101. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76526 by stevencarrwork on October 6, 2007 at 4:57 am

MARK TAUNTON
Old Tyre is no longer a city in the slighest meaningful sense, whatever the map says

CARR
Is this a joke?

Here is what the prophecy says :-

Ezekiel 26 'I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt....'

There are buildings right where Old Tyre used to be.

Bare rock? The place is a bare rock?

http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/900/910/919/sour/pictures/index3.html

Look at all those buildings - right where the old island used to be.

http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/900/910/919/sour/pictures/index.html

Yes, there are also ruins in Tyre.

But there are also ruins in Rome. Does this mean Rome does not exist?

Amazingly, you can show pictures of buildings in Tyre to Christians and they will look at the pictures and say that the prophecy came true that it was a bare rock and was never rebuilt.

Christianity - not believing the evidence of your own eyes since 33 AD

102. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76525 by stevencarrwork on October 6, 2007 at 4:44 am

MARK TAUNTON
Next, you mention Deuteronomy 28, without being more specific.

CARR
Well, let me be more specific.

Verse 63 :-
Just as it pleased the LORD to make you prosper and increase in number, so it will please him to ruin and destroy you.

It seems your alleged god takes pleasure in ruining and destroying people who disobey his alleged commands.

Good thing that you have no evidence that he exists.

103. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76496 by stevencarrwork on October 6, 2007 at 2:09 am

Anybody interested in seeing what Bill Hamilton really said, rather than Wee Flea's wicked lies ,
can look at page 456 of Narrow Roads of Gene Land Vol. 2 (which Wee Flea calls an 'autobiography' with his usual carefree attitude to the truth)

Hamilton was claiming that modern medicine was wrong to tinker with human embyros, and that we might end up with a generation of people dependent upon medicine to stay alive.

104. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76486 by stevencarrwork on October 6, 2007 at 1:36 am

DEVOLVED
You will rationally do terrible things because of your beliefs religious or not.


CARR
Yes, but Christians will claim that their Holy Book means that people can be killed , man, woman and child because they are 'termites'

Wee Flea says atheists have a hatred of religion.

Christians defend genocide!

That is not going to happen on my watch.

Read http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2007/10/termites-and-caananites.html

I quote the authors contempt for atheists who think genocide is , on the whole, a bad thing.

'While they accuse Christians of being the ones who are unable to see nuances in positions, a total disregard of the reasoning that the destruction of entire groupings of people may be morally acceptable when taking all factors into account shows a lack of careful thought that it is appalling.'

Wee Flea would be proud of that. Atheists against genocide? How 'appalling'! What a 'lack of careful thought'!

105. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76484 by stevencarrwork on October 6, 2007 at 1:32 am

I see Wee Flea posts tons of stuff and still produces no evidence for his beliefs, which include the belief that the creator of the universe was carried around in a box in a desert by a tribe of refugees....

106. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76482 by stevencarrwork on October 6, 2007 at 1:30 am

LENNOX
Stalin did bad things.

Therefore there is a God.

CARR
Naturally, I paraphrase, but he would have to work on that logic a bit.

Atheist logic is much clearer.

BELIEVER - The lives of Christians have been transformed by the Holy Spirit.

SCEPTIC - You have actually put forward a testable hypothesis. I test it and see that Christians are no better or worse than other people.

107. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76481 by stevencarrwork on October 6, 2007 at 1:28 am

WEE FLEA
Personally I thought the format was awful -

CARR
SO that is why Wee Flea is going to use this debate and not the interview with McGrath.

Flea admits himself that it was an awful format.

Hence its suitability for his propaganda purposes!

108. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76284 by stevencarrwork on October 5, 2007 at 10:53 am

DASJOEN
For instance, I don't think Dr. Lennox's definition of faith came across clearly. As I understand it, he would define faith as "trusting someone/something, based on evidence". You have faith in the airline pilot when entering the plane, because evidence tells you that airline pilots usually are to be trusted.

CARR
OK , give me the evidence for each of these things that Lennox has faith in, evidence similar to Dawkins evidence that his wife loves him :-

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.


I would love to see Lennox evidence for everlasting life. Perhaps he has an infinity machine to test for everlasting life?

109. A Face-Off Over Faith

Comment #75994 by stevencarrwork on October 4, 2007 at 8:53 am

Lennox uses Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot because he knows that atheists do not defend genocide.

Christians though claim that genocide is perfectly acceptable, because some people are 'termites'

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2007/10/termites-and-caananites.html

'While they accuse Christians of being the ones who are unable to see nuances in positions, a total disregard of the reasoning that the destruction of entire groupings of people may be morally acceptable when taking all factors into account shows a lack of careful thought that is appalling.'

110. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75738 by stevencarrwork on October 3, 2007 at 2:16 pm

Here is a question from the University of Durham's 2007 Theology exam.

13. 'The God Delusion should have a place in every school library - especially in the
library of every 'faith' school' (Philip Pullman). What can the Christian church learn
from Richard Dawkins?

How can Dawkins be accused of not studying theology, when it is HIS book that theology students are asked questions about?

Perhaps we could have a go at answering this degree level theology question...

111. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75144 by stevencarrwork on October 1, 2007 at 11:16 pm

If chemistry departments can be closed, why should theology deparmtents be sacred?

112. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75138 by stevencarrwork on October 1, 2007 at 10:43 pm

Many German universities have both a Catholic Theology department and a Protestant theolkogy department.

Not that there is anything arbitrary and pick and mix about theology, of course...

113. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75052 by stevencarrwork on October 1, 2007 at 1:11 pm

JANUS
They mean he should know more about the latest and most sophisticated "theories" of theologians about what God is like.

CARR
They are really upset with Dawkins for reading the Bible and not the spin doctors.

According to many Protestants, the message of the Bible is clear and it is all you need to read to understand Christian doctrines and beliefs.

So why is it a crime for atheists to just read the Bible and then say that they know what Christianity is?

114. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #74980 by stevencarrwork on October 1, 2007 at 9:20 am

Anybody interested in the utter rubbish turned out in theology departments could do worse than look at this article on the conflict between religion and evolution from Harvard University

http://www.hds.harvard.edu/news/bulletin_mag/articles/35-23_coakley.html

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

Comment #74785 by stevencarrwork on September 30, 2007 at 12:27 pm

WEE FLEA
I believe it is wrong for me to sleep around with other women than my wife because the Bible indicates to me that monogamy is morally right.

CARR
There was a time when the Bible said polygamy was morally right.

I guess if you don't like Biblical morality, just wait and it will change.


I'm sure Wee Flea does lots of things atheists would say were deeply immoral, because atheists don't realise that the Bible say that those things are actually moral.

I'm sure that is true, unless Wee Flea wants to claim that Biblical morality and atheistic morality are the same.

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

Comment #74696 by stevencarrwork on September 30, 2007 at 2:24 am

WEE FLEA
Human beings are polluted.

WEE FLEA
I have just got back from hospital where I was visiting a 40 year old woman and her husband who had just had their first child. Got the phone call half an hour ago that the baby had just died.

CARR
SO you have to tell someone that a 'polluted' thing has just died?

You'll get over it.

After all that baby was polluted.

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

Comment #74671 by stevencarrwork on September 29, 2007 at 11:49 pm

WEE FLEA
I simply pointed out that on this website some think it is some kind of brilliant point that because they cannot prove they don't have an elephant in their fridge, this is somehow proving that there is no God.

CARR
More lies by the liar for Jesus.

Who argues that a proof that there is no God is that they don't have an elephant in their fridge?

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

Comment #74670 by stevencarrwork on September 29, 2007 at 11:47 pm

WEE FLEA
I have just got back from hospital where I was visiting a 40 year old woman and her husband who had just had their first child. Got the phone call half an hour ago that the baby had just died.

CARR
Gosh, nothing fails like prayer.

I bet the child's Heavenly Father did nothing while the earthly parents were frantically doing everything they could.

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

Comment #74532 by stevencarrwork on September 29, 2007 at 11:06 am

WEE FLEA
Lev.15:19- 24. teaches about ceremonial uncleaness - as does the pasage abut men with an emission of semen. The ceremonial laws no longer apply, the temple having been done away with, and the ceremonial law replaced by Christ.

JESUS
I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

CARR
When did heaven and earth disappear?

Where does the New Testament claim that there was such a thing as the 'ceremonial' law? Which chapter and verse?

'Ceremonial' law is an invention of Christians who realise that their god was being stupid when he told people to cleanse themselves by shaking the blood of dead birds over themselves

Of course, Wee Flea claims that Leviticus 14 were divine laws given to mankind by a god, when any idiot can see that they are superstitious mumbo-jumbo.

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

Comment #74511 by stevencarrwork on September 29, 2007 at 7:49 am

WEE FLEA
If you seriously cannot prove that there is not an invisible elephant in your fridge then yes, there is no way I could ever offer you proof that there is a God.

CARR
I cannot prove it to a person who believes in invisible elephants the way theists believe that if you knock their head off their shoulders with a sledgehammer, a part of them will still be capable of conscious thought.

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

Comment #74506 by stevencarrwork on September 29, 2007 at 7:38 am

Brother John is quite right.

We atheists have come to set Christian against Christian, so that families will be at war with each other.

It's what Jesus would have wanted.

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

Comment #74504 by stevencarrwork on September 29, 2007 at 7:33 am

BROTHER JOHN
...hater of hypocrisy (the talk about whited sepulchres, his reaction to the prostitute at the meal with his self-righteous acquaintances)

CARR
Yes.

Jesus came down from Heaven to spread the message that he wanted water to wash his feet with and to express his disgust with people who offered him water to wash his hands with.

If people did not give him water to wash his feet with , he was livid. (Luke 7)

Of course, Jesus could not care less about whether other people had been given water to wash their feet with.

And if people offered him water to wash his hands with, he was absolutely furious. (Luke 11:37)

The hypocrisy of these people! Offering him water to wash his hands with, and not offering him water to wash his feet with!

If I were Jesus, I would have stormed back to Heaven in a huff if I had been treated like that.

Has anybody ever been treated as badly as that?

What else was the message of the greatest teacher who ever lived (apart from the teaching that he wanted water to wash his feet with, Goddammit!)?

Well, in Matthew 18:23-29, Jesus compares God with somebody who forgives others the greatest debt in the world and then hands them over to be tortured.

That's God for you. 'Forgive and have tortured'.

123. Religion advances despite science (and thanks to Dawkins)

Comment #73224 by stevencarrwork on September 24, 2007 at 1:55 pm

' The classical doctrine within Christian theology [...] is ultimately the dependence of everything that exists, including evolutionary processes, on some transcendent power (God).'

I had always wondered what hate, anger, murder, jealousy and suffering depended upon.

Now I know.

124. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72661 by stevencarrwork on September 22, 2007 at 5:48 am

SHAUN
'I would say he is more like the surveyor who finds out their (religionists) house has no foundations and is slowly sinking into the mire.'

CARR
Jesus said people should build houses on rocks, not on sand.

God, that guy was a genius.

Never in 2,000 years has anybody come up with more profound words of wisdom than that simple carpenter from Nazareth, who revolutionised the world with his teachings that houses on beaches are not as stable as houses on solid ground.

As for his 'salted with fire' teaching, I literally could not get through the day without remembering those inspiring words about me being salted with fire.

Or is it fired with salt?

Anyway, whichever it was, you can see why theists lambast people like Dawkins for not being as intellectually sophisticated as Jesus.

Little wonder that Jesus said that the Queen of Sheba would rise from her grave to condemn people like him.

You can scoff, but Jesus wasn't one of these random lunatics you see in the street preaching hell fire for unbelievers.

Whe he said the Queen of Sheba would rise from her grave to condemn people, you had better keep an eye on that decayed corpse!

The trouble with Dawkins is that he does not realise how sophisticated Christianity is with its tales of talking donkeys (see 2 Peter), and people finding coins in the mouths of fishes.

125. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72660 by stevencarrwork on September 22, 2007 at 5:37 am

'2. When theologians say that God made the universe what they mean (and this would be obvious to anybody who actually reads a little theology) is that the best explanation for the existence of the universe requires the existence of God.'

It's magic.

Magic explains everything.

How does Paul Daniels saw a woman in half and then put her back together again?

Magic.

It's the best explanation.

Heaven forbid (literally) that we should try to find out what really happened.

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

Comment #72383 by stevencarrwork on September 20, 2007 at 11:14 pm

All those reviewers who say that Dawkins might have read the Bible, but what he should do is read sophisticated theokogians....

Aren't they just claiming that the Bible is crap?

Why is God so bad at getting his message across that people can read the Bible and still be criticsed for reading the Word of God instead of the Word of Swinburne or the Word of Plantinga?

Surely all those reviews of Dawkins are admissions that God is a second-rate theologian, not worthy to be compared with McGrath, who, let's face it, is much more sophisticated than God.

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

Comment #71581 by stevencarrwork on September 19, 2007 at 4:39 am

'Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ'

More lies.

Not one actual word of a quote is given. We do not know what Thallus wrote, and there is no evidence that Thallus actually did link any darkness to any crucifixion of Christ.

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

Comment #71579 by stevencarrwork on September 19, 2007 at 4:36 am

'Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of his followers.'

Sheer bare-faced lies.

There is no mention of Jesus and no mention of when this king was supposed to have lived.

Christianity - a religion built and run on lies and propagated by liars who lie for Jesus.

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

Comment #71577 by stevencarrwork on September 19, 2007 at 4:34 am

'Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44).'

Apart from the bizarre and wrong reference given, Suetonius also puts this Chrestus as living in Rome in about 44 AD.

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

Comment #71332 by stevencarrwork on September 18, 2007 at 1:05 pm

Richard Dawkins often says theology is a non-subject.

Richard Bauckham is a professor of theology at a very prestigious university - St. Andrew's University in Scotland.

He has recently written a book called 'Jesus and the Eyewitnesses'.

And what does this respected scholar at a renowned university produce as evidence for the eyewitness nature of the Gospels?

Well, John 1:18 has 496 syllables and John 21:1-23 has 496 words.

And 496 is a triangular number, and also a perfect number (like 6 and 28 are also perfect numbers)

Don't forget that John 1:18 is in poetic form, so the number of syllables is what counts (!!), while John 21:1-23 is a narrative so the number of words is what counts.

And the verses after John 21:1-23 have 43 words, while the verses before them also have 43 words (assuming you leave one out)

Our universities house people who turn out junk rivalling the Bible Code in its absurdity and in the ad hoc nature of its claims (why stop at verse 23 in chapter 21, when the chapter has 25 verses?)

Surely the reputation of British universities is being sullied by the crank nature of the books churned out in their theology departments.

131. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66910 by stevencarrwork on September 1, 2007 at 1:25 am

'As for the pseudo-history of the Gospels: "history" wasn't invented when they were written.'

Herodotus? Thucydidies?

132. The importance of doubt

Comment #66721 by stevencarrwork on August 31, 2007 at 6:03 am

Richard Dawkins writes a book and John Cornwell draws comparisons to Hitler and Stalin.

Just what will Cornwell say after Dawkins has invaded Poland!

133. The importance of doubt

Comment #66536 by stevencarrwork on August 30, 2007 at 10:38 am

Cornwell writes an article about Dawkins and he produces comparisons to Hitler and Stalin.

Reality check - Dawkins has written a book.

134. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #62613 by stevencarrwork on August 10, 2007 at 11:03 am

Vox Day comes up with the perfect analysis of just why religion is right and other things are wrong

'It doesn't matter what the evidence is, evolutionary biologists are happy to change their story to suit.'

You won't catch the fleas changing their beliefs to suit the evidence!

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/08/revising-revision-again.html

135. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #62610 by stevencarrwork on August 10, 2007 at 10:44 am

David Robertson, the Wee Flea, had an article in the Scotsman today.

Guess what? This is going to shock you, but have a guess how many arguments for God he gave?

Give up?

If you dont' want to know the results, look away now, otherwise put down any coffe you might be holding, or you may spill it.




Zero. Nada. Nichts. Rien. Zilch.

Told you that you would be shocked.

Guess how many arguments of Dawkins that Robertson refuted. That's right. None.

Guess how many arguments of Dawkins that Robertson mentioned.

One.

Robertson says the books 'appeal to people's fear, prejudice and ignorance'.

He also claims that Dawkins say in his debates with theists that theists are 'not intelligent enough to debate with'.

Actually I lied. Robertson doesn't mention the debates Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens have had.

That would spoil the effect of claiming atheists regard the religious as 'not intelligent enough to debate with'.

And not mentioning Dawkins debates lets Robertson say that atheists 'stifle real debate'.

Another waste of space from Robertson. Another piece of writing that was neither amusing, informative nor thought-provoking.

136. The Out Campaign

Comment #61306 by stevencarrwork on August 4, 2007 at 2:16 pm

WEE FLEA says it is an atheist myth that the Hebrew word meant only 'young woman', not 'virgin'.

More turning black into white.....

It is often stated that there are many prophecies in the Old Testament about Jesus. One of the most famous is Isaiah 7:14 'The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel'.

That is how the New International Version translates this passage. The word translated 'virgin' is 'aalmah'. However, 'aalmah' does not mean 'virgin'. It simply means 'young woman'.

A friend of mine, Yoel, a native Hebrew speaker and teacher explained as follows :-

You form the feminine by adding heh
Yeled (boy)/Yaldah (girl)
Kelev (male dog)/Kalbah (bitch)
Eved (male servant)/Avdah (female servant)
Melekh (king)/Malkah (queen)
Elem (young man)/Aalmah (young woman)

The few variations in melech/malkah and kelev/kalbah are only phonetic. It is the same letter used, but the pronounciation goes from soft to harsh when the female ending is added.

Betulah means virgin
Aalmah means young woman

Apparently, Strong's entry for 'aalmah (5959) admits that it is the feminine of 'elem' (5958). That entry lists "lad, young man, stripling" but accurately mentions nothing of virginity.

There is another word which can mean 'young woman'.

In Deuteronomy 22:25 we have 'naarah betulah' to mean ' young woman who is a virgin'. It does not mean 'young woman who is a young woman'.

Naarah is the feminine of naar (a youth), so the passage means 'young woman who is a virgin'.

'Betulah' means 'virgin' . 'Aalmah' does not.

Saying that 'aalmah' does not mean 'young woman' because some young women are virgins is like a Turkish-speaker trying to convince an English-speaker that 'princess', although the feminine form of 'prince', actually means 'red-head' because some princesses have red hair.

Apologists try to get around this by pointing to Joel 1:8 where 'betulah' is used of a married woman. Therefore, they say, 'betulah' cannot mean virgin.

However, even the New International Version translates Joel 1:8 as virgin. Normally, a woman does not lose her virginity during the marriage ceremony. It is quite in order for Joel to talk of a virgin who has suffered a grevious loss and lost her husband. The loss would be especially grevious if the marriage had not yet been consummated.

Linguistically, 'married woman' does not mean 'non-virgin', so if Robertson wants to try that route, he has already been refuted.

To sum up, 'Betulah' means 'virgin' . 'Aalmah' does not.

137. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #61300 by stevencarrwork on August 4, 2007 at 1:53 pm

According to page 16 of the Life of William Wilberforce (written partly by his sons), it looks as if he lost the religion he had at 13 by the age of 14.

He was even going to see plays.... (shock, horror)

138. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #61298 by stevencarrwork on August 4, 2007 at 1:43 pm

WEE FLEA
I am much more inclined to accept Dawkins comments on biology because he is a qualified and brilliant biologist.

CARR
Well, I'm not.

I accept what people say if they provide good arguments and reasons for what they say. I don't care if somebody has a Nobel Prize. If what they say is not convincing, then I won't be convinced.

This is one difference between religious people and sceptics.

Religious people argue from authority.

139. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #61297 by stevencarrwork on August 4, 2007 at 1:40 pm

ScottishGelogist is right that Robertson concentrates on things which are not important, rather than actually providing arguments for God.

Robertson should realise that it is hardly news that some Christians are good people and some atheists are bad people.

That doesn't mean there is a god.

140. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #61296 by stevencarrwork on August 4, 2007 at 1:38 pm

If Robertson is right that Wilberforce's anti-slavery came from his Christianity, then Wilberforce should have changed to being pro-slavery during his period of 'backsliding'

I would say that Wilberforce's anti-slavery came more from meeting an ex-slave and realising that slaves were people too.

141. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #61294 by stevencarrwork on August 4, 2007 at 1:33 pm

BILLY SANDS wants a reference to the letter Wee Flea quotes.

I can do no more than quote William Wilberforce.

From The Life of William Wilberforce By Robert Isaac Wilberforce, Samuel Wilberforce, Caspar Morris - page 15

In 1831 he makes the following entry in his Diary 'A packet from Hull, enclosing letters of min from Pocklington school rather too much in the style of the religious letters of that day, and asking my leave to publish them.

As I cannot doubt my having expressed the sentiments and feelings of my heart, I am sensibly impressed with a sense of the dreadful effects of the efforts afterwards used BUT TOO SUCCESSFULLY to wean me from from ALL religion, and to cherish the love of pleasure and the love of glory in the opening bud of youth'

Who should we believe? Robertson who says Wilberforce was always a Christian, or Wilberforce?

I know who Robertson is going to believe.

142. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #61289 by stevencarrwork on August 4, 2007 at 1:21 pm

http://www.gracemagazine.org.uk/articles/historical/wilberforce.htm

That puts his conversion at much later than 14.

Or the Encyclopedia Britannica
http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-9277740

So does the Open University

http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=1582

http://www.wilberforce2007.com/index.php?/projects/project/local_studies_library_wilberforce_study_sheet/

Even a book part written by Wilberforce's own son, Robert , wrote 'From the period at which he was converted, a change which he himself describes as being as great as that which transformed the persecutor of the primitive church into the apostle of
the Gentiles....,'

So there was a definite conversion process after the age of 14.

I don't care whether or not Wilberforce could be labelled a 'deist' or not at the age of 14. Who cares about labels?

The point is that he was against slavery before a process that he himself called a 'conversion'.

143. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #61274 by stevencarrwork on August 4, 2007 at 12:36 pm

My God!

Is there something wrong with Robertson's brain?

He lambasts an atheist for claiming that Wilberforce wrote anti-slavery letters when he was 14.

I then point out that Wilberforce's school backs up that claim.

Does Robertson apologise?

No, he simply keeps claiming that he was right all along about everything.

There is just something wrong with the guy. He is not right in the head.

I have seen some Internet kooks in my 13 years on the Internet and Robertson is way up there.

144. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #61258 by stevencarrwork on August 4, 2007 at 11:12 am

Wee Flea chastises people for not knowing the biography of Wilberforce.

http://www.britainunlimited.com/Biogs/Wilberforce.htm has Wilberforce writing anti-slavery letters while at Pocklington School.

Pocklington School itself says that Wilberforce wrote letters

http://www.pocklingtonhistory.com/archives/people/famous/williamwilberforce/index.php

'...and he sent his first letter to the press about the evils of slavery from Pocklington at the age of 14.'

Robertson lambasts atheists for their sin of being right.

How he hates that. How he insults them - 'not prepared to think out their wee box'.

And Wee Flea is totally wrong!

He abuses atheists in all sorts of horrible ways for claiming Wilberforce was writing anti-slavery letters at the age of 14, 10 years before he converted to Christianity.

And guess what? Wilberforce did just what Robertson said he did not do.

Robertson is the know-nothing, which is why he gets jumped on every time he pokes his head here and tries to claim that black is white.

145. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #61251 by stevencarrwork on August 4, 2007 at 10:52 am

Great Christian thinkers , like Augustine, taught that slavery was sanctioned by God.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120119.htm

'The prime cause, then, of slavery is sin, which brings man under the dominion of his fellow,—that which does not happen save by the judgment of God....'

146. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #61247 by stevencarrwork on August 4, 2007 at 10:42 am

WEE FLEA
Basically we have 5,000 extant ms of the NT in that period and yes they are remarkably accurate.

CARR
We have 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament up to 400 AD??? I see Robertson is including translations (he dropped the qualification that they are Greek manuscripts). Even so, 5000 from up to AD 400 is an exaggeration.

As a matter of plain fact, there is not one Greek manuscript before AD 800 which contains 27 and only 27 New Testament books.

Some of the more important manuscripts , documenting the fact that early Christian scribes would simply change whatever suited their own private agendas, can be found at

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli2.htm

147. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60650 by stevencarrwork on August 2, 2007 at 3:41 pm

Mind you, I imagine Robertson is still upset with me for revealing that the writer of his favourite Hitler quote said on the very next page that she could only give a vague and inaccurate account of what Hitler had said.

It is annoying when atheists read what you say, check up the facts, and then report the truth, isn't it?

It makes it that much harder to write off atheists as undulging in no more than name-calling and mockery of your arguments.

148. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60648 by stevencarrwork on August 2, 2007 at 3:34 pm

David Robertson wants to debate Dawkins.

I offered to debate the resurrection with Robertson, but he refused.

I guess if Robertson can't defend his beliefs against little old me, then he is not ready for dawkins.

149. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60543 by stevencarrwork on August 2, 2007 at 7:20 am

FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND PREACHER
'This is the lesson of the faithless Israelites whom Moses had to lead. They constantly tended to rely on idols instead of the LORD. '

CARR
They must think that we are as daft as them.

Farrell Till just rips this apart in this article.

http://www.skepticfiles.org/sr/4like93.htm

Hilarious, and it is good to read and remember that grown men get up in public and call us 'sinful' for refusing to believe such utter tripe.

150. Response to the God Delusion

Comment #59191 by stevencarrwork on July 28, 2007 at 3:44 am

'Although I agree it wasn't very funny, in Midgley's defence, it was a perfectly good analogy for the point he was making, namely that the bad actions of followers does not impact on the question of the existence or non-existence of central characters of a religion.'

Matthew 7:15-20

15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. 18 A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will know them by their fruits.

What would Jesus do?

Cut Christianity down and throw it into the fire.