth among the gods." and "22:28 Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people" to name a few. Also, the genesis narrative where god says let us? etc eg 1:26;11:7. The hebrew word here is actually plural (elohiym http://bible.cc/genesis/1-1.htm).

1309. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13829 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 3:00 pm

Hi Fedler,

If you want a proper discussion with some theists, try this thread. http://richarddawkins.net/article,323,The-God-of-the-Bible-is-No-Delusion,Christadelphianorg#13824
Shaun in particular seems a nice guy, although he is wrong :-). He will give you some answers, although I disagree with them.

1310. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13825 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 2:42 pm

Momo, I dont know what you know about the free church, but they certainly don't like freedom. They chain up swings on a sunday to prevent children playing on them, and want to ban ferries etc on a sunday too. I even know some folk who were kicked out of a B&B run by some "wee frees" for watching television on a sunday.

NJS where do they get their ideas from? I am not an atheist through Darwin. There are plenty of reasons to be an atheist. Darwin did however provide the framework to understand all life, from biodiversity to behaviour and morality. It makes sese of atheism, but is not the foundation of it- Muppets!

1311. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13823 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 2:23 pm

Too true Martin. I certainly wont ban him. he would probably like that anyway. I'm half tempted to go on his site and see how long it is till they ban me (and I will be polite)
Merry mithras dude

1312. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #13821 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 2:20 pm

Hi Shaun,
A couple of problems here. The first is more speculative, and that is that verse 10 sounds very much like the babylonian exile, and this is backed up by verse 8 makes it clear there is no royal line (That would be hard to restore since god cursed the royal line with jehoaikim (Jer 36:30 as mentioned earlier, contradicted in 2 kings 24:6)
The second and the one I would put most weight on is that Micah 5:6 says "he will rescue us from the Assyrians" the only he can be the he of 5:2. It can't be jesus.
Other problems I have pointed out include the fact that Bethelehem may be a person, one who does not appear in either of jesus' genealogies.
I notice another problem too. You start micah 5 with now mobilise. This links it to chapter 4 as a continuous narrative. However not every translation does this (eg NIV and NLT). However, I still think the context of this verse rules out jesus as you kind of admit (at least I think you do). The Assyrians are fatal to your interpretation. If you think this part was fulfilled, then micah 5:6 talks of this person apointing people to rule Assyria, that never happened.

1313. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13811 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 1:56 pm

Fedler, taken from davids comment no 65 "Firstly I will prolong any discussion which consists primarily of abuse, anger and aggression."

I'm sure he is trolling, and that's not very nice.

1314. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #13806 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 1:47 pm

Hi Shaun,
I'm affraid that we dont recognise the bible as evidence, althoug I realise it is the source of your views, so that make discussion a bout morals dificult. One thing your answer does not address is disease. God could prevent that. How is that a consequence of free will? how is a woman in her 40s giving birth to a child with an extra 21st chromosome not preventable? It doesn't make sense. Take your time answering, you have a bit to get through.

Billy

1315. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13802 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 1:37 pm

david, what is your evidence that god exists outside space and time as you claim in your article? I can think of no bible verse that says that. I suspect that there isn't one and that there aren't any that strongly imply it.

1316. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13798 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 1:31 pm

"Thing that gets me is that even if it could be proved beyond doubt that the universe came into being because of some space man designer entity, the religious still would not accept it because they want the answer to be THEIR GOD."

Excellent point paul. one thing that always gets me is that christians tell us their god wants us to believe in him. So where the hell is he? where is that evidence? where is the apparition or the booming voice from the sky or the birthday card? I never really thought about it before, but the logic of a child disproves god!

1317. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13763 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 10:32 am

Hi Evolved, [David A Robertson] has a thread here http://richarddawkins.net/article,300,Dawkins-Delusion-3rd-article-Same-Stupid-Title,David-Robertson#13760.
He is publishing weekly (or weakly) "rebuttals" of TGD here http://www.freechurch.org/issues/issues.htm

Have fun my brother in reason

1318. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13760 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 10:06 am

I too wish DR would just discuss the challenges, but I can happilly do ad hominem and challenge at the same time if that is the way it has to be. David, why are you so confrontational? Very few people here have been rude to you from the start. I was polite until you said I was on pills and had half baked ideas. that was a red rag considering how much I tried to keep my faith. I am holding a respectful discussion on the christadelphian thread. Why are you unable to do so? You keep popping up on various threads with the intention of winding people up. Not a nice thing to do really. I'm sure if jesus was real, he would not be proud of you. Is this the way you want others to treat you? Consider this a biblical rebuke. If I were still a christian, that is exactly what I would have said to you (some of my christian colleagues think you are a bad example. Did jesus wind up non believers? was paul a jew to the jews and a gentile to the gentiles? Grow up david and practice what others preach about your jesus. At least that way, we may get some of our challenges answered, most of which come from your articles.
My theory is that when something seriously challenges you, like paleopathology or interpretation of verses, you ignore it or result to ad hominem.

1319. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #13753 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 9:34 am

Theo, josephus was a jew who subscribed to judaeism, not jesus. Read the link I posted.

The antiqities 18:3:2-4 2. "But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews (8) were not pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.

3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

4. About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder....."

Verse 4 makes no sense. What other sad calamity? was the christ coming a sad calamity? take out the jesus verse and it makes sense
"2. But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews (8) were not pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.

4. About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder....."

It is obviously an insertion.
Full text here if you are interested http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-18.htm

The thessalonians passage is referring only to prophecy "Do not stifle the holy spirit, do not scoff at prophecy, but test every thing that is sais, and hold on to what is good". I think the instruction is clearly about prophecy. However, I think there are more important points than that, Like why did the early church invent the testimony of Josephus?

1320. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13744 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 9:14 am

Oh the retarded lying hypoctite is here. Dont we just love the superiour jesus like qualities of david.
We have no religion as you like to imply. Show me a fossil human with a T.rex and I will discard evolution. There is a big difference between us and you. We change with evidence. You are getting the intellectual shit kicked out of you on your own site and still you believe in your magic friend whom you have never seen or had a conversation with. I've foun the perfect church for you. It's not that far from you in a place called Twatt http://www.hootsmon.com/archive/060104.html.

May your family become atheists

1321. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #13738 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 8:54 am

Hi NLHB,
The bible is so lacking as a moral guide, and look at the problems it causes, like HIV transmission in africa or the imperialistic policies in palestine etc. The most immoral and manipulative people I know are christians (I know some gems too). The problem with the former group is that they think what they do does not matter, god will forgive them and thats that. I am more aware now than ever that if I hurt someone, then I should do my best to fix that, and not lie to myself that god has forgiven ME, so it is OK. One of those bastards did something bad to me. I still live with the consequences, but they think they are forgiven. At least the last person I hurt, I swallowed my pride and did what I could to fix it. grrr, the claim that christians are more moral makes me mad, but that's just a personal rant.

There are some folk that reason will never shift. one of my best friends is one. It's quite funny, I was involved in his conversion. He is honest about what faith is (lack of evidence) and he usually thanks me for teaching him about what it means to live by faith, and I thank him for showing me that I'm right.
There are plenty of people out there who will swing either way, and I want to reach those here, as I'm sure the christians do too.

1322. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13735 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 8:34 am

hey david, who does mithras remind you of?
http://richarddawkins.net/article,441,Merry-Mithras,QI-BBC2#13731

1323. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #13729 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 8:17 am

shaun said "The atheist views the same facts with the philosophical view that God does not exist, and so comes to a different conclusion."
This is a broad overgeneralisation. I personally found the facts against the bible compelling when I was a christian. I have now read the links you posted. There are certainly bits in them that contradict the bible eg "This inscription can be interpreted as supplementing and corroborating the history of King Mesha recorded in 2 Kings 3:4-27, thereby earning it a prominent place in the corpus of Biblical archaeology. However there are significant differences. In the Bible it is Ahab, Omri's son, who conquers Moab, and the rebellion is against Ahab's son Jehoram. Further, in the Bible, it is not Chemosh who gives victory to Mesha but Jahweh who gives victory to Jehoram. Israel withdraws, according to the Book of Kings, only because they are disconcerted when they see Mesha sacrifice his son." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesha_Stele, so it actually gives a different story to the bible. As far as I am aware, there are no suviving jewish autographs or tablets from the time.

Goddogit. How can people make their own mind up if the facts are not presented. This does deconvert people. I don't know why you are an atheist, bu I became one through reason. I don't consider this to be a waste of time. The theists here are generally polite and respectfull too. If it was David Robertson though, that would be a different matter

1324. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13684 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 5:10 am

Ole, I seem to remember him saying that atheist countries have an appauling record. Norway, so I'm lead to believe is pretty secular (is that true?), but has a low murder rate. Japan, another seccular nation also has a low murder rate. Compare that with USA and Uganda.

1325. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13679 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 4:51 am

Amongst other things, I didn't like the way that he claimed darwinism will be superceeded. The guy they got in was still saying that evolution happened. Things like this is probably where fundies get their disinformation from.

1326. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #13668 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 4:13 am

Shaun and Theo, I was in a rush earlier, so I hope you dont think my tone was rude earlier. Shaun, I'm sure some of the bible is historically accurate, but you didn't tackle any of the serious flaws. In the early days of biblical archaeology, the emphasis was to confirm the bible. Now, more archaeologists look at the evidnce and ask what does this tell us. The philistine cities and the Moabite state did not exist in the time of the poentateuch narratives. It is therefore logical to conclude that they are not accurate. Since god is involved it is not likely that he exists either. Present me with strong evidence that the phillistine cities existed then and I will accept that. Present
me with strong evidence of the flood and I will accept that. It will have to be stunning though. The geological record amongst other things excludes it. I would like to know why you think the bible accurately resembles nature. From what I can see the bible states that a flat earth was created in 6 days 6002 years ago, before the sun, which goes around it. Life was created (gen 1 and 2 give differing accounts of the specifics), within a (very) few generations there were cities and a global flood. There is also water above the earth and the stars are small. Do you see my problem?
THEO, there are many biblicists, some on this site disagree with you. however the verse from thessalonians if you read it in full is actually about prophecy. Although, for me, looking at prophecies in their original contexts tend to disprove them. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/fabulous-prophecies.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/prophecy.html
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/messianic.htmlhttp://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/bepart16.html#ref1621

1327. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #13655 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 3:04 am

Shaun, I think you give a rather biased view of criticism of historical accuracy in the bible, and anyone who claims bablylon never existed is just potty. Nebuchadnezzar also existed, but daniel gets the sequence of the kings wrong, and he most certainly was not the ancestor or Nabonaidus. They are nit related. The persians took babylon, not the medes. Go read the annals of Sennacherib. He was not defeated by god as the bible claims, he did not go home to be murdered by his sons, he lived another 20 years. Matt has jesus born c. 4BCE and Luke has him born c.6CE http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html. AI was a ruin at the so called time of the conquest, jerico had no wall, AND THE CREATION ACCOUNT, WELL, THAT IS JUST NOT TRUE AT ALL. I too could go on and on. Shaun, just because you find a stone with someones name on it does not mean that the bible is true, and I would laugh at anyone who made the claims that you quote from sceptics. Choose some real challenges, not eay to dismiss crackpot claims.

THEO, suetonius et al only mention christians, no jesus from what I remember. Josephus is a forgery. No devout Jew would call jesus the Christ. Also, the passage clearly splits up 2 otherparagraph that make sense when the jesus paragraph is deleted. http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/sources.html

1328. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13650 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 2:40 am

Hey David, I'm still not going away, and I'm sure Martin will have some fun with your lame comments later too. That door comment really cracks me up. You would have us take one literal verse and one figurative verse and turn them round. By the way, why dont you quote that verse in full? Then we can all see that he means that he is the alleged way to salvation. Again, David, dishonest tactics, what do I expect from a hypocritical fundie, who promotes lies about scientists. You seem to have ignored my comments on your article. I will summarise for your limited intelligence. You use the arguement of incredulity a lot here as evidence for god. It just means that you are intellectually lazy and are limited in your ability to provide a rational explanation. Just like people though lightning and earthquakes were the work of god. One day our ignorance will be filled in. You might as well claim that pixies did it, because there is as much chance. If there is an unlikely god behind all this, he must have an explanation, and it certainly is not your god. That, incase you cant see it, is why I have been attacking the bible and theology (and the fact you make sweeping statements that dont stand up to scrutiny). Now address the points I have made and be a good little minister and tell your wee free friends that they do not have the right to shut up parks and cancel ferries on a sunday, or were you blowing it out your ass when you said that no one has the right to impose their morality on others? Or was it that no one has the right to impose their morality on you? Believe it or not, but I believe you have the right to your beliefs. I just know you are wrong and I live at a time when you fundies cant burn me for saying so, so I will.

Oh yeah, I showed your comment to a couple of christian biochemists, they disagree with you - plonker! (one of their comments) Retract that and apologise for spreading lies
Have a nice day

1329. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13557 by BillySands on December 18, 2006 at 10:54 am

Well, again we see davids unsupported faith at work. A god that has never appeared to him made the laws of nature, and david doesn't need to prove it. PROVE IT DAVID. You have no evidence, just blind faith. The big bang is testable. How yould you design an experiment to show god exist, that he exists outside of space and time and that he created the universal laws? If you cant, then all you have is faith, no facts whatsoever. All your excuses are needed because god is not real

1330. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13544 by BillySands on December 18, 2006 at 8:00 am

Oh and david, where does god state his intention to make the universe habitable? and where in genesis does he make air?
Flat earth created before the sun 6000 years agoin a geocentric universe, the flood, special creation, talking snake, etc and you say in your latest article that this closely agrees with modern science. Poor deluded faith head.

1331. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13542 by BillySands on December 18, 2006 at 7:26 am

Hi Martin,
I think David thinks that by pretending to know some greek he can make us think he knows what he is talking about. You definately put him right there though. I am always suspicious of a theist who randomly inserts irrelevant information like the gender, case and tense of a verse. They ususlly rely on the opponent blanking over. It is a bit like us saying. David, Pi=iCRT/LogEa therefore god doesnt exist! Sounds impressive, but it's bollocks.
I think, although the site does not make this clear, that they use the original greek, although, I have come across some hebrew variants in some other verses that I looked at (for proper bible study david!). Eitherway, it agrees with the English translators and not with David. I would like to see a bible written by someone like david, where all these extra phrases and agenda based suppositions are included, and embarrasing verses are smoothed over or deleted. It would be interesting to see how different it is from the real thing.

David, I have never been able to reconcile this verse with anything other than a nast tyrant god. Can you explain it? 2kings 2:23-24 "From there he went to Bethel. As he walked along the road, some boys came out of the city and mocked him. They said, "Go away, baldy! Go away! Looking back, he saw them and cursed them in the LORD's name. Two bears came out of the woods and tore 42 of these youths apart."

Talking of Morality, Paul says that he only knows right from wrong because of the law (reminds me of the sleeping around arguement here) rom. 7:7 "I wouldn't have known sin, except through the law. For I wouldn't have known coveting, unless the law had said, "You shall not covet." Shame he is so morally bankrupt to only know right from wrong from the bible. A sence of good and bad is innate in just about every person. People who have never read the biblical law, still know that theft, murder and rape are wrong. DAVID, WAKE UP!

Why is his god unable to make sense? I think we know why, let's just hope david realises it too (maybe he does)

1332. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13529 by BillySands on December 18, 2006 at 5:37 am

Now that I have a bit of time, matt 21:21 in greek can be found here http://bible.cc/matthew/21-21.htm
The word diakrino is used here for doubt, and in no way implies two mindedness http://bible.cc/matthew/21-21.htm

22:22 IN GREEK IS HERE http://bible.cc/matthew/21-22.htm
THERE IS NO WORD DIAKRITHETE HERE. HOW THOUROUGHLY DISHONEST OF YOU DAVID! The word for faith here is pisteuo, and means from pistis; to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), i.e. credit; by implication, to entrust (especially one's spiritual well-being to Christ) http://bible.cc/matthew/21-22.htm

And the passage says nothing about being in accordance with gods will. You just made that up. That is what you want it to say. However, that is clearly not what it says

1333. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #13512 by BillySands on December 18, 2006 at 3:55 am

Hi JonG,
It seems that you have no evidence to back up your statement about Moabites. You should also note, that in Nehemiah, it was those of mixed ancestry that were expelled, not those who claimed allegence to moab or ammon. Jesus also had a bastard (perez) in his ancestry , an another problem.
Some of the problems with joshua (I can give more later) include the fact that AI was already a ruin at the time of the conquest, and jerico had no wall. If the book was written at the time, then it should be accurate. There is no sudden change in pottery styles in the area either, and it has been suggested that the cananites and hebrews were the same. You also find impossible events in the patriarchal naratives too. Abraham visits cities that did not exist at the time etc

1334. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13510 by BillySands on December 18, 2006 at 3:45 am

In a way it is good that david ignores my challenges. It allows me to put my point across unchallenged. It is interesting that he thinks that it would be a waste of his congregation's time to come on this site and try and save us. Probably because some would contradict him, like Finlay did eariler. Have you actually told them not to get involved?
The god is outside of space and time stuff. What a laugh. How ca you even compare that to a square or circle, which actually exist? Dont use the physical world to justify your fairy stories.
Interesting that he does not believe people can channel the power of god to heal the sick. maybe he should read his bible. James 5:14-15 "Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up"
For example. But hey, I know prayer doesn't work either, and david, regardless of what you want the greek to say, and you are talking rubbish here, my English bible doesn't say that. Also, did you know that a lot of the greek in the NT is of a pretty poor standard anyway. If only god hadnt mixed up human language at babel, this would never happen. Silly god!
I notice you concede the point that the bible is wrong on the history of the universe.
Again, I ask you to be a nice non hypocritical xian (some hope) and speak out against those in your church that want to impose their morality on us.
What about paleopathology and the fall myth. I forgot to mention before that we even have fossil parasites that pre-date humankind. What was that about a perfect creation again?
Toodle pip for noo

1335. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13424 by BillySands on December 17, 2006 at 3:05 pm

Why do people keep knocking the blasphemy challenge? Regardless of your definition of what constitutes blasphemy against the holy spirit (not suprisingly they cant even agree on that amongst themselves), these people are esssentially saying we dont want your stupid lies and you can shove your immaginary friend up your arse. That can only be a good thing. I remember when I deliberatly blasphemed (according to several definitions) it was like a baptism to atheism and piece of mind. If this helps some, then good.
Yorker, the threat of hell seriously messes people up. It is evil and i would only wish it on those who use it, like those hell house pricks.
From what the christadelphians say on their thread, they dont believe in it. So, I want to be one of them in my next incarnation (as long as they haven't gone extinct by then.

1336. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #13417 by BillySands on December 17, 2006 at 2:46 pm

Hi Ryuile

It is recorded in 2kings 22:8-23:24. The problem with josh 8:30-35 is probably that the book was written some time later than supposed. Further evidence for this is that the people at the reading by josiah were unaware of it's contents and found a passage outlawing moabites or their decendants entering the assembly of god. this resulted in the expulsion of those of mixed ancestry (Nehemiah 13:1-3) (Incidentally, Jesus had a moabite ancestor (Ruth)(Ru.1:4, 4:13, 17) hmmmmm!

1337. Richard Dawkins on The Sunday Edition

Comment #13352 by BillySands on December 17, 2006 at 7:19 am

Someone once said that Tony Benn immatures with age. What a wise prophet. Looks like he thinks the truth must have some message for human morality in it. How incredibly naive. Where was he comming from, not believing in the virgin birth etc? Pretty essential if you profess to be a christian. I think he really wants a sky daddy to give him a security blanket and that is why he believes. I thought however Richard should really haver torn him to shreds, and I was disappointed that he didn't. I was almost shouting at the screen to make him attack benn more. Maybe he felt sorry for him?

1338. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #13326 by BillySands on December 17, 2006 at 4:29 am

Theo, I'm not paying for that video, but do you mean the ahmose stele? That is not a picture and has an reference to parting water (according to biblicsts) It is however a mistranslation, and should read wine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_Decoded

1339. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #13231 by BillySands on December 16, 2006 at 9:58 am

Typical christian evidence is something like we found a town in the right place, therefore it is true. It's a bit like saying Jerusalem exists, therefore god is real. It all get quite embarrasing for them when you consider the anachronisms and the innaccuracies in the capture of cannan. Jerico had no wall at the time, and Ai was already a ruin. The Egeptians were also present in the area at the time, no the cananites. Evidence strongly suggests that the cananites and the israelites were one and the same. There are no egyptian records of hebrew slaves, and some claim that an obscure group called the apiru were the hebrews. They however dont seem to fit the bill

1340. Response to Richard Dawkins' Criticisms in The God Delusion

Comment #13222 by BillySands on December 16, 2006 at 9:18 am

I must be getting fed up with theistic bollocks, because I glazed over with contempt after reading about free will. I agree with Brian. Theist take note of Romans 9:18 "so god shows mercy to just because he chooses to, and he makes some people refuse to listen"
Insane bollocks isn't it? There is hope for theists though. Start thinking for yourself and lay off the crazy pills

1341. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13193 by BillySands on December 16, 2006 at 5:02 am

Dont see the problem. It can only be good if it gives people the confidence to come out of the closet. Oh yeah, and the holy spirit doesn't exist

1342. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #13191 by BillySands on December 16, 2006 at 4:56 am

Hi Down_under,
With out being disrespectful to mark, I think he sees what he wants to see. There are plenty of other unfulfilled prophecies too.

1343. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #13185 by BillySands on December 16, 2006 at 4:35 am

Down_under,
Here is a bible prophecy that did not or can not come true Jeremiah 36:30
"Therefore thus says the Lord concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah, he shall have none to sit on the throne of David."

How do we know this? Well, history AND another passage in the Bible: II Kings 24:6
"So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead."

1344. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13179 by BillySands on December 16, 2006 at 4:18 am

Fedler, I can really identify with some of the stuff you said earlier. One piece of evidence concerning the christian's claim of gods existance, and one that is easily testable is the biblical claims of prophecy fulfilment by jesus.
We have already taken the virgin birth prophecy apart here, and the bethlehem prophecy. All David can offer is that a propecy about someone else in a different time and circumstance is still about jesus (we are still waiting to be told how this works) I suggest you go through matthew and note the fulfillment claims. They usually have a footnote to take you to the original prophecy. Read it in context. You will be amazed how they dont refer to jesus. The only rational explanation is that Matthew made things up with the deliberate intention of deceiving. For example, in Matt 2:15, matt tells of jesus returning from egypt to fulfil a prophecy. The foot note tells us it is Hosea 11:1 ""When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son." Clearly the son is the nation of israel (at the exodus). Reading on to verse 2: "But the more I called Israel, the more they rebelled against me. They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images. This can not be about jesus, unless you believe that he rebelled against god. Once you have gone through them for yourelf, you might want to read these links. Hope this is helful
Billy

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/fabulous-prophecies.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/prophecy.html
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/messianic.html
http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/bepart16.html#ref1621

1345. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13064 by BillySands on December 15, 2006 at 8:35 am

That latest article was total drivel. It was so bad, that I could only read half of it. It rests on the unproven assumptions that God exist, and that he exists outside space and time. I don't really think I have to go on. And as I pointed out earlier, the claim that the bible matches science???? give me a break!

1346. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13061 by BillySands on December 15, 2006 at 8:19 am

David fails to realise that considering the interactive nature of his god, then god appearing would be evidence of god. How can claims of I cant understand this, therefore there must be a god be in any way shape or form evidence for this interacting god? Infact, how is the arguement from incredulity evidence for anything other than the askers own limitations in being able to explain something or formulate a hypothesis about that thing? The history of the god of the gaps way of looking at things backs me up fully here

1347. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13054 by BillySands on December 15, 2006 at 7:45 am

"Interesting ideas about animal consiousness and awareness of concepts. Of coure the Christian views God as superior not humans. The atheist will either a) regard humans as the apex of 'creation' or b) the same as other animals – which is going to make it kind of difficult for all us non-vegetarians."

Again he sets himself up. We dont believe in creation, and there is no apex of evolution- tut tut. Animals eat people too so what is your point? Infact those nasty parasites your nasty god made eat people. Malaria alone infects 200 million people ayear - mostly faith heads.
gen1: "29 Then God said, "Look! I have given you every seed-bearing plant throughout the earth and all the fruit trees for your food.30 And I have given every green plant as food for all the wild animals, the birds in the sky, and the small animals that scurry along the ground—everything that has life."

Did god really make everything to eat plants? What about T. rex or lions? We can eat anything with seeds (foxglove, deadly nightshade, THE FRUIT OF THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL) Ooops, another biblical faux pas

1348. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13051 by BillySands on December 15, 2006 at 7:30 am

Erm David, I have already picked a point already. Anyway, what do you think of fossil diseases that show suffering before the fall myth? or the fact that confucius came up with the golden rule first?
Why don't you just get your immaginary friend to perform a miracle for us. That would shut us up and prove your point. I've told martin what my poster is, so lets see if god can tell you.

1349. Intelligent design: The God Lab

Comment #13048 by BillySands on December 15, 2006 at 6:58 am

Too True Aussie,
I have been wasting my time trying to understand how the immune system work. I stupidly thought that if we understand it, we can stop it from killing us and develop better vaccines. I should have realised that god designed it the way he did for the purpose of letting us get nasty diseases. What a fool I have been. I now realise that "god did it" and all I need to do to cure diseases is pray James 5:14-15 "Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up."

How dare immunology convincingly trounce ID
http://www.nature.com/ni/journal/v7/n5/full/ni0506-433.html

1350. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13041 by BillySands on December 15, 2006 at 6:28 am

Rabbits do eat their own poo. They have bacteria in the caecum that further break down the undigestable stuff and produce some vitamins, so they do get more out of it by eating it again. Perhaps all rabbits are mad though. Now do I count to 3 ? or was it 4 ...?