The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

151. Comment #12000 by JonG on December 9, 2006 at 5:35 am

292. Comment #11946 by BillySands on December 8, 2006 at 1:18 pm

To Quote Eric Idol..., etc...

Well, Billy, he didn't prevent you either, but I still don't see your point..?

To everyone else:

I think the point is that if God were around everything in the garden should be rosey..!

Do I have room for the first 6 books of Genesis here..?
Would Billy read it..?

Oh well, i'll quote Eric Idol,

'One foot in the Grave...'

Other Comments by JonG

152. 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

Other Comments by BillySands

153. Comment #12009 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 9, 2006 at 8:03 am

Interesting thought! The lengths some people will go to to avoid the obvious conclusion!

Ah but thats the problem. It isn't at all obvious to many of us, at least not anymore:-/

Your hypothesis fails because you invoke a boundlessly complex entity (god) to explain the mystery of the emergence of modestly complex life (us). It doesn't get you anywhere.

Now, I'll gladly grant you that the "many universes hypothesis" is far from satisfactory, but it's orders of magnitude more likely than this vast entity called god, and at least it's not simply a dead end about which no more can said.

The next problem with the god option is about his properties and is multi fold.
1) We've been at this for millenia and still have no real idea what god is like, what his properties are etc. Lots of conjecture and speculation of course. The various books bouncing around purporting to explain this stuff all contradict each other, and even within the broad sweep of each tradition engender violent disagreement on the basics.
2) Evil, injustice call it what you like, simply kills the notion of god put forward by all the main monotheistic religions. God simply cannot be all good and all powerful in the face of what we see. The hypothesis "god does not exist, doesn't care, or is self absorbed shit" is a far more logical explanation of the facts of life we see. It simply cannot be talked around, except by recourse to bullshit about the wisdom and mystery of god. The world is manifestly injust and nasty. Nuff said.
3) Science has told us more about the world in a mere 300 hundred years than religion in the preceeding 10,000. Why on earth should we keep flogging a dead horse that has basically always been dead?
4) Where you born in Turkey you'd be muslim, or in India a Hindu, or in Scandinavia in the time of Vikings, a worshiper of Thor. It is mere blind chance that has made you a xian. Think about it ....

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

154. Comment #12012 by Mark Taunton on December 9, 2006 at 8:39 am

Brian writes (288): "Thats the problem Mark, hardly anyone of substance agrees with you on this."

Don't creationists get regularly bashed here for this type of argument? If I appeal to the views of (an) authority, e.g. Isaac Newton - in the eyes of most, a man of substance - you'll verbally swipe at me. You will say in effect that it's the scientific facts that matter, not the apparent weight of any given "authority". But you can without inconsistency do effectively the same, as if to dismiss my point?

I will appeal to Newton. But not in the way that would probably be disdained by you in the above terms. Not in the sense of just pointing at him and saying "there's a well known, well regarded man, indeed a great scientist, who believed (some of) what I believe, so my beliefs must be OK". There are, certainly, similarities between quite a number of his religious views – mostly hidden from public scrutiny at the time – and Christadelphian positions. (E.g. the return of Christ to establish the kingdom of God on earth; that the soul is mortal; his denial of the trinity, previously mentioned, etc. http://www.isaac-newton.org/ provides a scholarly survey of this area.) But that's not my point here.

Newton, from his own in-depth reading of the Bible, came to a particular understanding, and wrote at length, about Jewish history. Not so much its past, but much more the (to him still) future course of it. He predicted exactly those events I summarised previously, which are now history to us. He did so between 150 and 250 years ahead of when they actually happened. And he did so, not from any ideas of his own scientific predictive ability, but evidently because he believed that the prophets of the Bible spoke the truth, and that the words were given to them directly by God. In respect of that belief, and how God would indeed bring Bible prophecies to their fulfilment, he was right on the ball.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

155. 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

Other Comments by BillySands

156. Comment #12017 by Mark Taunton on December 9, 2006 at 9:40 am

Brian writes (288): "the myriad of disagreements, within christianity itself, on even substantive dogma completely invalidates this position."

Scientists disagree about many things, and that's OK by you: "At least that's how the method functions," as you say in (289). Amongst the many - sometimes widely spread, even diametrically opposing - ideas about any particular uncertain issue in biology, or cosmology, or particle physics, or whatever, you believe that a true explanation will eventually be identified and agreed, by application of "the scientific method". Perhaps nobody today has a true explanation of some theoretical difficulty, but it will be discovered in the future. In your view, if the scientific method works properly, all the alternative ideas will indeed ultimately be shown to be false, and the true one vindicated, even if all of today's ideas are wrong.

Nonetheless, for various controversial issues, there are disagreements, sometimes sharp, bitter and personalised, between the proponents of incompatible ideas, who compete with one another in arguing for them. That fact evidently poses no problem for you. The existence of multiple incompatible views in science, each hotly argued for, is no grounds to deny the existence of scientific "truth" altogether. Yet from your line of argument above, it is entirely valid to do that with the vast array of competing ideas in religion. On what logical basis do you make a difference in that regard between the two domains?

There are indeed many competing, opposing ideas amongst the great chaotic masses of "religious people". The things that I believe are rejected and opposed by the great majority of those who call themselves Christians, to say nothing of Moslems, Jewish traditionalists, Hindus or anyone else (though in varying degrees, and for reasons that differ, between and within those groups). That does not faze me. I too believe that ultimately "the truth will out".

But it won't happen by an equivalent of the scientific method, by some gradual process of resolution between incompatible religious views, as in scientific matters. I am not under any illusion about that. 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. (There are so many passages I could cite for that, I hardly know where to begin, but try Psalm 2, Matthew 24:30,31; Acts 1:11, 3:13-21, 17:30,31, for starters.) So much of Bible prophecy has already been fulfilled in detail, especially over just the past century or so, that Bible readers have every reason to expect the rest of it will be, too.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

157. 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!

Other Comments by BillySands

158. Comment #12020 by Mark Taunton on December 9, 2006 at 10:48 am

I think a comment I just posted got lost. It seems to be do to with when someone else has posted their comment between my entering mine in the box and then finally clicking on 'submit' (Shaun reported that same problem earlier.) In this case I see Billy has added that rather negative rider to his earlier request - I didn't see it before I scrolled down the new version of this page to discover my new comment was lost.

Billy I am still entirely prepared to provide what you ask far. I will list the passages without any personal comment if you prefer (to avoid "preaching"). But I won't now work on that unless you (or someone) confirms it will be worth my time.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

159. Comment #12021 by Mark Taunton on December 9, 2006 at 10:54 am

In context of Brian's observation on the "myriad of disagreements, within christianity", let me add this.

The Bible predicted not only global political developments, particularly in relation to the Jews, and the re-constitution of the nation of Israel as a prelude to the establishing of God's kingdom over the whole earth. It also predicted the future course of (in its widest sense) "Christianity". Jesus too was a prophet – the greatest, who lived out his own words to the utmost. He and others give very plain prophecies of the future, both for his faithful followers, and also about those who consider themselves such, but who do not act in accordance with his teaching.

Just like Paul, James, Peter and others writing later, Jesus clearly did not have a view such as appears on this site's home page: he never spoke of any "advancing wave" of those who would follow his teachings, as if expecting them to transform the world. Rather, he fully expected trouble to arise, for reasons entirely consistent with the Bible's general message about human nature and its inclination against God.

For example in Matthew 24 (and a parallel record in Luke 21) Jesus predicts the savage crushing by Rome of the Jewish nation, and the problems his own disciples would face. He accurately describes the fall and destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 and onwards, including a peculiar detail of ordering that seems to make no sense (Luke 21:20,21), unless one examines the facts of history. (I know, I know, you'll say "it was written or edited after the event" - leave it be.) In addition, he correctly predicted the rejection of his message by most Jews, the antagonism and violent reactions in particular of the Jewish leaders, but also of Gentile opponents towards his disciples. That violence would extend to murder, of both himself and others who preached the true gospel.

Moreover, he said there would come false teachers, false prophets, purporting to act in his name. These would change his message and replace it with their own ideas, presenting themselves as better Christs. He said that the activities of such deceptive people – the original "wolves in sheep's clothing" - would lead many to lose their love. Paul makes the same dire prediction, in his last meeting with believers in Ephesus (Acts 20:25-32). And Peter takes up the same theme. In his 2nd letter (e.g. chapter 1:19-2:3), he first speaks of the true prophets of old who had spoken the words of God by direct inspiration, giving light to those who heed them. He goes on to warn (2:1): "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of."

As RD so eagerly expands on in TGD, great misery has indeed come upon the world, not least through violence and evil perpetrated "in the name of Christ" (but completely incompatible with "turn the other cheek" of course), over most of the past two millennia. The "way of truth" founded on the inspired scriptures, has certainly been "evil spoken of" as a result, exactly as the prophets predicted. Yet, despite the shame, the contempt, the cynicism and enmity they face, caused in part by those who in works deny Jesus while claiming to speak for him (Titus 1:15,16), a few here and there still strive to live by that way, to follow Jesus' commandments to enter in by the narrow gate (Matt 7:12-15).

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).

The existence of that "myriad of disagreements within christianity", viewed from this perspective, in fact provides evidence for, not against, the truth of the Bible.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

160. Comment #12022 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 9, 2006 at 11:06 am

You will say in effect that it's the scientific facts that matter, not the apparent weight of any given "authority". But you can without inconsistency do effectively the same, as if to dismiss my point?

There is no inconsistency here. You are confusing authority with the consensus produced by the scientific method.

You, and a very small group of fellow travellers have formed a minority opinion about the bible, thousands of years after it's writing and with recourse to nothing more than your own musings on the subject.

This is not the same thing as a scientific hypothesis exposed to rigorous and relentless scrutiny be people with a vested interest in proving it wrong, and their pet theory right.

In addition, you do exactly what I have described in practically every other area of your life. You refer to plumbers, electricians, accountants, lawyers and pension fund managers when it comes to these specialist areas. You do due diligence to ensure you won't get screwed of course, but you don't go into the detail.

Thats how I view complex issues in my life and especially scientific questions of major import.

In the field of religion there is nothing like the constantly renewing consensus, and shifting attitudes, we see in science. On the contrary it is an endless cycle of the same stuff recurring and being squashed and/or gaining the upper hand for a while, before it gets squashed by the next cycle.

Yet from your line of argument above, it is entirely valid to do that with the vast array of competing ideas in religion. On what logical basis do you make a difference in that regard between the two domains?

I'm amazed that you would even ask such an obvious question!!! Scientists are just mortals, stumbling along. The process of each new generation of scientists replacing the one before is driven by personal greed, arrogance and diligence with an occasional dash of humility and altruisim. They have also only had a few hundred years to get it together.

God on the other hand has a "birds eye view" of the process, an ability to see the whole chain of events from start to finish. He has had eternity to draft and execute his plan. Plus, an unprecedented power to intervene and establish his credentials.

That he has not done this, is directly responsible for the world we see. The whole christian story is a series of patchwork interventions to get things back on track.

I manage projects for a living. If I had made as dramatic a shit of things as god, especially given perfect knowledge of all inputs, outputs, costings and resources required, I would be FIRED and rightly so. I mean honestly. REALLY. Just look at the world that god made. A world where some organisms can only function by burrowing into the eyeball of a human child. Where cats play with mice. Where one human can hack off the head of another because of a difference about imaginary friends.

We are on this little raft barrelling through the universe, and all we have is each other Mark, there is no god. We need to make the best of it, treat each other well and not waste our lives on unproductive fantasy. In effect we need to act as if we were a small, intimate and related band of humans, no more than a 100 strong. Us against an uncompromising and unforgiving universe, because thats the way it is.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

161. 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

Other Comments by BillySands

162. Comment #12025 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 9, 2006 at 11:17 am

Comment #12021 by Mark Taunton on December 9, 2006 at 10:54 am

The Bible predicted not only global political developments, .....

This is mere unsubstantiated assertion on your part. I've read the bible so have many others, and very few of them draw the conclusions you draw. In the absence of new information, this puts you firmly on the wrong side of reality.

Rather, he fully expected trouble to arise, for reasons entirely consistent with the Bible's general message about human nature and its inclination against God ....

Yet, god created us, with full foreknowledge, and allowed all this suffering, misery and death as a direct and known result of our "free will" a "gift" forced upon us so that god can get off on our worship.

You don't see how self serving and despicable such a creature is? To subject millions of sentient beings to misery and death for his own glory? If such a being exists we should do everything we can to destroy him, not worship him.

Let me ask you a question Mark, do you have children? If god asked you to kill one of them as a test, would you?

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

163. Comment #12028 by John Phillips on December 9, 2006 at 11:56 am

Shaun, I am late to the discussion but two points for now. With regards to the theory of evolution in particular, but is true of all branches of science. Science works by someone hypothesising about something. They then research the subject through observation, experiment and theorising. eventually they will arrive at an answer one way or another. Other scientists will then often try to falsify the original researchers results and if they can't it will eventually be accepted as accurate about that subject. If they can then the theory is discarded. Where there are disagreements it simply means that there is insufficient evidence to make a call one way or another, at least as yet. This is much the position with the Theory of Evolution in that the vast majority of evolutionary scientist agree that the basic theory is accurate but that there are details that are as yet undiscovered. However, nowhere is it necessary to propose a supernatural mechanism for what is as yet unknown and some of which may never be known.

However, conversely, unlike disagreements between scientists about various details in say the theory of evolution where it is because as yet we don't have sufficient knowledge, the difference between different religions, even different sects of the same basic religion, is all about how one group interprets their holy book over another and the only answer to such disagreements is to have faith that one interpretation or another is the correct one. No falsifiability, simply I (some religious leader) say it is so and if you belong to my sect or religion you will accept what I say, oh and by the way, ignore every contradiction in the holy book as it only means something if I say it means something and don't go interpreting it your self or I will call you heretic. And being declared a heretic can still be very literally fatal, as it has been down the ages. The complete opposite of how science works where to simply accept without questioning is considered the true heresy.

As to Newton, while Newton was a true genius when it came to optics, calculus etc., he was as loony as they come in other areas. For one thing he believed in Alchemy, Spiritualism et al. None of which belies his contribution as one of the greatest scientific thinkers the world has ever known but does put into context his world view. Not forgetting of course that belief in god was the norm in his day so it is not too surprising that he would believe in a creator, so claiming him as a supporter is not that smart a move, unlike his science which is correct within certain bounds, i.e. Newtonian physics being a subset of modern physics.

Other Comments by John Phillips

164. Comment #12030 by Mark Taunton on December 9, 2006 at 12:18 pm

Billy & Brian: together you have defeated me (I never should have hit that refresh button!). I have already told my wife I would post nothing more today, and here I am breaking my word already...

Let me assure you that I am often wrong, and not just in my choice of plumbers or insurers (don't ask!). I do change my mind about things, including the interpretation of particular passages of scripture. Would you prefer, I could prefix every sentence with "According to the Bible, ", or "It is my considered belief - but you may challenge me to prove - that...", to somehow indicate my fallibility and genuine capacity to doubt. I note that not all on your side of the debate say that sort of thing, though. Statements of solid conviction abound, not made only by people like me.

Billy: some (not all) of the passages you cited earlier - and many others that you didn't - have indeed given my feeble intellect a tough time before now. A few of those I think I can deal with, others I still don't know. But against the strength of the match I find, when testing the Bible as a whole against the world I see around me, I am inclined to think that they can be resolved.

Again I ask - in order to allow you the possible ammunition you seek - shall I post a list of passages Newton used, or shall I not?

Brian: I do have children. You ask hard questions. I will sleep on it. My time is limited and I may not answer tomorrow but (assuming you're still around to care) I shall try to answer you before too long.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

165. Comment #12032 by Mark Taunton on December 9, 2006 at 12:42 pm

Re Newton & the Bible, the following site may be of interest - catalogues his theological writings, and has full text available for at least some.

http://www.newtonproject.ic.ac.uk/prism.php?id=44

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

166. Comment #12033 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 9, 2006 at 12:55 pm

I note that not all on your side of the debate say that sort of thing, though. Statements of solid conviction abound, not made only by people like me.

Sure they do, we are all human and want to validate our world view, because it is in turn a kind of validation of us.

For the record, there may be a god, I conceed that possibility, I just don't think he/she/it can be good, or really care, but I am very nearly certain that none of the main religions have any idea what god is really like.

I am genuinely not particularly hung up on evolution one way or the other, just totally disenchanted by mainstream religion. In a funny way, I suspect we may be alike ... I've opted out, and you've opted to beat a new path back to original apostolic basics. I applaud your motives, but your quest is doomed, and you are just the latest in a long line:-(

As regards the child question. I suspect the answer would be a resounding no. You and I both know, that such a thing would be an immoral act.

However, it is illustrative of the inherent danger of any system that decouples our ethics from cause and effect, from our own inate moral sense. That reduces morality to the dictate of some other, as opposed to what we know is right or wrong.

You strike me as a very decent and thoughtful person, and this is the horror of religion that it has the power to subvert and torture good people like yourself, and for absolutely nothing.

Good night.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

167. 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

Other Comments by BillySands

168. Comment #12036 by shauntheboy on December 9, 2006 at 1:21 pm

Billy and Brian, your arguments against God's existence seem to fall into two categories, first the problem of doubt, and second, the problem of evil and God's apparent sponsorship of evil. Answering how I understand these cases for dis-belief cannot be done in a couple of sentences, so I'll try to keep the posts as short as is reasonably possible and split them up. I hope that in doing this I don't interrupt the flow of the argument too much.

This objection is very ancient, as old as human history and goes a bit like this: "if there's a God how come he doesn't prove it to me?" or "how come he's such a useless communicator?" or "why doesn't he strike me dead now?" This is an argument from a very "one-eyed" logic. If God intervened at every point in our daily existence to remind us that he was there, to reward us or punish us, what kind of world would we inhabit? What effect would that have on our character? This would be a world where everybody obeyed God because it paid them to do so! I don't have a problem with the fact that God does not intervene in this way. I would suggest he chooses not to intervene because, as scripture teaches consistently, he has given us free will and to intervene would negate that principal.

In debating with some of the great intellectuals in Athens the apostle Paul came across a similar objection. I've just included a few excerpts from the passage for convenience.
Acts 17:23-34
24 "God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.
25 "Nor is He worshiped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things….
27 "so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;…….
30 "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,
31 "because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained (Christ). He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead."
32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said, "We will hear you again on this matter."
(NKJ)

In essence Paul says that God has given men and women free will to conduct their lives as they see fit. There is inherent in our minds the ability to ask the question "why?". We have freedom to answer that question as we choose, but God has left enough evidence to choose in his favour (Romans 1), and he has appointed a time when that opportunity to choose will cease. At that time he will move on to the next stage in his purpose, the Kingdom of God on Earth. This will be a time when those who have made the choice to believe will participate in the next phase of God's plan. During that time God's influence will be very visible as the Earth and its population are brought to the point where they are able to fulfill their potential.

Other Comments by shauntheboy

169. Comment #12037 by Mark Taunton on December 9, 2006 at 1:29 pm

To those taking up, or alluding to, Dawkins' protests on "Muslim children", "Catholic children", etc,, and 'the accident of birth': There is no such thing as a "Christadelphian child".

Yes, Christadelphians have children. Yes, we read the Bible with them. Yes, we teach them about it and point out from it what we believe God asks of us all. But we have no rituals to do with birth or childhood, as if to "pre-commit" them. Each is obliged to make up his or her own mind. Though a cause of sadness, by no means all children of Christadelphian parents are baptised (by full immersion) "into Christ". Baptism is only performed for those who ask for it as mature individuals, and who demonstrate that they understand primary scriptural principles and are committed to the implications of what they are doing. It's exactly the same requirement as for people who have no family connection with us.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

170. Comment #12039 by shauntheboy on December 9, 2006 at 1:35 pm

The problem of evil argument tends to go like this: "Why doesn't God make the world a better place? Is it because he can't?" If the answer is "He can't" - then he isn't an all powerful God. If the answer is "He won't" – then he is a malevolent God lacking love. In my experience this philosophical objection is the most common reason that atheists cite for believing that God cannot exist. But it is also a question that many believers ask too.

The first point "Why doesn't God make the world a better place?" reveals an interesting underlying assumption. It takes for granted that the world is not what it should be, could be, or ought to be. Additionally, it makes the assumption, that given the opportunity, authority and power any human with the right moral caliber could sort the world out. This assumption is not necessarily true. As we all know and agree I'm sure, the world is a very complex place. Inevitably when you make a change in one place it has a detrimental effect in another place. An analogy of this might be seen in a drug that provides a wonder cure for brain cancer, but unfortunately the side effects include cerebral atrophy that renders the recipient mentally incapable. There is no magic bullet for the problem of evil.

The trouble with human beings is that they want to have it all their own way on their own terms. By viewing these issues in this way we are just using more advanced versions of the logic our children use as they grow and develop. What kind of adults would my children grow up to be if I pandered to their every whim and let them dictate the terms and conditions in our home? What type of individual would they turn into if my sole purpose in life was to cosset them and provide them with what they thought they needed to be happy? I had a discussion with my youngest son this morning (he's 3) about why he couldn't have a Jammy-Dodger (a biscuit / cookie) before his lunch. He had refused to eat his breakfast in the morning and we told him that if he didn't eat his breakfast there would be no snacks before lunchtime. He cried, he rolled around on the floor, he cried some more. According to his world-view I was a cruel, malevolent father who did not have his interests at heart. That could not be further from the truth! I treat him in this way (not just over Jammy-Dodgers!) because I love him very deeply and want to develop his character so that he makes the right choices in life - I want him to grow up into a decent human being. That process, at times, involves suffering and discomfort for the time being.

Ultimately the answer to these questions lies in the issue of free will. What these questions convey is the response to another question, namely, if we believe there is a God is it likely that he would allow one of his creatures to go "off the rails"? The answer to that question is yes, if he truly wanted that creature to have free will. Even for an all-powerful being there is no alternative, to suggest otherwise is to adopt the logic of my three year old son! Do you really believe that the world would be a better place if God had not given us free will? I have no doubt that a world where God controlled our every move would not be better than this one. One thing in particular that could not exist without free will is love. Human hatred is a terrible thing , without free will we could not hate each other, but we would not be able to love each other either. As things stand we have the freedom to either love or hate, the choice is ours. Without this freedom men and women would be nothing more than automatons, there would be no generosity, forgiveness, kindness, selflessness, giving. In other words all of the really good things that make life worthwhile and fulfilling. Life without these things is not life at all.

God is dealing with a very complex and difficult problem – you and me! And he is dealing with that problem in a very profound manner. Through a process of education and discipline, through the experiences of life and contact with his Word. In these things He is providing us with the opportunity to grow up into the type of being he originally intended us to be. He wants us to make this choice because we really want to do it.

Here is a flavour of some of the Bible passages which inform these views:

Isaiah 29:16
16 Surely you have things turned around! Shall the potter be esteemed as the clay; for shall the thing made say of him who made it, "He did not make me"? Or shall the thing formed say of him who formed it, "He has no understanding"?
(NKJ)

See also: Romans 9:21-24 and 2 Peter 3:9

Of course, if you believe that the world around us will continue in its present form under human government then the problem of pain, suffering and evil remains a conundrum, a purposeless blight on humanity to which there is no solution. The Bible teaches us that this is in fact not the case and that God will intervene when the Lord Jesus returns to commence the process of bringing the Earth and its inhabitants to their wonderful potential.

Again, here's a flavour of some of the Bible passages which inform this view:

Isaiah 2:3-4
3 Many people shall come and say, "Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; he will teach us His ways, and we shall walk in His paths." For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
4 He shall judge between the nations, and rebuke many people; they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.
(NKJ)

See also: 1 Corinthians 15:25-26 and Matthew 25:31-32

We have been given free will from the very beginning and we have chosen to go our own way, and we are living with the consequences of that choice. However, the Bible's message is clear that God will not allow this situation to continue indefinitely.

Other Comments by shauntheboy

171. 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

Other Comments by BillySands

172. Comment #12042 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 9, 2006 at 2:05 pm

What kind of adults would my children grow up to be if I pandered to their every whim and let them dictate the terms and conditions in our home? What type of individual would they turn into if my sole purpose in life was to cosset them and provide them with what they thought they needed to be happy?

These are junvenile and ridiculous analogies. No parent would allow their children to be killed, or whole entire generations to be damned as an "object lesson". Such a parent would be locked up and have their remaining children put into foster care.

Tens of thousands of people die every day of preventable diseases, humans have done much in the last 200 hundred odd years to put a dent in that holocaust, why has god been sitting on his hands for the last 10,000?

Your entire premise preceeds from the assumption that god exists, thus you must twist, squirm and engage in convoluted logic to explain the state of reality we find.

I make the assumption that god does not exist, how does this square with the facts? Why do bad things happen to good people? There is no god. Why do good things happen to bad people? There is no god. Why do natural catastrophes wipe out ten of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands every year? There is no god. Why is there disease, death, war and occasional good stuff? There is no god, and we either make the good stuff happen ourselves,or we don't.

A perfect fit with the facts.

We have been given free will from the very beginning and we have chosen to go our own way, and we are living with the consequences of that choice.

Who is we? Adam? Eve? Would you kill a child for something their parents did? Would you beat a child for something their parents did?

That is morally indefensible, and makes god a monster, it illustrates once again how religious doctrine decouples morality from cause and effect. Things are wrong when they injure others, not because god "says so".

God is dealing with a very complex and difficult problem – you and me!

Yet god is by definition all powerful, all knowing, all good. Things are clicking along exactly as he planned, or else he isn't all knowing. He made us as we are. Does this world really look to you like god has it together?

Theology, and all of your postings are a futile exercise in trying to have your cake and eat it. God cannot be all knowing and simultaneously wrestling with a profound conundrum, thats nonsense. He cannot be the source of all things, and not be responsible for evil. He cannot be all powerful and all good while simultaneously helpless to improve the lot of humanity.

Thus he simply is not ....

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

173. Comment #12043 by shauntheboy on December 9, 2006 at 2:32 pm

Billy, Thanks for your comments. Er.. I think I'll forgo the experiment you propose to validate you hypothesis if you don't mind.

I wasn't seeking to invalidate the argument by virtue of its age, I merely commented on the fact that its a question humans have been asking for a long time.

Anyhow, I have presented my views on God's lack of direct intervention and the problem of suffering from a Bible believing Christians perspective. You have presented the view of the atheistic evolutionist and I thank you for that.

RE your comment on evolution: I agree selective pressures are not random but what they select upon is, namely genetic mutations. The random genetic mutation is the cornerstone of NDT. I apologise if I have said that the selection process was random previously, if I have then that was an error.

Cheers

Shaun

PS you ask about how I would I have free will in heaven. Well I'm fairly sure that the Bible teaches that the Kingdom of God on Earth is the place of reward for the faithful. And in terms of free will in that time, my understanding is that our nature will be changed so that we can fulfill what we desire now (but cannot achieve) to be morally perfect and to be in completely in tune with God.


Other Comments by shauntheboy

174. 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

Other Comments by BillySands

175. Comment #12046 by shauntheboy on December 9, 2006 at 2:47 pm

Brian, Thanks for your comments. You raise some interesting points, but if any spend any more time on here tonight I'm going to be in trouble! Please forgive me if I leave my response until tomorrow evening.

Thanks again,

Shaun

Other Comments by shauntheboy

176. Comment #12049 by melanie on December 9, 2006 at 4:12 pm

306. 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.

Hi there. I would just like to comment on what Billy said earlier about the trinity. If you believe in the trinity you believe that God is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God. I have been brought up as a Christadelphian all of my life and have been brought up to read the Bible and a few months ago, my mum and I did a study on the trinity and I would like to put across a few points on how the Bible does not promote it.

1. Where in the Bible does the word Trinity appear? It doesn't.

2. God cannot die. God is described as the only immortal being in 1 Timothy 6v16 ('Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting.) This means that God cannot die. How can Jesus be God when he died on the cross? Simple answer – he can't.

3. God cannot be tempted. In James 1v13 it says, 'for God cannot be tempted with evil'. We know it is impossible to tempt God to sin. The Bible however clearly states that Jesus suffered temptation. The temptations of Jesus in the wilderness are well known and there are clear statements in the Bible that prove this (Hebrews 2v18 'For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted', Hebrews 4v15 '…but was in all points tempted like as we are…', Luke 4:2 'Being forty days tempted of the devil.' How can Jesus be God if he was tempted? Simple answer – he can't.

4. 1 Timothy 6v16 says, 'Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting.' Exodus 33v20 says, 'For there shall no man see me and live.' (This verse is God talking to Moses). Man cannot see God with their own eyes and live to tell the tale, so how come many people saw Jesus when he preached to the multitudes and when he healed the many sick people? If Jesus was God then they would not have been able to see him therefore Jesus cannot be God.

5. The Holy Spirit is the power of God, not a separate person. Also, have you ever seen written in the Bible, God the Holy Ghost, or God the Holy Spirit? All of the times I have seen the Holy Spirit referred to God is that it is the Spirt OF God, not God himself. Proof of the spirit being of God can be found in Genesis 1v2 'the Spirit of God', Matthew 3v16 'the Spirit of God', Isaiah 11v2 'the spirit of the Lord', Isaiah 61v1 'The Spirit of the Lord God', Ephesians 4v30 'the holy Spirit of God', Luke 5v17 'the power of the Lord'.

I hope this helps you to see that the Bible clearly does not promote the Trinity. Mel G.

Other Comments by melanie

177. 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

Other Comments by BillySands

178. Comment #12058 by lpetrich on December 10, 2006 at 1:06 am

shauntheboy, an omnipotent being would have no problem programming us to be 100% virtuous. Your analogy with human parents is invalid because human parents are not omnipotent.

And as for free will, what's so great about it if it leads to sin? Jesus Christ had taught that one ought to amputate parts of one's body that make one commit sins, and if free will leads to sin, then amputate it also.

Other Comments by lpetrich

179. Comment #12071 by melanie on December 10, 2006 at 7:18 am

Hi Billy,

I am very aware of 1 John 5-7, but I believe it isn't in the original manuscript, as you said, and that it was put in by the translators. Verse 8 however I believe to mean a different thing. In the KJV, only Spirit has a capital letter – water and blood are both lower case. The hebrew word for Spirit in this verse is 'Ruach' which means 'wind' or 'breath'. If we insert the word breath into v8 it would read, 'the breath, the water and the blood and these three agre in one.' I believe this is talking about us, human beings. Breath, water and blood agree in our bodies as it is what keeps us alive. We are the witnesses in earth (Isaiah 43:10,12 'Ye are my witnesses saith the Lord, that I am God.').

The trinity was not believed in the Old and New Testament times. It was around 500 A.D, 400 years after Jesus' death, that a man called Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, wrote something known as the Athanasian Creed which defined the Godhead as:
"The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God."
In the Bible the Holy Spirit is never referred to as the second person of a triune God, clearly showing that the trinity was not known of by the early believers. This is shown in Acts 19:2-3. The chapter tells us of the time Paul met some disciples at Ephesus. Paul asked them, "Have ye received the Holy Spirit since ye believed?". The disciples answered saying, "We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost (i.e Spirit).". Clearly, from all of their bible studies they had never heard of the doctrine of the trinity mentioned.

Yes, God made the angels immortal, but there was a reason for this. Jesus speaks of their immortality in Luke 20:35-36, "Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection." Here Jesus is saying that in the same way as the angels live forever, so will those who will be called the 'sons' and 'daughters' (i.e children) of God when they are accepted at the Judgement seat when Jesus returns, and us as sons and daughters, like the angels, will work for God as Psalm 33:9 says, "For he spake and it was done; he commanded and it stood fast."

Satan cannot be immortal. 'satan' is the hebrew word for 'adversary' or 'enemy' and 'devil' is the greek word for 'satan'. I would first like to look at the hebrew. The word 'satan' means 'adversary' or 'enemy' – note here that satan is an ordinary word meaning adversary and not the name of a person. In Job 1:6 it says:

"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them."

Some people here take the 'sons of God' to be the angels and say that Satan must be a supernatural being if he came with the angels. But we must remember to understand Bible terms in a Bible sense. In Job 38:7, the term 'sons of God' are indeed referred to as angels, but in the Bible as a whole, 'sons of God' is used to refer to the men and women who are baptised and worship God – they are human beings (1 John 3:2 'Beloved, now are we the sons of God' , Isaiah 43:6 'bring my sons from afar, and my daughters').
In the New Testament it is said that Mary, the mother of Jesus, shortly after the birth came to the temple in Jerusalem 'to present him to the Lord' (Luke 2:22). The 'sons of God' in Job, then, who came to 'present themselves before the Lord', had come to worship God in the appointed place, and, of course, in the prescence of the appointed priest at the time. So here, it is a scene of worship on earth, not in heaven.
But what about 'Satan' who came among them? Well, the English translators have put in the capital S themselves as their own invention because in the hebrew language there is no distinction between capital and lower case letters.
So who could this adversary be? The sons of God is plural so this shows there was a group of men who came together to worship. The adversary would have been one of the group of worshippers, in other words he was a man, an enemy to Job because he was jealous and wished to do him harm.
No man is immortal apart from the Lord Jesus Christ so if the satan was a man, he cannot be immortal.

I would just quickly like to look at the greek, the 'devil'. The 'devil' can be translated as 'sin'. Jesus destroyed the devil, or sin, by his death (Hebrews 2:14 'that through death he might destroy him that had power over death, that is, the devil.' , Hebrews 9:26 'hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself'). Immortals can't die but the 'devil' was through the actions of Jesus, therefore the 'devil' or 'satan' cannot be immortal.

God cannot be tempted. In Deuteronomy 6:16 the word 'tempt' and 'tempted' mean to 'not be tempted' or 'to try to tempt'. The Israelites tried to tempt God but failed because God cannot be tempted.

Judas Iscariot was the one who said to sell the perfume to the poor but he didn't want to help the poor (John 12:6 ''This he said not that he cared for the poor''). In the New Testament times, it was traditional for women to anoint the dead with precious ointments and perfumes. Jesus knew he was to die soon (John 12:8 ''For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.'') and he knew that within 3 days of his death he would rise up from the dead, so he felt that tradition should carry on as normal and let the woman anoint him.

Moses did not see God. An angel was sent by God who bore his name (Exodus 23:20 ''Behold, I send and Angel before thee to keep thee in the way and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared.''). Here, Angel has a capital A because the angel has taken God's name. Numbers 12:8 says, "With him will I speak mouth to mouth". Look at Exodus 33:11. Here, it is an angel speaking to Moses as in v20 it says "there shall no man see my face and live.". Acts 7:30,31,35,38 and 53 all clearly talk about Moses. They state that it was an angel in the fiery bush whom God spoke to Moses through, and verse 38 says, "This is he that was in the church (can be translated as people) in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sinai… who received the lively oracles (the 10 commandments) to give unto us.". God himself doesn't speak to Moses, it is an angel who bears His name.

I would take up your recommendation and read the book but I hardly have spare time now with the large amount of GCSE work and homeworks and coursework that I am receiving in school at the moment.

Melanie.

Other Comments by melanie

180. Comment #12074 by shauntheboy on December 10, 2006 at 7:45 am

Melanie,

Your going to get bad grades in those GCSE's if you keep writing posts that length!

Shaun

Other Comments by shauntheboy

181. 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

Other Comments by BillySands

182. Comment #12089 by shauntheboy on December 10, 2006 at 1:52 pm

Billy,
I was looking again at your description of the events in Eden and OT Messianic prophecies. Firstly, your description of the choice that faced Adam & Eve is perhaps somewhat skewed and differs from the record in Genesis. God placed them in a "very good" environment, gave them everything they needed for their comfort and only one rule to follow! Sounds to me like the dice was loaded in their favour! The consequences of breaking that rule were explained to them "dying you shall die" accompanied by "sorrow" (suffering). In other words once they broke that rule they would open up a Pandora's box of unpleasant things which were the inevitable consequences of disobedience in a world of free will. I think this is perhaps a fairer representation of the events.

Whether we perceive the events to be fair or not is a different question. I say they were because God is the Creator and establishes the rules and accept that those rules are just. You say they are not fair because: a) you don't believe in God, and, b) even if he did exist you don't like the way he runs things.

Is that a fair representation of our opposing positions?

Regarding the issue of the Messianic prophecies, particularly Micah 5:2 and Isaiah 7:14. The first concerns the venue of Christ's birth, Bethlehem, and the second the miraculous nature of his birth (for the benefit of anyone listening who doesn't know!).

The Micah passage comes in the middle of a prophecy talking about the establishment of God's kingdom on Earth, beginning at Jerusalem, and the future glory of that Kingdom. I would think that naming the birthplace of the one through whom God would accomplish these things, and who is to rule on his behalf, is not perhaps as out of context as you suggest:

"Bethlehem….out of you shall come forth to me the one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth are from old, from everlasting"

Around AD30 faithful Jews were expecting the Messiah to appear (probably on the basis of Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy) and were surprised to hear that he was from Nazareth (John 1:47). Why? The Pharisees at the time of Christ recognised that the Messiah could NOT come from Nazareth (John 7:52), they did not have the value of hindsight as we do, and neither did they have a Christian case to promote. So how did they reach the conclusion that the Christ would NOT come "from Nazareth"? I would suggest it is because they recognised that prophecies such as Micah's involved the accomplishment of God's purpose through the agency of the Messiah, in other words through Jesus (although obviously the Pharisees didn't accept Jesus as the Christ). They recognised that prophecies such as this one in Micah referred to the Christ. This being the case this prophecy can't really be as obscure as you contend.

The second prophecy (Isaiah 7:13-16) concerns the virgin birth. The reality or otherwise of the virgin birth is one of those issues that you either accept or reject. I accept it, you reject it (I presume?). Having said that, I accept that in this case the context is more obscure than in Micah. However, if you look at verses 13-16 they can only be talking about the Christ; "Immanuel"; "he shall refuse the evil and choose the good" and so on. The context of the prophecy is foretelling the period of desolation that would come upon the land (Israel & Judah) when their kings would be removed and led into captivity by the Assyrians and Babylonians. This desolation would remain until "the sign" (verse 14) of the king whose right it was to rule would come. In other words you will know when the true King is coming because "the virgin shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel"

Whilst you have problems with the validity of these two Messianic prophesies, do you feel the same way about, say, Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53?

Shaun

Other Comments by shauntheboy

183. 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

Other Comments by BillySands

184. Comment #12098 by S on December 10, 2006 at 3:16 pm

This all seems to be getting a bit biblical, so I thought I'd inject some science…

To Shaunyboy:

The 'not enough time' thing.

The current scientific consensus for the age of the Universe is about 13.7 billion years. Geologists, based on extensive and detailed scientific evidence, consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.6 billion years. An incredibly long time, that is extremely difficult to comprehend. Here are some basic, back of an envelope calculations I've made, that give you an idea of how easy it is for evolution to fit into this time scale. 4.6 billion years equates to:

330 million generations of humans (Life cycle=14 years). Human genome contains 3 billion DNA base pairs. However only 2% of the genome is encoded by the 25,000 genes (60,000,000 base pairs).

However we evolved from other species with much shorter life cycles. Some examples of shorter life cycles:

97 trillion generations of Bacteria (life cycle=20 mins). Bacterial genomes' contain about 600,000 DNA base pairs.

22.5 billion generations of Rat (life cycle=60 days) Rat genome contains 2.75 billion DNA base pairs.

Lots of numbers I know, but the basic idea is that the number of available years for evolution to occur is huge when you take into account the number of generations (or replications) and the amount of genetic material within genomes to play with.

The 'it's a random process' thing.

The process of natural selection isn't random; it selects improved designs, however small or large they may be (under the conditions present at the time). The designer (imperfect replication) is unguided, a bit like, to use your Corvette analogy, car designers/manufacturers. There are some great cars out there, due to a natural selection – people generally buy good cars, and don't buy bad ones. This is why many firms have become extinct - people didn't buy the bad cars. This is simple competition, but it molds the next generation of car. The environment (the market) plays a part in this. Cars used to be very unsafe; however after years of selective pressure from consumers, extra features have been invented, added and refined, such that we now have very safe cars. Cars are currently undergoing a different pressure; the cost of oil. The environment has changed and cars must adapt (become more fuel efficient) or they too will become extinct.

To repeat, the selection process is not random. Variation proposes and selection disposes.

Shaunyboy said 'Even if such a copying error were to provide a miniscule initial advantage the liklihood of the "characteristic" surviving beyond the first one or two generations is small'

Why? The advantage may not be miniscule, but if it was, why would the advantage disappear over a couple of generations? That doesn't make sense.


To Mark and others:

When talking about Newton please remember he died a long time before Darwin, Mendel, Watson, Crick and the huge number of scientists that have massively advanced our understanding of Biology. Newton didn't have a clue about genetics, molecular biology or natural selection (or the theory of relativity, for that matter).

The second point is that universities (certainly Oxford and Cambridge) arose from the church – they were religious institutions; a beautiful irony, if ever there was one. Universities existed to understand and describe god's world. So it is hardly surprising that Newton had religious thoughts. By the way, he went to Trinity College, Cambridge (yes, I know). Things have now changed of course – we know it is not god's world, but our own.

Other Comments by S

185. 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.

Other Comments by BillySands

186. Comment #12233 by shauntheboy on December 11, 2006 at 11:22 am

Brian,
Sorry for the delay in responding to your post.
Perhaps I could answer one of the objections you raise concerning the position I am discussing this issue from.

You said of me "Your entire premise proceeds from the assumption that God exists"
I would have thought that goes without saying? This is no more surprising than the fact that your entire assumption proceeds from the view that he does not exist. I expect that of you and presume you expect, and accept, that of me!

The view that I argue from is that "God is" and that the Bible is His message to us. You argue that He "is not" and the Bible is mumbo-jumbo. These points I presume we both accept of each other, and therefore, they are not valid reasons to reject the argument presented.

The main thrust of your objections to the case I present seems to be based on the view that: unpleasant things happen in our world; the "innocent" suffer for no apparent reason; humans seem to be free to inflict misery on each other unpunished; disease and natural disasters cause misery and death. Therefore, you deduce that there can be no God, and even if there is a good he must be "bad" to allow such things to go unchecked. Is that a fair representation of your case?

I'm not saying this to try and catch you out or anything, I'm just making sure that I understand your argument.

Shaun

Other Comments by shauntheboy

187. Comment #12243 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 11, 2006 at 12:16 pm

The main thrust of your objections to the case I present seems to be based on the view that: unpleasant things happen in our world; ....

Absolutely correct.

... "Your entire premise proceeds from the assumption that God exists"
I would have thought that goes without saying? ...

I don't think our positions are equally rational. The position "an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god does not exist" squares far more readily with the world we see. The alternate position, yours, requires convoluted, and ultimatley contrived explanation.

The only reason the view "there is a god" is so widely held is due to millenia of cultural momentum. A mere few hundred years of science is gradually countering this incredible inertia, and we are beginning to turn the corner.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

188. Comment #12246 by NoLongerHaveBelief on December 11, 2006 at 12:28 pm

>>This objection is very ancient, as old as human history and goes a bit like this: "if there's a God how come he doesn't prove it to me?" or "how come he's such a useless communicator?" or "why doesn't he strike me dead now?" This is an argument from a very "one-eyed" logic. If God intervened at every point in our daily existence to remind us that he was there, to reward us or punish us, what kind of world would we inhabit? What effect would that have on our character? This would be a world where everybody obeyed God because it paid them to do so! I don't have a problem with the fact that God does not intervene in this way. I would suggest he chooses not to intervene because, as scripture teaches consistently, he has given us free will and to intervene would negate that principal.<<

You conveniently forget 2 important points.

1. Quoting the Bible as 'proof' is circular reasoning. You can't say the Bible is true, because the Bible says so.
2. A PERFECT God, couldn't consider a concept such as evil, death, disease or suffering. A perfect GOD could only commit PERFECT deeds. Therefore, we should all be immortal, disease-free and perfect. Clearly were not perfect. NOTHING imperfect can come from anything PERFECT.

I suggest you believers check your premises. You are clearly wrong in your thinking.

Oh! And by the way. We were 'created' in God's image. So God must be a man and a woman and a Christian, Muslim, Sikh, hindi, Buddhist, Theist, non-believing, heterosexual, homosexual Atheist!

Or am I missing the point here? Does God know everything? Well then, he MUST know who is going to be homosexual, who is going to be Atheist IN ADVANCE, so, therefore, we DON'T have free-will, when we go to the LOVELY hell and damntion that our Loving-God has prepared for us!

What a wonderful Being. Worship that? I'd rather not, thank you.

Other Comments by NoLongerHaveBelief

189. Comment #12256 by shauntheboy on December 11, 2006 at 12:56 pm

Nolongerhave belief

There's a difference between "knowing" something in advance, and directly "intervening" to influence that choice/situation.

Shaun

Other Comments by shauntheboy

190. Comment #12258 by shauntheboy on December 11, 2006 at 1:12 pm

Brian,

So why does God not intervene and prevent the harm we suffer or the cruelty we inflict on one another? Why doesn't he "100% programme us" for good (as Ipetrich rightly suggests, he could if he wanted too)? Why?

1John (4:8) teaches that "God is love". . "How so? – Look at the world around us" would presumably be your response. Well if the world was always going to be like this you might have a point, but the Bible teaches that the world will not continue in this state and that what we see around us is a work in progress. The end result will be an Earth full of love, happiness and joy with no disease or suffering, and ultimately death too will be done away with. These are the perfect circumstances that God is in the process of creating. There are many Bible passages which look forward to this time (too many to list here) This theme is consistent and runs from Genesis to Revelation (for example Genesis 22:15-18; 2Samuel 7:12-16; Psalm 72; Isaiah 2:1-4; Acts 3:19-21; Revelation 21:1-7).

Because God "is love", love matters to him more than anything else in the world. God's main aim in creating men and women was that they should enjoy his love, and to give them the opportunity to return it. For this reason God simply HAD to give us free will. By its very nature "love" is a voluntary thing, even an omnipotent God cannot make men and women love him, for if he did then it would not be love! It is impossible to force somebody to love you, I don't know if you've ever tried? Unless it comes freely and willingly there can be no such thing as love.

I alluded to the comments of "Ipetrich" in his/her post yesterday when they said God could have pre-programmed us to be kind and selfless, etc. This assumption is absolutely correct – but then where would the love be? Where would be the joy and the happiness that comes through love and kindness willingly offered? It simply would not, could not, exist. This would reduce human beings to the equivalent of the worker bee in the hive that sacrifices itself by stinging the threat to the hive, or the ant that tirelessly works to provide for the greater good of the colony. There is no virtue or merit or joy or happiness in these creatures, they behave in this way because that is the way they are "programmed" (evolutionists and creationists would agree on that point I presume?) to behave. If you think the world would be a better place if we were in the mould of these instinctive creatures, then you are entitled to that opinion, but I for one disagree.

Brian said; "Does this world really look to you like god has it together?"

Yes it does. In an earlier post yo