1651. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12842 by BillySands on December 14, 2006 at 2:15 am

Hi Mark,
Maybe Brian wrote that on a different thread. I don't really think you can squeeze an extra couple of years into jeremiah. Also in the first year of his reign in babylon, Cyrus proclaimed that they could go home and the did (ezra 1?). Archaeologists have also shown that the exile was far from complete and that the lad was not desolate, and babylon was not destroyed as jeremiah predicted. Some of this detail can be found in the bible unearthed by finklestein and silberman if you are interested
Billy

1652. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #12761 by BillySands on December 13, 2006 at 4:56 pm

Nolongerhavebelief,
I too am ashamed that as a believer I was homophobic, and my only justification was because that's what the bible said. Glad that I grew up and gave into my innate moral standards.

David, dinosaur pathology http://www.museum.man.ac.uk/galleries/stan.htm
http://dml.cmnh.org/1999Feb/msg00137.html

or check out the paleopathology chapter in the complete dinosaur.

What was that about the fall and suffering again?

1653. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #12725 by BillySands on December 13, 2006 at 12:01 pm

Thrall, I doubt David will answer you on homosexuality, but the bible says that homosexuals must be put to death Leviticus 20:13.
Congratulations on getting no 666. That reminds me, I'm seeing Iron Maiden on friday, better look out my ticket.

DAVID, WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK OUT AT THOSE IN YOUR CHURCH WHO WANT TO TAKE AWAY OUR FREEDOM ON A SUNDAY, OR WONT YOU BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS YOU?

1654. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #12724 by BillySands on December 13, 2006 at 11:55 am

Ewan, You mean that moral codes predate Jesus? Well I never that must mean they are biologically imprinted then :-)

1655. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #12702 by BillySands on December 13, 2006 at 10:10 am

I've often wondered about the fig tree too, and nevere heard a satisfactory ecplanation (suprise suprise).
Confucius (c500 BCE) was no christian or jew, but came up with treat others as you would have them treat you. STRANGE IT TOOK GODS LOT ANOTHER 500 YEARS TO REALISE THAT

1656. Vicars in a Twist

Comment #12671 by BillySands on December 13, 2006 at 7:26 am

Top idea saneatheist. Maybe we could open a mobile blood donation station outside the JWs as well :-)
Been reminicing about the puritans in blackadder on Robertson's thread. the line "at home nathaniel sits on a spike" just made me think of DAR http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFXLGynyznM

One of my friends just sent me a picture of the twatt church. Don't think I really need to comment any more http://www.hootsmon.com/archive/060104.html
PS that's me fingering the muff :-)

1657. Vicars in a Twist

Comment #12666 by BillySands on December 13, 2006 at 6:52 am

Jared, I think we should organise an RDF meeting in Dundee and hand TGD fliers out at Robertson's church. He did say we would get a warm welcome afterall - presumably as long as we leave our intellect at the door and don't say anything that challenges his delusion

1658. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #12646 by BillySands on December 13, 2006 at 4:05 am

Thought That was Richard Dawkins there, but it's Phil - is this subconscious hero worship here phil? :-)

I see you mention human and dinosaur track together. THESE ARE NOT HUMAN TRACKS. The size is wrong for a start. They are actually theropod tracks http://www.bibleandscience.com/science/footprints.htm
Phil, ALL the creationist evidence you keep citing is incredibly poor. I'm off again
Regards

Billy

1659. Vicars in a Twist

Comment #12641 by BillySands on December 13, 2006 at 3:43 am

Andrew, they are not real vicars, although, that is about their standard.
On a more serious note, vicars are paid to lie to people and fill them with false hope and perpetuate their own brand of the god delusion. Except for the baby eating bishop of bath and wells who is paid to drown babies in the christening font and eat them later. Thought it was obvious really.

1660. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12636 by BillySands on December 13, 2006 at 2:42 am

Mark, I believe brian gave you some reasons a while back and pointed out that the Jews have returned home many times in the past.

I have little faith in the mathematical arguements. They do not factor enough biology into them. How do you factor in developmentally important genes like Hox genes, which have potential for massive changes in body plan?

1661. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #12631 by BillySands on December 13, 2006 at 2:30 am

That should read 4BCE for matthew.
Martin the correct version doesn't exist, they all say the same thing, and other verses say the same thing. So, what you have to do to maintain your delusion that the bible is true is totally ignore the verse and lie to yourself that it actually says that you will get what you want as long as it is OK with god. I think I'll submit that for a PhD in theology, or set up my own church and submit it.

1662. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #12630 by BillySands on December 13, 2006 at 2:25 am

I'm with Paul here, the only reason I continue is for the benefit of those on the sidelines. David has anyone actually contatced you and said you have converted then (dont use the evasive god converts people rubbish. you know what i mean).

David points out that there are no diffrent bibles, only different translations. Again he is in error. The different curches eg catholic and orthodox actually have some different books in their bibles. Some include books like tobit and the maccabees, and others leave out books like daniel.

Regards polygamy, how many wives did abraham have? or Solomon? There is no contextual difficulty in the verse martin quotes. It is quite clear there is a contextual difficlty in micah 5:2 and the virgin bitrh prophecy (still talking about mistranslations when the verse is about events 700 years before jesus) Excuse me for not giving an accurate date, because matthew says he was born in 4 CE and Luke says he was born in 6CE

Good luck Xmas shopping Paul

I may find some links later showing you some diseased fossils david

1663. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12522 by BillySands on December 12, 2006 at 11:12 am

Did noah drop all the kangaroos off in australia, polar bears in alaska and dodos in mauritius before going back to the middle east as the flood subsided? And of course the dinosaurs would have been there including the 100 tonne Argentinasaurus, and T rex must have gone vegetarian (think that's why tey went extinct) I allways thought it was because they had itchy bums that they couldn't scratch. There must also have been aquaria on board to save all those animals that require a specific temperature and salinity range.

1664. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12517 by BillySands on December 12, 2006 at 10:49 am

Kingasaurs,
I totally agree with you. It is one ofthose things that you only believe if you already believe it. I have a big problem with Rom 8:29 "For God knew his people in advance, and he chose them to become like his Son, so that his Son would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters."

Predestiny and you are going to become a clone of jesus. Where is the free will? How are believers going to be perfect in heaven? And why was mankind cursesed for the actions of 2 people, but all the angels were not. To explain this, you have to contrive answers (not backed up by any substance). I have also said elsewhere that the whole theology of the fall is wrong and immoral on the part og the biblical god

1665. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #12512 by BillySands on December 12, 2006 at 10:18 am

martin, I'll say one thing about catholics, at least they have natural rhythm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFXLGynyznM

David you also mentioned that you do not think you should impose your morality on others. Why dont you talk out about those who want to shut down the wester isles on a sunday? (I predict that you may answer this, but not address paleopathology)

1666. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12510 by BillySands on December 12, 2006 at 9:39 am

Hi JonG,
Another assumption you make is that Abraham actually existed. Archaeolgy makes that seem unlikely, or at least the stories about him are unlikely, since there are mention of cities and states that just did not exist at the time Abraham was supposed to live. I also forgot to mention about the first 6 chapters of genesis that god decides man will not live more than 120 years (6:3) This is clearly false. The oldest person I know of was 122, there may even have been older. An I also disagree with both contradictory creation accounts and the flood.

I should also pint out that the bible says that not everyone will be allowed to believe (rom9:18) there are also verses saying that salvation is pre-ordained. How do you reconcile that with your view?
The bible does not say suffering is necessary, and this goes againt the ideal plan for creation. Do you expect suffering in heaven? if not, why not?
Cheers

Billy

1667. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12487 by BillySands on December 12, 2006 at 6:38 am

Roger, I think the real question is not "what is he on about, but more "What is he on?". There is some seriously messed up neurochemistry going on there. His mind is obviously a closed system, so maybe he is obeying the second law and his brain is becoming more disordered. So there you are, he has unwitting proven the second law to be true whilst salivating out one side of his mouth

1668. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12484 by BillySands on December 12, 2006 at 6:30 am

People have always scoffed at the flood. Paul even so. Jesus was also supposed to come back in his own generation. End times - YAWN
I'm hungry. Fruitcake anyone?

1669. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #12477 by BillySands on December 12, 2006 at 5:45 am

"If sex is just a physical need, an appetite like eating or drinking then hey why shouldn't you sleep with someone else? It means nothing – it is enjoyable? Surely when it feels so good it can't be wrong."
I hope David is not serious here, that if something feels so right that it cant be wrong."

EVIL WICKED CHILD!

Interesting that David goes against the grain on premarital sex here (although the biblke dioesn't specifically prohibit it)

Any way "Great booze up Martin"

1670. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #12464 by BillySands on December 12, 2006 at 4:01 am

Nope, it seems to have sorted itself out

1671. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #12463 by BillySands on December 12, 2006 at 4:00 am

There is a very definate trend here that David ignores any arguements that seriously challenge him, or tries to deflect them on to some irrelevant poin. Incidentally David, what did protestants do with democracy?
"Cold is God's way of telling us to put more catholics on the fire" Lady Whiteadder.
Paleopathology poops on fall theology from a great hieght dont you think? Stay silent if you agree

There may be a problem posting things

1672. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #12462 by BillySands on December 12, 2006 at 3:58 am

There is a very definate trend here that David ignores any arguements that seriously challenge him, or tries to deflect them on to some irrelevant poin. Incidentally David, what did protestants do with democracy?
"Cold is God's way of telling us to put more catholics on the fire" Lady Whiteadder.
Paleopathology poops on fall theology from a great hieght dont you think? Stay silent if you agree

1673. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12455 by BillySands on December 12, 2006 at 3:33 am

No offence was taken Shaun

1674. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #12454 by BillySands on December 12, 2006 at 3:31 am

Paleopathology and prophecy context too much for you to handle then david. Does that Mean I win?

1675. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12437 by BillySands on December 12, 2006 at 2:36 am

Hi Shaun,
I'm busy today, so will have to be brief I'm affraid. Micah 4 talks of babylon, but I dont see the relevance to Micah 5. Micah 5, if you use one of the translations that state village other than clan for bethelehem, it is very clear that this person in 5: will do battle with the assyrians (5:5-6). This person (Perhaps hezekiah) is restricted to the time of an assyrian threat.

Just to clarify, I don't almost believe Daniels prophecy, and have pointed out faults with it. Daniel is also trying to extend jeremiahs 70 year prophecy of exile in babylon here. The problem here is that the actual exile only lasted 49 years. I think that the book of daniel is actually bad history pretending to be prophecy. I would also like to clarify that I am not going out my way to disprove these prophecies. I initially got interested in them in an attempt to save my faith. They happen to fail. I am not actively trying to make them fail, they just do. If you want to give your reasons as to why you think I am wrong, then please do. Otherwise, I suggest that we respectfully agree to disagree.
Cheers

Billy

1676. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #12215 by BillySands on December 11, 2006 at 9:42 am

Hmm, Heaven, Dame thora hird, magaret thatcher, tony blair, george bush, the queen mum (gawd bless er guv'nor apples and pears, my old man's a dustman etc) and cliff richard even

Hell gandhi, beethoven, catherine hepburn, angelina jolie, marylin monroe, natalie portman and for the ladies, george clooney.

HMM, tough choice

1677. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #12212 by BillySands on December 11, 2006 at 9:31 am

Brian,
As an ex christian, I found many so called christian friends (not all) abandoned me when I became an atheist. One of my friends sisters (now an atheist) was abandonned by many of her christian friends (while still a christian) for coming out as a lesbean. She is getting married and her father refuses to go to the sevice. My friend (an atheist) on the other hand looks at how depressed christianity (and christians) made her and compares that with how happy she is now and is glad for her. There is just something inherently evil about people who would have someone be so unhappy. So abandoning faith or going against the small minded religious way in the UK can also be social suicide.

1678. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #12209 by BillySands on December 11, 2006 at 9:22 am

I must say that I am not suprised that we can see what is wrong with sleeping around without resorting to a book of questionable morality. One good thing about atheism is that I reasilse that I am responsible for the consequences of my own actions, and should treat people well. No god is going to wipe away any hurt I cause someone, so I should always be careful (I wish to point out though that this has no bearing on my innate moral sense of right and wrong). Too many christians however think they can do something nasty and ask god for forgiveness and everything is fine. They ignore the consequences of their actions.
If I got my morals from the bible, I would be a racially intolerant homophobe, who is up for a bit of rape and ott punishment of my slave and women folk. Thankfully many christians dont get their morality from the bible either (shame that they dont realise that)

1679. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #12192 by BillySands on December 11, 2006 at 7:01 am

Think I'll talk about him and not to him on this one. I lovr the reasoned arguement that we will burn in hell. So well supporte, just like the whole god hypothesis. Believing in god can be so damaging to people if you believe all that stuff. I know some christian suffering depression because of that. It is the biggest lie ever that man need god to be fulfilled. I think it was woody Allen who said that if god exists, he better have a good excuse.
If in the unlikeley event I ever meet god, then he can kiss my hairy swingers, cos he's not worth worshiping
I

1680. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #12187 by BillySands on December 11, 2006 at 5:21 am

David get back on your own site and answer my questions, and leave the nice people alone.

1681. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #12182 by BillySands on December 11, 2006 at 5:07 am

And I would still like you to explain your views on prophecy and context

1682. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #12175 by BillySands on December 11, 2006 at 4:34 am

David,
Have you guven any thought to paleopathology yet?
It is important in light of your views on the fall.

1683. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12106 by BillySands on December 10, 2006 at 3:40 pm

Hi S,
I often find that the best way to debate the religious is to use the bible. Some folk just refuse to accept the science that does not suit them. Mark and Shaun seem cool though. I certainly appreciate their honesty on difficulties. I originally refused to discuss evolution with them, but would be happy to do so now. Others are just too closed minded. Some think that by attacking religion that they can prove gods existance (you will spot them soon enough). Anyway, I m really off now.

By the way guys, really good examples of mutations that establish quickly are those that confer drug/insecticide resistance. If the selective pressure is high enough and there is even a slight advantage, it can become fixed very quickly.

1684. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #12100 by BillySands on December 10, 2006 at 3:23 pm

Hi Martin,
I'll need to get a copy of it too. The early christians certainly liked their forgeries (strange that they don't think their message is believable enought and they feel the need to embelish it) Does it say much about Eusebius? He is suspected of making up the testimony of Flavius Josephus amongst other things.

By the way, I have some genuine relics of Jesus for sale. Any one want to but some genuine jesus fingers? Snap them up, I only have 11 left :-)

1685. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12097 by BillySands on December 10, 2006 at 3:13 pm

Hi Shaun,
My point about Eden is that they were punished for sinning. They did not know right from wrong untill they did what they were told not to do (eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of right and wrong). Do you think it is fair to curse man kind for this? Personally if find it morally disgusting. obviously I don't accept your god establishes the rules justification. God also made the serpent, who talked eve into it. How does she know how to trust? (she still does not know good from evil at this time). As I also pointed out, the fossil record shows death etc before mans appearance. Do you believe in a literal creation account and biblical flood by the way?

Micah 5
1Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops: he hath laid siege against us: they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek.

2But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

3Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth: then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel.

4And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth.

5And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land: and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men.

6And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders.

7And the remnant of Jacob shall be in the midst of many people as a dew from the LORD, as the showers upon the grass, that tarrieth not for man, nor waiteth for the sons of men.

8And the remnant of Jacob shall be among the Gentiles in the midst of many people as a lion among the beasts of the forest, as a young lion among the flocks of sheep: who, if he go through, both treadeth down, and teareth in pieces, and none can deliver.

9Thine hand shall be lifted up upon thine adversaries, and all thine enemies shall be cut off.

10And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the LORD, that I will cut off thy horses out of the midst of thee, and I will destroy thy chariots:

11And I will cut off the cities of thy land, and throw down all thy strong holds:

12And I will cut off witchcrafts out of thine hand; and thou shalt have no more soothsayers:

13Thy graven images also will I cut off, and thy standing images out of the midst of thee; and thou shalt no more worship the work of thine hands.

14And I will pluck up thy groves out of the midst of thee: so will I destroy thy cities.

15And I will execute vengeance in anger and fury upon the heathen, such as they have not heard.



I think it is pretty clear.It is about an Assyrian threat. Israel/judah never conquered Assyria either.

A further problem is that Bethlehem Ephratah may actually be a person (1 Chron. 2:18; 2:50-52 and 4:4). Further supporting evidence for this comes from the fact that several translations of Mic. 5:2 substitute the word "clans" for village (RSV, NRSV, NAS, NAB, NEB and NIV). Therefore, if Bethlehem was a person, the Verse still does not apply to Jesus, because he does not appear in either of Jesus' genealogies (Matt.1, Lk. 3).

as an aside, The prophecy of daniel only predicts the time of the birth of Jesus if you use the wrong starting date for the prophecy. The clock is to start ticking only when the decree is made to rebuild israel. Using the decree in Ezra 1:14, jesus was due in 55 BCE. If you introduce the concept of sabbatical years, and the decree of Artaxerxes (Neh. 2:1-6) as your starting date, you get a realistic figure. However, this is most certainly NOT a decree to rebuild Jerusalem, and only grants free passage. Furthemore, some translations talk of an anointed one and not the messiah (a very different meaning). Furthemore, the people are themselves told to put an end to sin (not that the messiah will come that their sins may be forgiven). I actually believe the book of Daniel to actually have been written some time around 167 BCE anyway.

I personally think that Isaiah 7:14 is actually a mistranslation, and doesnt mention a virgin. However, that is irrelevent to the contextual difficulties. If you read it all, the child will be a sign to Ahaz to shown to him (no one else) that he need not fear the two kings rezin and pekah (they threatened the land around 732 -735 BCE) It is not about jesus, and I believe matthew invented the virgin birth to make chirtianity appeal to contempory pagan mythology.

Psalm 22 esp verse 16 (an alledged crucifixion prophecy) is another definate mistranslation.

"For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet."

The problem here is that the Hebrew word used in the original language of the text "kaari", actually translates as "like a lion". The verse then translates as "like a lion (they are at?) my hands and feet" – not a mention of piercing. To pierce only appears in those versions that use the Vulgate (Latin) translations (ie translations of a translation of a translation – ever played Chinese whispers?). The Latin word used here is "foderunt", and is translated from the Septuagint (Greek) versions as "to dig". However, foderunt can metaphorically mean "to prick" or "to prod". This then miraculously becomes "they pierce." Through translation from several languages, the verse has lost its original meaning and Christians ignorantly (or even knowingly) carry on spreading this untruth.
There are plenty of other problems in assigning psalm 22 to jesus.

Isaiah 53 - that is a big topic, so I will be brief (It late and I have to read something for work tomorrow). There are problems concerning the tense of the chapter and the identity of the servant (throughout Isaiah, the nation of israel is called the servant) Isaiah elswhere says that god will accept the gentiles, but only under the sacrificial system (56:6-8). Jesus was not despised by all, nor was he silent at his trial (53:7 vs Matt 26:24, Lk. 22:67, Jn. 18:23 and 18:35-37 for example)

Cheers

Billy

1686. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #12085 by BillySands on December 10, 2006 at 11:15 am

Yes Yorker, that happens to me too

1687. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12084 by BillySands on December 10, 2006 at 11:03 am

Melanie,
You have put a lot of effort into your answer, and I agree with your points on the trinity (many christians dont though, and in the past would probably burn you at the stake) I dont however agree that exists.
Again, I state that differences in interpretation about any issue, be it the trinity or the ordination of women and homosexuals only highlight the failure of the bible to give a clear and consistent guide to anything. By the way, capital letters mean nothing (are they capital in the original hebrew or greek any way)

Read numbers 12 again, there is no angel, it is god speaking directly, and some translations even say that he speaks face to face with moses. The simple explanation for this contradiction to the verses you quote is that the bible is not inspired by a god, but man
try also ex 6:2-3 and ex 24:9-11 as well. in fact, there is a great deal of evidence that several authors wrote the pentateuch over a long period of time. That certainly explains the inconsistencies and contradictions. You have to look at all the verses. Not just the one that supports your point of view. You quote verses that say god has never been seen. I quote some that say he has. That tells me the bible contradicts itself. It is the only realistic explanation.

Again, "satan" can be interpretive, so I wont get into that some say he is a specific individual, others dont, I think again people overlook the contradiction. However, genesis tells us tat god created the evil one. That wasn't responsible of god was it? Would your parents put you in a park with a paedophile? of course they wouldn't.
Why could god create sinless angels and not people. If you believe the war in heaven stuff, then when one rebelled, should they not all have been punished? that's what you believed happened to mankind. (read the other stuff here on free will and the fall etc before you respond)

Concerning the ointment. Does judas' motives change the truth? If it is right to give up everything to help the poor, does it suddenly become wrong because of judas' motives? (the gospel of judas has a different spin on judas though). Was it right to help the poor or not? I find it rather heatless of jesus to say what he did. Was he here to show the way of god or to pander to human traditions? If it is the former, then he sinned. if it is the latter, he is no great prophet.

Billy

1688. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12050 by BillySands on December 9, 2006 at 5:11 pm

Melanie,
As an apostatic atheist I disagree with the bible.
concerning the trinity I give you I John 5:7-8 (KJV)

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. And there are three that witness on earth, the Spirit, the Water and the Blood and these three agree in one."

Clearly says the three are one. However I believe this to be one of many additions to the bible see more details here http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/text.html

All dispute over the trinity does is show up the inadequicey of the bible, with each goup claiming they alone are right. The obvious explanation is that neither are right.

Concerning other faults in your response, Are satan and the angels not immortal too?

God can be tempted eg deut 6:16-17, and can sin (matt 25:37-46 vs john 12:4-8) By not selling the perfume to help the poor, jesus contradicts his own teachings AND sins


Moses saw god and lived
(Num. 12:6-8) – "He said, "Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, shall make Myself known to him in a vision . I shall speak with him in a dream. 7"Not so, with My servant Moses, He is faithful in all My household; 8With him I speak mouth to mouth, Even openly, and not in dark sayings, And he beholds the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid To speak against My servant, against Moses ?"

The fact you say you were brought up in your faith sounds like indoctrination to me. If you haven't read the god delusion yet, may I suggest that you do so.
Goodnight
Billy

1689. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12044 by BillySands on December 9, 2006 at 2:46 pm

Hi Shaun,
I wish everyone I discuss with was as respectful as you and I appreciate that.
I think however that the bible is contradictory on free will.

gen 38 "6 Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. 7 But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the LORD's sight; so the LORD put him to death.
8 Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother."
9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother.
10 What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also."

Ex 10"27 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he was not willing to let them go."

Rom 9 "18 So you see, God chooses to show mercy to some, and he chooses to harden the hearts of others so they refuse to listen."

Personally I don't think that saying god had a purpose cuts it, nor does it excuse him killing the first born children of egypt ex 11

1690. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12040 by BillySands on December 9, 2006 at 2:03 pm

Shaun, An old arguement doses not make it invalid. Take a look at your reasoning: we are wrong because god gave us free will. I'm affraid that is not an argument, because it is steeped in the assumtion that god exists. Incidentally, how will you have free will in heaven? How will your character be "perfect" that you wont sin? Well, you cant give a reasonalble answer to that, because it assumes god exists. It has been pointed out that free will was not a choice, and brings us back to the fall. Is it truly free will if god says you can do anything you want, but if you eat that fruit I will kill you? If I came to your house in Dollar with a shot gun and said give me all your money or I'll blow your brains out, would you feel you had a realistic choice (actually, you are only an hour away from me, we can test that hypothesis :-) ) Again, there was death and disease etc before the appearance of man, and man only knew what sin was after he sinned. I don't think that is fair. Do you?
My objections to your particular gods existance is based on much more than "why does god not intervene?" I particularly find the messianic prophecies as proof against the claims about Jesus. Micah 5:2 and Isaiah 7:14 are just 2 examples. If you read them in context, they are clearly not about jesus, and seem more like an attempt to invent a life for jesus that appears to have been fore told.
I also disagree with your views on evolution and time. You did not back up your claim with figures. Selective pressures are not random. Your attempts to knock evolution would not provide evidence for god anyway. The fossil record clearly shows change anyway, and I wont hold my breath waiting for any human fossils to be found with an arthritic T. rex that has healed abcesses bite marks and fused vertebrae.

AAArgh, must get off this site.
Take care

1691. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #12038 by BillySands on December 9, 2006 at 1:31 pm

Yorker,
I think the main value with discussing things with theists is that it gives them enough rope to hang themselves with - like our compatriot David Robetson. Part of the arsenal against the forces of ignorance is to let others see the insubstantial nature of faith.

Here is some of the wisdom of David robertson to make the point.

""…as I listened to the sound of the plain singing of the psalms of the Bible, and heard the waves of the sea splashing against the walls of the church, it struck me what a fool I had been. Of course God existed. Nothing else made sense. You cannot explain beauty or evil, creation or humanity, time nor space, without God."

"There is not a single commentator who would understand prophecy as limited to the individiual and immediate context to which it came. "

Give them the rope and let the potential converts see the intellectual poverty of the theists reasons to believe

Yours in reason
Billy

1692. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12034 by BillySands on December 9, 2006 at 1:13 pm

AArgh, My last post wnt missing! Basically Mark it was basically saying that you seem like a descent bloke and more atheist would respond in a more positive way if you did use terms like "in my opinion" etc. We dont like being preached to and told that we haven't read the bible or are going to hell (none of these points refer to you). For me there are just too many problems with the bible for it to be true, and is often at odds with science (eg the flood - see also my comments on plaeopathology and the fall). historically/archaeologically, it is also unconvincing/unreliable, and messianic prophecies are just taken out of context and never originally refered to jesus. There is also a lack of evidence of a "personal" god and my view of apologetics is that it just makes elaborate excuses for god and the bible, when a very simple one - there is no god- fits experience beatifully. Any way, I spend too much time on here too (see your resolve buckled twice :-) ) You haven't really given me anything new to think about (INCLUDING NEWTON) and I have enough discussions to keep me occupied for now.

TAKE CARE

Billy

1693. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #12027 by BillySands on December 9, 2006 at 11:43 am

Roy,
I think the prospect of getting stoned would appeal to the neds and chavs. Could solve certain social problems. I blame the church for failing society. Oh well, it had its chance, usher in the humanist age

1694. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12024 by BillySands on December 9, 2006 at 11:15 am

Mark, I don't think we have anything to discuss. You have clearly made your mind up that you are right. I totally regect any claims of fulfilled prophecy on contextual grounds. I doubt you are open to the possibility that you are wrong. Here are a couple of quotes that make me think this

"Rather it will happen in accordance with the Bible's clear predictions, when God intervenes directly in human affairs by sending his son Jesus from heaven, with divine power at his command."

"When Jesus returns, the resolution of all those religious arguments will be rather abrupt. His claim to divine authority over the earth will be fiercely resisted, not least by the world's religious leaders whose own positions are directly challenged. But those who falsely claim to speak for him, even to be prophets themselves, or to have performed miracles, will be brought down to earth with a crash (Matt 7:21-23)."

Need I say more. You have no case anyway.


BTW, The gospels were written late 1st to early 2nd century CE that kind of makes any relevance to Rome history, not prophecy. Also the verses you quote do not metion rome or the temple. I think you are letting your faith cloud your judgement. Read the prophecy about Cyrus Isaiah 45 to see a clear prophecy (again actually history). You are seeing what you want to see. It is no evidence.

Remember, jesus said he would return in the time of his generation. You are wrong to think he is ever going to come. We clearly have no common ground for debate. to paraphrase Paul (or which ever of the several pauline authors wrote this verse) 2what fellowship can reason have with blind faith?"
I do however wish you well and may reappear from time to time to balance out any OOT biblical claims made here

1695. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12019 by BillySands on December 9, 2006 at 9:54 am

Actually Mark, don't bother replying, I can clearly see that when it comes down to it all you want to do is preach. How long have people been whorshiping yahweh (and zoroaster, brahmin etc)? Yet you have not proven his existance (and that doesn't stop you argueing over his nature). Scientists may disagree, but we slowly sort things out. We used to disagree on the nature of the genetic material. We now know it is DNA, and look at how biology and society have prospered from that. A couple of thousand years of prayer never eradicated small pox!

1696. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #12018 by BillySands on December 9, 2006 at 9:44 am

The gospels attitude to the poor

In the red corner - JESUS!

MATT 25
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

VERSES IN THE BLUE CORNER - JESUS!

JOHN 12
1Six days before the Passover, Jesus arrived at Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2Here a dinner was given in Jesus' honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. 3Then Mary took about a pint[a] of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus' feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.
4But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 5"Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages.[b]" 6He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

7"Leave her alone," Jesus replied. " It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. 8You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me."

OH, LOOKS LIKE JESUS JUST DEALT HIMSELF A KNOCKOUT BLOW - THAT'S GOTTA HURT WHAT DO YOU THINK MARTIN?

1697. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12016 by BillySands on December 9, 2006 at 9:32 am

Mark,
Perhaps you would care to share the verses newton used with us and we can look at the context of them. Context is also the killer of may messianic prophecies too eg micah 5:2 and isaiah 7:14 to name a few. The bible clearly promotes the trinity, so you must be saying the bible is wrong - well that's something we agree on.
I believe newton also came up with a couple of failed dates for the return of jesus. the problem here is that 1 jesus says only god knows the date of the return, and jesus was expecting to return immediately eg matt24 and Matt. 26:64, where Jesus tells the high priest that he will see Jesus return. Just 2 examples of many.

here are a bunch of failed prophecies http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/prophecy.html

1698. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12002 by BillySands on December 9, 2006 at 6:03 am

John, Billy HAS read the bible, Billy was a christian, Billy was an evangelist, Billy Lead groups at alpha courses, Billy fed the hungry and the homeless etc. Billy WAS deluded, but I'm alright now.
Shake off your god delusion.

I think my point was quite clear, if god exists, he created a great deal of nastyness. The fossil record also messes up your idea that man corrupted creation. Death, disease, cannabalism, predation, injury, deformation and volcanic catastrophies existed hundreds of millions of years before man came along. But the most stupid thing that you believe is that mankind (and everything else) was punished because 2 people ate a forbidden fruit. God punished them for disobeying him. Do you think that was fair since before they ate the fruit they did not know it was wrong to disobey god? Please answer, becuse you will just show up the folly of your beliefs

1699. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #12001 by BillySands on December 9, 2006 at 5:50 am

Those who want to see David A Robertsons "reasoned and inconsistant debateing style" (aka advoidance, bullying, ridicule, inconsistency, irrational, ad hominem style) should check out his thread here http://richarddawkins.net/article,300,Dawkins-Delusion-3rd-article-Same-Stupid-Title,David-Robertson#11993

POT - KETTLE David

I wish I had met him a long time ago then I would have beccome an atheist a lot sooner.

1700. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #11993 by BillySands on December 9, 2006 at 3:49 am

Joad and Martin,
Apparently (according to a theologian friend of mine) the inquisitors invented the rack with biblical guidance. like the getting your immoral values from the bible quote. It is so true but so often overlooked by the deluded