JASON GASTRICH - you offered to answer McHugh's questions
lizzard woman
Some of us have been waiting patiently for several days for you to make good
on your offer to Sean.
-----------------------------------
http://groups.google.ca/groups?start=50&hl=en&lr=&group=free.christians&selm=2bcca3f7.0501250108.ceacedc%40posting.google.com
Jason Gastrich wrote:
<snip>
> With all due respect to him, I wasn't very impressed with Sean McHugh's
> arguments or his demeanor during and after the debate. The latter is why
> I
> didn't bother to return to usenet and answer his follow-up questions.
> If he wishes to ask me some questions, then feel free to let him. Is he
> around here somewhere?
Hi Jason,
I only just found this. Thanks for the invitation. Here is my
question. I believe you have shifted the previously shifted Luke 24:36
from JG 21 1/2 to JG 20. I submit that this has the same problems that
it had at JG 21 1/2. One major problem is that it still requires that
several days elapse between verse 35 (JG 14) and verse 36. This isn't
permitted because verse 36 is a continuation of the narrative and is
contextually conjoined to verse 35.
Here are Luke 25:35 and 36 from the KVJ:
: 35 And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was
: known of them in breaking of bread. 36 And as they thus spake,
: Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace
: be unto you.
That is already clear enough. The NRSV makes it makes it even
clearer that verse 36 is making reference to verse 35 and is
describing the same occasion:
: 35 Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he had
: been made known to them in the breaking of the bread. 36 While
: they were talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and
: said to them, "Peace be with you."
<snip>
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh------------------------- sharon
lizzard woman
"lizzard woman" <kimosa...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:...
lizzard woman
"lizzard woman" <kimosa...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Y9yLd.236143$6l.184176@pd7tw2no...
--------------------
--
sharon, aa #2153
"(of creationism) ... Only apocryphal tales told by goat herders around the
campfire after it became too dark to continue to molest their charges." --
TvG (Rec.Equestrian, 2003)
David
from Sean himself - that I think we can safely conclude that Jason is
avoiding it.
I'll give Jason something else to avoid: A date, June 8, 1999.
We'll be talking about that and more of Jason's court shenanigans when
I can post more.
lizzard woman
news:1107487244.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| This has been posted enough times with no reply - including the post
| from Sean himself - that I think we can safely conclude that Jason is
| avoiding it.
|
He said he's researching it as of today. We'll see if he ever posts a
response.
| I'll give Jason something else to avoid: A date, June 8, 1999.
Oh my.
| We'll be talking about that and more of Jason's court shenanigans when
| I can post more.
I'll be looking for more on that.
--
sharon, aa #2153
"(of creationism) ... Only apocryphal tales told by goat herders around the
campfire after it became too dark to continue to molest their charges." --
TvG (Rec.Equestrian, 2003)
"Easy -- he's the Right Reverend Admiral Jason Gastrich, BSc, MSc, DVM, ThD,
PhD, MD, JD, Esq, US Navy (Ret). If the bible happened to put things in the
wrong order, well, our boy the Doctor will just fix it right up there!" --
Rightshu (IIDB, 2004)
Uncle Davey
> from Sean himself - that I think we can safely conclude that Jason is
> avoiding it.
>
> I'll give Jason something else to avoid: A date, June 8, 1999.
Don't you people (you like Yanky like American like people) have a statute
of limitations, or what?
>
> We'll be talking about that and more of Jason's court shenanigans when
> I can post more.
>
In the meantime, we'll be taking a commercial break.
Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
> "David" <hdsien...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1107487244.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> | This has been posted enough times with no reply - including the post
> | from Sean himself - that I think we can safely conclude that Jason is
> | avoiding it.
> |
>
> He said he's researching it as of today. We'll see if he ever posts a
> response.
>
> | I'll give Jason something else to avoid: A date, June 8, 1999.
>
> Oh my.
In the library, with Professor Plum and the lead piping!
>
> | We'll be talking about that and more of Jason's court shenanigans when
> | I can post more.
>
> I'll be looking for more on that.
>
Stay tooned to the David Shenanigankiewicz Courtroom reality show.
Like.
Uncle Davey
David
> "David" <hdsien...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1107487244.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > This has been posted enough times with no reply - including the
post
> > from Sean himself - that I think we can safely conclude that Jason
is
> > avoiding it.
> >
> > I'll give Jason something else to avoid: A date, June 8, 1999.
>
> Don't you people (you like Yanky like American like people) have a
statute
> of limitations, or what?
Depends, Davey.
But in this case, that's not really relevant.
Have you asked Jason about this date?
What did he say?
> > We'll be talking about that and more of Jason's court shenanigans
when
> > I can post more.
>
> In the meantime, we'll be taking a commercial break.
Well, just one more. I'll be back home tomorrow (Sunday) night.
And we'll get back to it in earnest on Monday.
It's going to be fun!
David
Quite amusing, Davey, made even moreso by the fact that you've got
nothing else that you can do in reply.
Did you ask Jason about this date?
What did he say?
Uncle Davey
> Uncle Davey wrote:
> > "David" <hdsien...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1107487244.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > > This has been posted enough times with no reply - including the
> post
> > > from Sean himself - that I think we can safely conclude that Jason
> is
> > > avoiding it.
> > >
> > > I'll give Jason something else to avoid: A date, June 8, 1999.
> >
> > Don't you people (you like Yanky like American like people) have a
> statute
> > of limitations, or what?
>
> Depends, Davey.
>
> But in this case, that's not really relevant.
>
> Have you asked Jason about this date?
No.
>
> What did he say?
>
He didn't say anything. That was because he didn't hear me asking. that was
because I didn't ask.
> > > We'll be talking about that and more of Jason's court shenanigans
> when
> > > I can post more.
> >
> > In the meantime, we'll be taking a commercial break.
>
> Well, just one more. I'll be back home tomorrow (Sunday) night.
>
> And we'll get back to it in earnest on Monday.
>
> It's going to be fun!
>
Stay tooned, boys and girls.
Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
I'm not gonna do your dirty work for you. Ax him yourself.
Uncle Davey
smc...@shoal.net.au
> Did you miss this reposting of his question? See below.
>
> Some of us have been waiting patiently for several days for you to
make good
> on your offer to Sean.
>
Hi Sharon,
Thank you for your continuing interest and thank you for reposting
this. I wasn't sure if it had been seen. I would be just as happy for
Jason to reply to it here.
I added free.christians but Google was discontent. I had to remove
alt.bible.prophesy and alt.religion.christian.baptist.
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
lizzard woman
<smc...@shoal.net.au> wrote in message
news:1107684393....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| lizzard woman wrote:
| > Did you miss this reposting of his question? See below.
| >
| > Some of us have been waiting patiently for several days for you to
| make good
| > on your offer to Sean.
| >
|
| Hi Sharon,
|
| Thank you for your continuing interest and thank you for reposting
| this. I wasn't sure if it had been seen. I would be just as happy for
| Jason to reply to it here.
|
| I added free.christians but Google was discontent. I had to remove
| alt.bible.prophesy and alt.religion.christian.baptist.
I liked that debate and folowed it as clodely as my (meager) understanding
of the gospels allowed. But when Gastrich later claimed to have won tha
debate, I was more than shocked. IUf he won then I wonder why he is
distancing himself from it? Hence my interest in seeing him respond to all
the questions he ignored in the debate itself.
Best regards,
sharon
lizzard woman
research on this question that you agreed to answer?
It's not that involved.
If you don't provide an answer soon I think it would be fair to assume you
have conceded the point to Sean.
sharon
<smc...@shoal.net.au> wrote in message
news:1107684393....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
______________
David
Why is it "dirty work" to ask a simple question like that?
What do you think is involved?
> Ax him yourself.
I did.
He's hiding behind his bogus "oath to God."
Now, you KNOW that, Davey, so it was quite disingenuous of you to tell
me to ask him.
David
Why not?
What are you afraid of?
< snip >
lizzard woman
David, you are really stringing us along! My interest is completely peaked!
Will you be revealing the import of that date soon?
sharon
Jason Gastrich
> Can you provide some time frame for when you might be finished with
> your research on this question that you agreed to answer?
>
> It's not that involved.
>
> If you don't provide an answer soon I think it would be fair to
> assume you have conceded the point to Sean.
>
> sharon
Assume what you will. Right now, I have some pressing matters and will be
posting very little this week.
Regards,
Jason
--
--------
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 80,000 web pages!
John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
free indeed."
Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
bondage."
ICQ#: 20731140 . AIM: MrJasonGastrich . YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
lizzard woman
Therefore Gastrich's chronology purporting to harmonize the 4
post-resurrection gospel accounts does NOT in fact hold water.
Sean, I don't know if there is a point to posing more questions since you
have prevailed on this one and this is sufficient to torpedo Gastrich's
chronology.
If I see Gastrich EVER mention that he won that debate with you, I am going
to repost this exchange in it's entirety.
Jason, how you can continue to believe in this nonsense when you clearly
can't defend it is beyond me.
Regards to your wife and daughter who have my pity.
--
sharon, aa #2153
"(of creationism) ... Only apocryphal tales told by goat herders around the
campfire after it became too dark to continue to molest their charges." --
TvG (Rec.Equestrian, 2003)
"Jason Gastrich" <usene...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:HlYNd.10265$BS....@twister.socal.rr.com...
Uncle Davey
Uzytkownik "David" <hdsien...@yahoo.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:1107836398.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'm afraid of looking like a fool taking your next bit of trollobluffery
even the remotest bit seriously.
That's what.
Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
Uzytkownik "lizzard woman" <kimosa...@shaw.ca> napisal w wiadomosci
news:bUXNd.319642$Xk.23492@pd7tw3no...
No. He'll keep you buzzing for a month until it gets boring, and fizzles out
into nothing, and then in a few months time he'll refer back to it smugly as
if he really proved something bad, although nobody can remember what it was.
Don't you know the template by now?
Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
Disingenuous, eh?
Don't you remember my quite strong appeal to him to get him to reconsider
his oath?
It's not exactly MY fault he won't talk to you. I tried.
So, what is this "date" of yours all about, if anything?
Uncle Davey
Don Kresch
<usene...@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
>lizzard woman wrote:
>> Can you provide some time frame for when you might be finished with
>> your research on this question that you agreed to answer?
>>
>> It's not that involved.
>>
>> If you don't provide an answer soon I think it would be fair to
>> assume you have conceded the point to Sean.
>>
>> sharon
>
>Assume what you will. Right now, I have some pressing matters and will be
>posting very little this week.
I'm guessing the "soon" that Jason talked about before is like
the "things which must shortly come to pass" and "time is at hand"
claims made in Rev 1:1 and 1:3. IOW: a whole load of bullshit.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
lizzard woman
"Don Kresch" <ROT13....@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:5keh011opieoh4ij6...@4ax.com...
| In alt.atheism on Tue, 08 Feb 2005 05:45:11 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
| <usene...@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
| >lizzard woman wrote:
| >> Can you provide some time frame for when you might be finished with
| >> your research on this question that you agreed to answer?
| >>
| >> It's not that involved.
| >>
| >> If you don't provide an answer soon I think it would be fair to
| >> assume you have conceded the point to Sean.
| >>
| >> sharon
| >
| >Assume what you will. Right now, I have some pressing matters and will
be
| >posting very little this week.
|
| I'm guessing the "soon" that Jason talked about before is like
| the "things which must shortly come to pass" and "time is at hand"
| claims made in Rev 1:1 and 1:3. IOW: a whole load of bullshit.
That's about the only way he can even remotely acquit himself in this post
debate discussion.
Here's what happened....
1. Jason posted his "harmonized" chronology blending the four
post-resurrection gospels.
2. Sean McHugh pointed out several problems, Achilles Heels really, with
the chronology that Jason was forced to ignore because his entire "career,"
such that it is, based on his contention that the bible is inerrant.
3. Jason offered to answer to of those questions from the debate that were
left hanging but of course still couldn't so he ran.
Jason is easily one of the most intellectually dishonest people posting to
newsgroups in my opinion.
--
sharon, aa #2153
"(of creationism) ... Only apocryphal tales told by goat herders around the
campfire after it became too dark to continue to molest their charges." --
TvG (Rec.Equestrian, 2003)
da...@hotmail.com
Uncle Davey wrote:
> Uzytkownik "David"
> > Uncle Davey wrote:
> > >
> > > Ax him yourself.
> >
> > I did.
> >
> > He's hiding behind his bogus "oath to God."
> >
> > Now, you KNOW that, Davey, so it was quite
> > disingenuous of you to tell me to ask him.
> >
>
> Disingenuous, eh?
>
> Don't you remember my quite strong appeal to
> him to get him to reconsider his oath?
>
> It's not exactly MY fault he won't talk to you. I tried.
>
> So, what is this "date" of yours all about, if anything?
>
One thing is clear. It as court appearance that has not been mentioned
by Jason. It could be his DUI but that does not get to the heart of
"would you trust this guy running a charity/company" angle that David
has hinted at. Could it be fraud or tax evasion? Although, I find it
hard to believe he earned enough to pay large sums in tax and, in
general, business does not seem to frown on tax evasion.
If there is some major infringment in 1999 did it result in him being
kicked out of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary? He got a masters
but then went to the correspondance school in Louisiana. Was he
originally signed up for a Ph.D. and then had to move on quickly?
lizzard woman
<da...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107878278....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
That's some interesting speculation!
AT fiurstI thought you were on tosomething with leaving Libertay Baptist
because if you'll note, he earned 27 grad credits nad then left withoutthe
Masters....
http://jcsm.org/misc/JasonGastrich.htm
Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary - Lynchburg, VA - 1997 to 1998
Earned 27 graduate level credits - Made the Dean's List
_________
Then he later got a "Masters" from the correspondence school....
Louisiana Baptist University - Shreveport, LA (courses were taken in San
Diego, CA) - 2002 to 2003
Completed the Master of Arts in Biblical Studies (M.A.) degree - Maintained
a 4.0 grade point average in all LBU courses and earned a 100% on my
Master's thesis
________
But I think David found the information on the 1999 incident in San Diego so
I wonder if that is linked to the reason he left Liberty without the degree
despite having completed most of the coursework. I don't know if there is a
thesis requirement but maybe he couldn't write the thesis and that'swhy he
left and had to resort to the correspondence school.
I'm betting it's the DUI.
David D.
> <da...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Baptist
> because if you'll note, he earned 27 grad credits nad then left
without the
> Masters....
>
> http://jcsm.org/misc/JasonGastrich.htm
>
> Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary - Lynchburg, VA - 1997 to 1998
> Earned 27 graduate level credits - Made the Dean's List
Ah, so he didn't even get his masters at Liberty. That was my
assumption. There is definitely something fishy about him leaving
liberty. Afterall, that is a relatively good school whereas Louisiana
thingy is a bit ( a lot) of a sham. Given Jasons infatuation with
titles and authority it seems very unlikely that he would leave
Falwells bastion with out a good reason.
> Then he later got a "Masters" from the correspondence school....
>
> Louisiana Baptist University - Shreveport, LA (courses were taken in
San
> Diego, CA) - 2002 to 2003
> Completed the Master of Arts in Biblical Studies (M.A.) degree -
Maintained
> a 4.0 grade point average in all LBU courses and earned a 100% on my
> Master's thesis
>
> ________
>
> But I think David found the information on the 1999 incident in San
Diego so
> I wonder if that is linked to the reason he left Liberty without the
degree
> despite having completed most of the coursework. I don't know if
there is a
> thesis requirement but maybe he couldn't write the thesis and
that'swhy he
> left and had to resort to the correspondence school.
Might be right. They probably call him on his plagerism. Copy and
paste just doesn't cut it in a real thesis and his original work would
not be up to standard.
> I'm betting it's the DUI.
Maybe, although I think there may be something else. i am no longer
surprised by Jason's history.
Jason Gastrich
> Jason Gastrich has CONCEDED Sean McHugh's point.
Plonk.
Robibnikoff
> lizzard woman wrote:
>> Jason Gastrich has CONCEDED Sean McHugh's point.
>
> Plonk.
LOL. My, that's one way to get out of a debate.
Dishonestly, of course :P
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
David D.
Welcome to the club Lizzard Woman!!
lizzard woman
| lizzard woman wrote:
| > Jason Gastrich has CONCEDED Sean McHugh's point.
|
| Plonk.
You, sir, do not have a single ounce of personal integrity.
--
sharon, aa #2153
"(of creationism) ... Only apocryphal tales told by goat herders around the
campfire after it became too dark to continue to molest their charges." --
TvG (Rec.Equestrian, 2003)
lizzard woman
"David D." <da...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107885123.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Thanks!
That was so un-Christian of him, no?
--
sharon, aa #2153
"(of creationism) ... Only apocryphal tales told by goat herders around the
campfire after it became too dark to continue to molest their charges." --
TvG (Rec.Equestrian, 2003)
harves...@hotmail.com
I too wish to know. Tell me in email? I won't tell anyone.
Jason Harvestdancer
lizzard woman
<harves...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107899773.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I think David might post it in the JCSM watch yahoo group
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/jcsm-watch
"Description: An evaluation, discussion and rebuttal forum focusing on the
claims and activities of Jason Gastrich, a San Diego-based, self-ordained
minister boasting a diploma mill doctorate and a self-published e-book.
Included will be rebuttals to "The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and
Explained." (19 members)
Uncle Davey
Uzytkownik <da...@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:1107878278....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dirt, true or not, eh?
You're like that guy who went after Clinton.
Uncle Davey
George Peatty
wrote:
> I'm guessing the "soon" that Jason talked about before is like
>the "things which must shortly come to pass" and "time is at hand"
>claims made in Rev 1:1 and 1:3. IOW: a whole load of bullshit.
I don't know about Jason, but the Bible references do not imply that "stuff
is going to happen in the next couple days", but rather that it is imminent,
with nothing else scheduled to in between, and that when it begins to
unfold, it will happen very quickly.
George Peatty
wrote:
>> Plonk.
>
>LOL. My, that's one way to get out of a debate.
>
>Dishonestly, of course :P
So, when Malkin plonks me, that's dishonest too? Or, do you have one
standard for BAAWAs and another for Christians?
Don Kresch
>> Jason Gastrich has CONCEDED Sean McHugh's point.
>
>Plonk.
Coward.
Steve Knight
It means you're a waste of time. Most atheists can spot a brain
dead christian immediately. If they say anything, it's only for
amusement.
Rattling a stick against a christian cage is funny.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
Al Klein
<kimosa...@shaw.ca> said in alt.atheism:
>"David D." <da...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1107885123.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>| Jason Gastrich wrote:
>| > lizzard woman wrote:
>| > > Jason Gastrich has CONCEDED Sean McHugh's point.
>| > Plonk.
>| Welcome to the club Lizzard Woman!!
>Thanks!
>That was so un-Christian of him, no?
On the contrary, while it was unchristian, it was VERY Christian.
--
"Every sensible man, every honest man, must hold the christian sect in horror. 'But what
shall we substitute in its place?' you say. What? A ferocious animal has sucked the
blood of my relatives. I tell you to rid yourselves of this beast and you ask me what
you shall put in its place?" - Voltaire
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
David D.
You're so touchy these days Davey. You don't see any
accusations there do you? It is speculation that I would
not have thought of until Gastrich's recent evasive
behaviour and lies. Then you start seeing these peculiar
holes all over his CV so why not speculate. He has never
been honest about his history until taken to task with the
details. Once trapped in his own circle of lies he comes
clean and pretends he was always up front about his
qualifications.
David
David D.
According to Jasons testimony he got the DUI much earlier. It
is something else at its probably something financial.
You may be interested in his testimonial. Unfortunately it
ends with him heading off to Liberty so it does not provide
an answer to why he would quit that school.
Below are select bit transcribed from Jasons testimonial at
http://www.insearchofpeace.org/16issue.htm
born on 1974 and lived in El Cajon, California for 18 years,
until I moving to San Diego for school.
1981 I accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior
~ 1990 expelled from his Christian high school
~ 1991 re-enrolled only to be expelled a second time
~ 1992 He went to San Diego State University and drank a
lot, smoked, and did some drugs.
~1993 Got DUI.
1994 He went to Woodstock '94. and did drugs
God called on November 1, 1994, after Jason went too far
and consumed a 12 pack of beer, a pack of cigarettes and
a bag of pot.
Jeremiah 29:11 "For I know the plans I have for you, plans
to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you
hope and a future."
He promptly gave up smoking, drinking alcohol, drugs,
and decided to abstain from sexual sin.
1995
- started prayer journal.
- gave up secular music and began driving the speed limit.
- Water Baptism.
1996
- began preaching to recovering alcoholics and addicts.
- gave up caffeine--caffeinated cokes and coffee.
1997
-Graduated from San Diego State University with a Bachelor
of Arts degree in Psychology and a minor in English.
- Began JCSM.org (or at least a precursor to it).
- Began school at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary.
A note to Davey
And if Davey is reading this, it is not like Ken Starr. Jason
posted this testimonial on a public web site and it has
already done the rounds on usenet. What Starr did was
entrapment. i don't think this qualifies Davey.
lizzard woman
(snip)
I have to believe that by posting this stuff, he is sincere in his quest to
be saved. And brave to post it.
I just have a problem with his intellectual dishonesty in the exchanges on
the newsgroups.
I blame his parents for not affording him the gift of free thought and
instead inculcating him in their fundamentalist leanings. They left him a
fumbling, bumbling foolish man.
--
love,
la mangosteena
"The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian
Religion" -- Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, ratified by Congress
"Religion did for bullshit, what Stonehenge did for rocks." -- The World
Famous Tink
David
> lizzard woman wrote:
< snip >
> > http://jcsm.org/misc/JasonGastrich.htm
> >
> > Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary - Lynchburg, VA - 1997 to 1998
> > Earned 27 graduate level credits - Made the Dean's List
>
> Ah, so he didn't even get his masters at Liberty. That was my
> assumption. There is definitely something fishy about him leaving
> liberty. Afterall, that is a relatively good school whereas
Louisiana
> thingy is a bit ( a lot) of a sham. Given Jasons infatuation with
> titles and authority it seems very unlikely that he would leave
> Falwells bastion with out a good reason.
Well, I think it boils down to money, and really little more than that.
It could be that being at Liberty was harder work than Jason wanted to
expend, as well. It's a regionally accredited school - despite it's
association with Falwell and fundamentalists. That means it's fairly
rigorous, particularly with graduate programs.
Since it's a private school, as well, it's expensive.
Louisiana Baptist is relatively cheap, and the academic standards
aren't near as high.
It was another short-cut, and Jason took it.
That's what I think happened, anyway.
< snip >
David D.
David wrote:
> David D. wrote:
> > lizzard woman wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
> > > http://jcsm.org/misc/JasonGastrich.htm
> > >
> > > Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary - Lynchburg, VA - 1997 to
1998
> > > Earned 27 graduate level credits - Made the Dean's List
> >
> > Ah, so he didn't even get his masters at Liberty. That was my
> > assumption. There is definitely something fishy about him leaving
> > liberty. Afterall, that is a relatively good school whereas
> Louisiana
> > thingy is a bit ( a lot) of a sham. Given Jasons infatuation with
> > titles and authority it seems very unlikely that he would leave
> > Falwells bastion with out a good reason.
>
> Well, I think it boils down to money, and really little more than
that.
>
>
> It could be that being at Liberty was harder work than Jason wanted
to
> expend, as well. It's a regionally accredited school - despite it's
> association with Falwell and fundamentalists. That means it's fairly
> rigorous, particularly with graduate programs.
>
> Since it's a private school, as well, it's expensive.
Pricey and hard work. I can see how that could end in tears.
> Louisiana Baptist is relatively cheap, and the academic standards
> aren't near as high.
>
> It was another short-cut, and Jason took it.
>
> That's what I think happened, anyway.
Another possibility is he missed San Diego and the
correspondance school route would allow him to go
home and still study.
I met quite a few californians
on the east coast who quit grad school and went
back west after the first winter. It can be a culture
shock. So you may well be right.
Jason Gastrich
> In alt.atheism on Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:18:07 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
> <usene...@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
>> lizzard woman wrote:
>>> Jason Gastrich has CONCEDED Sean McHugh's point.
>>
>> Plonk.
>
> Coward.
Hey Don,
What's new with you? How was your day?
Regards,
Jason
> Don
> ---
> aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
> Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
>
> "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
> Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
--
--------
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 80,000 web pages!
John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
free indeed."
Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
bondage."
ICQ#: 20731140 . AIM: MrJasonGastrich . YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
Al Klein
<kimosa...@shaw.ca> said in alt.atheism:
>Jason is easily one of the most intellectually dishonest people posting to
>newsgroups in my opinion.
Probably due to the fact that he's one of the most intellectually
challenged.
--
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion."
- Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434
Al Klein
<pttyg4...@copper.net> said in alt.atheism:
>On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 07:12:20 -0600, Don Kresch <ROT13....@jv.ee.pbz.com>
>wrote:
>>I'm guessing the "soon" that Jason talked about before is like
>>the "things which must shortly come to pass" and "time is at hand"
>>claims made in Rev 1:1 and 1:3. IOW: a whole load of bullshit.
>I don't know about Jason, but the Bible references do not imply that "stuff
>is going to happen in the next couple days"
That depends on how you redefine "shortly" and "at hand". The
original meanings are "real soon now" and "now".
>but rather that it is imminent
close in time; about to occur
>with nothing else scheduled to in between
Nothing in the original meanings even close to that.
>and that when it begins to unfold, it will happen very quickly.
Or that.
Redefining words doesn't win Brownie points, George.
--
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains
premature today."
- Isaac Asimov
Mike Painter
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 18:04:31 -0500, George Peatty
> <pttyg4...@copper.net> said in alt.atheism:
>
>> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 07:12:20 -0600, Don Kresch
>> <ROT13....@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
>
>>> I'm guessing the "soon" that Jason talked about before is like
>>> the "things which must shortly come to pass" and "time is at hand"
>>> claims made in Rev 1:1 and 1:3. IOW: a whole load of bullshit.
>
>> I don't know about Jason, but the Bible references do not imply that
>> "stuff is going to happen in the next couple days"
>
> That depends on how you redefine "shortly" and "at hand". The
> original meanings are "real soon now" and "now".
>
Byte Magazine. E.G. The software, which was announced five years ago will be
on the market Real Soon Now.
Jason will answer questions about the document hypothesis Real Soon Now.
Robibnikoff
"Steve Knight" <wo...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:dgri01h8o5sm73a35...@4ax.com...
Not to mention that Gasbag plonked someone to avoid answering a question.
I'm sure Mickey plonked the poster in question because he's an annoying
dickhead. That's why I plonked him ages ago as well.
Don Kresch
<usene...@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
>Don Kresch wrote:
>> In alt.atheism on Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:18:07 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
>> <usene...@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
>>> lizzard woman wrote:
>>>> Jason Gastrich has CONCEDED Sean McHugh's point.
>>>
>>> Plonk.
>>
>> Coward.
>
>Hey Don,
Hey coward, why did you plonk lizzard woman?
Notice how you don't get to attempt to ignore your problems,
asshole. I'll shove them under your fucking nose and make you smell
their nastiness, you dishonest fuck.
Pastor Dave
deep thoughts, George Peatty <pttyg4...@copper.net>
spake thusly:
When the Bible says it's imminent, it does not say,
"But by imminent, I mean it will start thousands of
years from now".
I saw the following in a message somewhere and thought
I'd paste it in here. This is the acrobatics the end
timers go through with the word "imminent".
"Hence, the coming of the Lord to get His
own is and has been IMMINENT.
It could happen any moment.
It might not happen for a couple more
thousand years.
The coming for the saints (pretribualtion
rapture/resurrection) is and has been
IMMINENT and shall remain so. Amen!"
Now let's look at a dictionary...
Imminent: About to occur; impending: in imminent
danger.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
Jason Gastrich
> In alt.atheism on Wed, 09 Feb 2005 05:37:41 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
> <usene...@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
>> Don Kresch wrote:
>>> In alt.atheism on Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:18:07 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
>>> <usene...@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
>>>> lizzard woman wrote:
>>>>> Jason Gastrich has CONCEDED Sean McHugh's point.
>>>>
>>>> Plonk.
>>>
>>> Coward.
>>
>> Hey Don,
>
> Hey coward, why did you plonk lizzard woman?
She was being a pest. She lied in the subject of this thread. I said I
needed some time to investigate this matter more and she announced that I
conceded the debate. This was the final straw for her in my usenet reading.
I'd prefer to avoid reading lies and nonsense.
> Notice how you don't get to attempt to ignore your problems,
> asshole. I'll shove them under your fucking nose and make you smell
> their nastiness, you dishonest fuck.
Speaking of lies and nonsense, you have already failed miserably in your
attempt to prove me a liar about anything. I even offered you plenty of my
attention and time - just to see if you were right and if I needed to
apologize something I did that was unbeknownst to me. So . . . please avoid
calling me names.
As I said, I'm very busy this week, but I have been reviewing the chronology
and I intend on reviewing it further and posting on it in the future.
Regards,
Jason
P.S. With all your abuse, how you haven't made my PLONK list is beyond me.
It must be a miracle from God.
> Don
> ---
> aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
> Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
>
> "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
> Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
--
David
> Don Kresch wrote:
> > In alt.atheism on Wed, 09 Feb 2005 05:37:41 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
> > <usene...@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
> >> Don Kresch wrote:
> >>> In alt.atheism on Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:18:07 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
> >>> <usene...@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
> >>>> lizzard woman wrote:
> >>>>> Jason Gastrich has CONCEDED Sean McHugh's point.
> >>>>
> >>>> Plonk.
> >>>
> >>> Coward.
> >>
> >> Hey Don,
> >
> > Hey coward, why did you plonk lizzard woman?
>
> She was being a pest.
Do you suppose that "Pastor" Dave feels the same way about you?
You told HIM you'd post questions over and over again, and you told
that to Steve Winter, too, if I recall correctly.
All Sharon asked you to do was what you said you WOULD do.
> She lied in the subject of this thread. I said I
> needed some time to investigate this matter more and she announced
that I
> conceded the debate.
This is the telling portion of that exchange:
LW> If you don't provide an answer soon I think it
LW> would be fair to assume you have conceded the
LW> point to Sean.
JG> Assume what you will. Right now, I have some
JG> pressing matters and will be posting very little
JG> this week.
Consequently, she made her assumption, as you allowed she could do.
So where's the problem, Jason?
> This was the final straw for her in my usenet reading.
> I'd prefer to avoid reading lies and nonsense.
You weren't reading lies and nonsense, Jason.
You were being challenged.
We all know how you feel about THAT, eh?
No one's buying your lies, Jason.
> > Notice how you don't get to attempt to ignore your problems,
> > asshole. I'll shove them under your fucking nose and make you smell
> > their nastiness, you dishonest fuck.
>
> Speaking of lies and nonsense, you have already failed miserably in
your
> attempt to prove me a liar about anything.
He didn't need to do anything, Jason.
You're already an established liar.
> I even offered you plenty of my
> attention and time - just to see if you were right and if I needed to
> apologize something I did that was unbeknownst to me.
I think you are fully aware of your lies, Jason.
That's why they ARE lies.
We have yet another example in this thread. You didn't
> So . . . please avoid
> calling me names.
>
> As I said, I'm very busy this week, but I have been reviewing the
chronology
> and I intend on reviewing it further and posting on it in the future.
Yes, and you were going to post some "proof" about your court case - at
least you CLAIMED you would do so on January 4th.
We're still waiting, Jason.
> Regards,
> Jason
>
> P.S. With all your abuse, how you haven't made my PLONK list is
beyond me.
> It must be a miracle from God.
And yet, even though I never used such abusive language, I not only
went beyond your PLONK list, you declared an oath to God never to
address me - directly or indirectly again.
Which, of course, was your way of playing the coward once again.
We all know that I am more than your pathetic little juvenile fantasies
and rantings can handle.
So really, what you did was run.
Jason, how many times did you file your action against Durango Bill?
How many times have you acted pro se in a civil action?
And what ABOUT that issue of you calling yourself "doctor" based on an
HONORARY "degree" (that you rarely identify as honorary) from a school
at which you took no courses?
None of it's going away, Jason.
And there are more of your lies and fraud on which to shine the
spotlight.
lizzard woman
| Don Kresch wrote:
| P.S. With all your abuse, how you haven't made my PLONK list is beyond
me.
| It must be a miracle from God.
You plonk me and not Don. You like Don better.
NOT FAIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
love,
little miss 50%
David D.
Jason probably likes the uncouth, sheer manlyness of Don. Someone who
obviously (joke) knows the correct place of a woman in the home!
You, on the other hand, are a woman who dares to speak her mind. Worse
you are educated. Basically you scare the shit of Jason and he's
probably run out of sponge bob underwear.
lizzard woman
AHHHHHHHH. I can't stop laughing!!!
This is my own personal post-of-the-month selection. Possibly post of the
year. Hilarious!
My face hurts.
Gracias.
Don Kresch
<usene...@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
>Don Kresch wrote:
>> In alt.atheism on Wed, 09 Feb 2005 05:37:41 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
>> <usene...@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
>>> Don Kresch wrote:
>>>> In alt.atheism on Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:18:07 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
>>>> <usene...@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
>>>>> lizzard woman wrote:
>>>>>> Jason Gastrich has CONCEDED Sean McHugh's point.
>>>>>
>>>>> Plonk.
>>>>
>>>> Coward.
>>>
>>> Hey Don,
>>
>> Hey coward, why did you plonk lizzard woman?
>
>She was being a pest.
No, she was not. She was getting you to respond when you have had
AMPLE time to do so.
> She lied in the subject of this thread.
She did nothing of the sort. You had AMPLE time to respond.
Failure to respond in such a time grants summary judgement against
you.
>> Notice how you don't get to attempt to ignore your problems,
>> asshole. I'll shove them under your fucking nose and make you smell
>> their nastiness, you dishonest fuck.
>
>Speaking of lies and nonsense,
That would be everything you post, Jason, you lying coward.
Mike Painter
challenged then he makes excuses.
Maybe you embarrass him because he knows some lizards don't need men around
to propagate
lizzard woman
"Mike Painter" <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:pkxOd.3598$ZZ....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
Yes, whiptails I gather from the recent thread on talk.origins.
While I don't need misogynistic pea brains who look to Bronze age mythology
for tips on how to conduct themselves, I do need an honest, intelligent, and
kind man which it has been my great fortune to have found.
I think women in these Promise Keepers marriages need some sort of
intervention to help them get out from under the thumb of these louts.
Jason Gastrich
> In alt.atheism on Wed, 09 Feb 2005 18:38:41 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
> <usene...@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
>> Don Kresch wrote:
>>> In alt.atheism on Wed, 09 Feb 2005 05:37:41 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
>>> <usene...@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
>>>> Don Kresch wrote:
>>>>> In alt.atheism on Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:18:07 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
>>>>> <usene...@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
>>>>>> lizzard woman wrote:
>>>>>>> Jason Gastrich has CONCEDED Sean McHugh's point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Plonk.
>>>>>
>>>>> Coward.
>>>>
>>>> Hey Don,
>>>
>>> Hey coward, why did you plonk lizzard woman?
>>
>> She was being a pest.
>
> No, she was not. She was getting you to respond when you have had
> AMPLE time to do so.
Announcing in the subject title that I concede my debate with Sean McHugh -
which has already been completed, mind you - our debate was completed
several months ago, is dishonest. It's not getting me to respond. It's a
lie.
JG
>> She lied in the subject of this thread.
>
> She did nothing of the sort. You had AMPLE time to respond.
> Failure to respond in such a time grants summary judgement against
> you.
>
>
>>> Notice how you don't get to attempt to ignore your problems,
>>> asshole. I'll shove them under your fucking nose and make you smell
>>> their nastiness, you dishonest fuck.
>>
>> Speaking of lies and nonsense,
>
> That would be everything you post, Jason, you lying coward.
>
>
> Don
> ---
> aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
> Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
>
> "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
> Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
--
Jason Gastrich
> lizzard woman wrote:
>> "Jason Gastrich" <usene...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:RMsOd.20076$BS.1...@twister.socal.rr.com...
>>> Don Kresch wrote:
>>
>>
>>> P.S. With all your abuse, how you haven't made my PLONK list is
>>> beyond me. It must be a miracle from God.
>>
>> You plonk me and not Don. You like Don better.
>>
>> NOT FAIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
> Na, Na, Na. Jason (said) he plonked me but he still responds until
> challenged then he makes excuses.
Hey Mike,
What's new? Nothing new with your rhetoric, I see.
I already explained your plonking to you. I had plonked you several months
ago, but upon my recent return to usenet, you were unplonked.
Don't forget that you are the one who has skipped out on my challenge. What
was my challenge? My challenge was for you to repost your argument in the
form of succint questions, start a new topic with it (so it won't be
missed), and make sure you include free.christians in the groups you post
to.
I'm simply not going to leaf through very old posts of yours to find a
long-winded post about JEDP. You need to ask me a question or make an
argument and I will reply. In fact, if you follow this simple protocol I
promise to reply.
Pretty simple, eh? Yes, pretty simple for someone who actually wants a
dialogue. Not so simple for someone who just wants to whine and complain.
Regards,
Jason
> Maybe you embarrass him because he knows some lizards don't need men
> around to propagate
--
Don Kresch
<usene...@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
>Don Kresch wrote:
>> In alt.atheism on Wed, 09 Feb 2005 18:38:41 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
>> <usene...@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
>>> Don Kresch wrote:
>>>> In alt.atheism on Wed, 09 Feb 2005 05:37:41 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
>>>> <usene...@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
>>>>> Don Kresch wrote:
>>>>>> In alt.atheism on Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:18:07 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
>>>>>> <usene...@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
>>>>>>> lizzard woman wrote:
>>>>>>>> Jason Gastrich has CONCEDED Sean McHugh's point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Plonk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Coward.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey Don,
>>>>
>>>> Hey coward, why did you plonk lizzard woman?
>>>
>>> She was being a pest.
>>
>> No, she was not. She was getting you to respond when you have had
>> AMPLE time to do so.
>
>Announcing in the subject title that I concede my debate with Sean McHugh
...was proper to get your fucking attention, since there's no
other way.
Steve Knight
<usene...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This was the final straw for her in my usenet reading.
>I'd prefer to avoid reading lies and nonsense.
You believe the bible, right?
_ R_NY
Wanna buy a vowel?
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
Steve Knight
Plonking around.
George Peatty
<newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>When the Bible says it's imminent, it does not say,
>"But by imminent, I mean it will start thousands of
>years from now".
>
>I saw the following in a message somewhere and thought
>I'd paste it in here. This is the acrobatics the end
>timers go through with the word "imminent".
>
>"Hence, the coming of the Lord to get His
>own is and has been IMMINENT.
>It could happen any moment.
>It might not happen for a couple more
>thousand years.
>The coming for the saints (pretribualtion
>rapture/resurrection) is and has been
>IMMINENT and shall remain so. Amen!"
>
>
>Now let's look at a dictionary...
>Imminent: About to occur; impending: in imminent
>danger.
I got no problem with any of this, and can with no effort whatever continue
to maintain that the 2d coming remains imminent though two millennia have
passed since its announcement. You may know what I mean when I say that my
doctrinal views on eschatology are pre-trib, pre-mil .. and that is not
going to change.
Pastor, I will largely decline the chance to debate with you over areas
where we disagree. Among believers, it is a fellowship of kindred minds
that is like to that above, so I prefer to share what we have in common
rather than what divides us.
George Peatty
>>Jason is easily one of the most intellectually dishonest people posting to
>>newsgroups in my opinion.
>Probably due to the fact that he's one of the most intellectually
>challenged.
Yeah, in a quantum reality where all outcomes are possible, in theory, there
is a universe somewhere where these statements are true.
But, it is not here.
Manifestly absurd claims like this cast doubt on any claims you might make
on any subject, and only enforce Jason's POV. You have to resort to
delusional calumny to slander him, because that is all you have ..
lizzard woman
| Don Kresch wrote:
| > In alt.atheism on Wed, 09 Feb 2005 18:38:41 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
| > <usene...@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
| >> Don Kresch wrote:
| >>> In alt.atheism on Wed, 09 Feb 2005 05:37:41 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
| >>> <usene...@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
| >>>> Don Kresch wrote:
| >>>>> In alt.atheism on Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:18:07 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
| >>>>> <usene...@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
| >>>>>> lizzard woman wrote:
| >>>>>>> Jason Gastrich has CONCEDED Sean McHugh's point.
| >>>>>>
| >>>>>> Plonk.
| >>>>>
| >>>>> Coward.
| >>>>
| >>>> Hey Don,
| >>>
| >>> Hey coward, why did you plonk lizzard woman?
| >>
| >> She was being a pest.
| >
| > No, she was not. She was getting you to respond when you have had
| > AMPLE time to do so.
|
| Announcing in the subject title that I concede my debate with Sean
McHugh -
| which has already been completed, mind you - our debate was completed
| several months ago, is dishonest. It's not getting me to respond. It's a
| lie.
1. You ignored pertinent questions (in some cases on more than one
occasion) in the formal debate with Sean McHugh.
2. That results in him winning the formal debate, easily, because you also
never put forward a positive, cohesive case for your side. The chronology
is rife with problems; Just because you didn't/couldn't address yourself to
most of the problems McHugh pointed out doesn't mean it isn't rife with
problems.
3. You agree to field some questions from Sean in the newsgroups.
4. He posts a question which you proceeded to ignore for several days.
5. I pointed it out to you agreed to field questions from McHugh and asked
you repeatedly when you were going to answer.
6. You proceeded to string everyone along with obfuscatory excuses.
7. Finally, when you wouldn't commit to ever answering, you invited me to
assume what I would.
8. I assumed you conceded because you never intended to answer the
questions. Indeed by now you know there is no reasonable answer. You
couldn't answer it during the debate proper and you can't answer it now.
9. You lose the point, you lose the debate proper (again), and you lose the
follow-up colloquy in the groups.
You, sir, have no personal integrity. If you did, you would follow through
on your promise to answer the question or provide a date certain when you
will do so. You did neither.
lizzard woman
| Mike Painter wrote:
| > lizzard woman wrote:
| >> "Jason Gastrich" <usene...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| >> news:RMsOd.20076$BS.1...@twister.socal.rr.com...
| >>> Don Kresch wrote:
| >>
| >>
| >>> P.S. With all your abuse, how you haven't made my PLONK list is
| >>> beyond me. It must be a miracle from God.
| >>
| >> You plonk me and not Don. You like Don better.
| >>
| >> NOT FAIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| >>
| > Na, Na, Na. Jason (said) he plonked me but he still responds until
| > challenged then he makes excuses.
|
| Hey Mike,
|
| What's new? Nothing new with your rhetoric, I see.
|
| I already explained your plonking to you. I had plonked you several
months
| ago, but upon my recent return to usenet, you were unplonked.
I see. You only plonk women for good. Card-carrying he-man-woman-hater.
| Don't forget that you are the one who has skipped out on my challenge.
What
| was my challenge? My challenge was for you to repost your argument in the
| form of succint questions, start a new topic with it (so it won't be
| missed), and make sure you include free.christians in the groups you post
| to.
But McHugh and I did that for you in the case of McHugh's question and you
STILL ignored it. Therefore it doesn't work and you are just dicking around
with Painter.
| I'm simply not going to leaf through very old posts of yours to find a
| long-winded post about JEDP. You need to ask me a question or make an
| argument and I will reply. In fact, if you follow this simple protocol I
| promise to reply.
|
| Pretty simple, eh? Yes, pretty simple for someone who actually wants a
| dialogue. Not so simple for someone who just wants to whine and complain.
What are you doing posting anyway? You said you wouldn't be posting much,
implying you were busy with other matters, as the last excuse you proffered
for not answering McHugh's question. Are you too busy or not to post?
lizzard woman
"George Peatty" <pttyg4...@copper.net> wrote in message
news:padl01htnhh8qppkb...@4ax.com...
If you think that's all we have then you haven't been reading along.
Jason Gastrich
This seems very clear to all but the unbelievers. Go figure.
To our God be all the glory.
Sincerely,
Jason
Al Klein
<pttyg4...@copper.net> said in alt.atheism:
>On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 05:49:08 GMT, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
You mean that you're as intellectually challenged as Jason? Or that
you're as honesty-challenged as he is?
--
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is
human concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind
cannot begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an
old religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and
never has been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in
its simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of
madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
Al Klein
<kimosa...@shaw.ca> said in alt.atheism:
>What are you doing posting anyway? You said you wouldn't be posting much,
>implying you were busy with other matters, as the last excuse you proffered
>for not answering McHugh's question. Are you too busy or not to post?
He's too busy to not post.
--
"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want
you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our
goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by
God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want
pluralism."
-Randall Terry, Founder of Operation Rescue, The News-Sentinel, Fort
Wayne, Indiana, 8-16-93
David
No, you told her that she could make her assumptions and she did.
A lie is a knowing deception, Jason. That's quite different from what
we saw, except from YOU, of course.
Al Klein
>Announcing in the subject title that I concede my debate with Sean McHugh -
>which has already been completed, mind you
And in which you were so thoroughly trounced you might as well have
not bothered showing up.
Not that you'll ever see this post.
--
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the
type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his
physical death is also beyond my comprehension,...; such notions are for the fears or
absurd egoism of feeble souls."
- Albert Einstein
David
> David wrote:
> > David D. wrote:
> > > lizzard woman wrote:
> >
> > < snip >
> >
> > > > http://jcsm.org/misc/JasonGastrich.htm
> > > >
> > > > Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary - Lynchburg, VA - 1997 to
> 1998
> > > > Earned 27 graduate level credits - Made the Dean's List
> > >
> > > Ah, so he didn't even get his masters at Liberty. That was my
> > > assumption. There is definitely something fishy about him
leaving
> > > liberty. Afterall, that is a relatively good school whereas
> > Louisiana
> > > thingy is a bit ( a lot) of a sham. Given Jasons infatuation
with
> > > titles and authority it seems very unlikely that he would leave
> > > Falwells bastion with out a good reason.
> >
> > Well, I think it boils down to money, and really little more than
> that.
> >
> >
> > It could be that being at Liberty was harder work than Jason wanted
> to
> > expend, as well. It's a regionally accredited school - despite
it's
> > association with Falwell and fundamentalists. That means it's
fairly
> > rigorous, particularly with graduate programs.
> >
> > Since it's a private school, as well, it's expensive.
>
> Pricey and hard work. I can see how that could end in tears.
Indeed.
> > Louisiana Baptist is relatively cheap, and the academic standards
> > aren't near as high.
> >
> > It was another short-cut, and Jason took it.
> >
> > That's what I think happened, anyway.
>
> Another possibility is he missed San Diego and the
> correspondance school route would allow him to go
> home and still study.
>
> I met quite a few californians
> on the east coast who quit grad school and went
> back west after the first winter. It can be a culture
> shock. So you may well be right.
That's a good point, too.
There's quite a culture shock from San Diego and Lynchburg, even if San
Diego is very conservative, in general.
Al Klein
<usene...@yahoo.com> said in alt.atheism:
>George Peatty wrote:
>> Manifestly absurd claims like this cast doubt on any claims you might
>> make on any subject, and only enforce Jason's POV. You have to
>> resort to delusional calumny to slander him, because that is all you
>> have ..
>This seems very clear to all but the unbelievers. Go figure.
"If you already believe, anything at all will convince you."
--
"religion did for bullshit, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
David
Oh, no.
Jason is definitely a lightweight intellect, George, and sycophancy on
the part of anyone else won't change that.
Furthermore, it isn't slander to say that. Deciding that Jason has
little to offer in the way of intellectual veracity does not constitute
slander. It is simply to offer a judgment - a judgment that, to date,
stands up to scrutiny.
Mike Painter
My, my, my. You show that you do indeed remember what it was about, even
though you denied it earlier. You didn't get it quite right E, J, P, D is
what you should have written, especially if you agree with Friedman.
Here are a few simple questions. Your previous response was to post an
entire set of "notes" from a survey course. There was one or two references
to the subject at hand.
What is the proper name for the subject at hand?
Have you read any current *books* on the subject since then?
Not talked with any one or asked a friend, not reread your notes but read a
*book* that outlines what all major schools of theology in the world teach
as most likely.
If you have not read a book on the subject have you obtained "the necessary
training in languages, biblical archeology, and literary and historical
skills to work on the problem" ? (This would represent at least one PhD from
a major university and several years of work, so I suspect you only need
answer the second question.)
I strongly suspect you remember the rest of what I said at the time so will
comment more if you respond.
Jason Gastrich
I promised to answer questions about JEDP. I also asked that you ask them
in a new thread. I'm going to ignore this ad hominem nonsense. If you
think I'm unqualified to discuss this subject, then stop badgering me to do
so.
Sincerely,
Jason
Mike Painter
You are hardly sincere.
You asked me to ask again, even though you showed you did remember the
initial event. How is my replying to your question badgering?
Why do you now, based on what you *asked* ignore what you *promised*?
You could not answer my questions the first time and kill-filed me as a
result. Unless you have increased your body of knowledge you will not be
able to do so now.
A SINCERE christian would have taken the time to honestly answer the
questions rather than make excuses about why not.
I suspect you have learned nothing because you are still unable to even get
the letters in the right order.
Jason Gastrich
Really? Well, you have my attention. Why don't you hurry up and ask about
JEDP before you lose it?
> You asked me to ask again, even though you showed you did remember the
> initial event.
I vaguely remember it coming up.
> How is my replying to your question badgering?
No, your badgering happens when you act like I'm avoiding this topic in
random threads and for random reasons. Let's get it out in the open and
discuss it.
> Why do you now, based on what you *asked* ignore what you *promised*?
I'm not ignoring any promise. Perhaps you don't understand my promise.
Start a new thread.
Ask your questions about JEPD.
I will answer.
Can I make it any more clear? It's hard to believe that you're not
purposefully trying to stall for time and talk in circles because it is all
you seem to be doing. Let's go, already.
> You could not answer my questions the first time and kill-filed me
> as a result.
I vaguely remember this coming up, but I don't killfile people because I
can't answer their questions. I killfile people for being jerks . . . and
I'm starting to remember why I killfiled you.
> Unless you have increased your body of knowledge you
> will not be able to do so now.
Ask your questions.
> A SINCERE christian would have taken the time to honestly answer the
> questions rather than make excuses about why not.
Ask your questions. A sincere atheist would get on with it.
> I suspect you have learned nothing because you are still unable to
> even get the letters in the right order.
Ask and all doubt will be removed.
Pastor Dave
deep thoughts, George Peatty <pttyg4...@copper.net>
spake thusly:
>On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 16:25:47 GMT, Pastor Dave
><newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>When the Bible says it's imminent, it does not say,
>>"But by imminent, I mean it will start thousands of
>>years from now".
>>
>>I saw the following in a message somewhere and thought
>>I'd paste it in here. This is the acrobatics the end
>>timers go through with the word "imminent".
>>
>>"Hence, the coming of the Lord to get His
>>own is and has been IMMINENT.
>>It could happen any moment.
>>It might not happen for a couple more
>>thousand years.
>>The coming for the saints (pretribualtion
>>rapture/resurrection) is and has been
>>IMMINENT and shall remain so. Amen!"
>>
>>
>>Now let's look at a dictionary...
>
>>Imminent: About to occur; impending: in imminent
>>danger.
>
>I got no problem with any of this, and can with no effort whatever continue
>to maintain that the 2d coming remains imminent though two millennia have
>passed since its announcement. You may know what I mean when I say that my
>doctrinal views on eschatology are pre-trib, pre-mil .. and that is not
>going to change.
So then the people who wrote that it was imminent,
which means, about to happen, really meant that it's
not imminent. Gotcha. That's called Bible acrobatics,
which are performed to hang on to a man made doctrine,
in spite of what the Bible says, not because it says
what you believe.
>Pastor, I will largely decline the chance to debate with you over areas
>where we disagree. Among believers, it is a fellowship of kindred minds
>that is like to that above, so I prefer to share what we have in common
>rather than what divides us.
Well, if you're waiting for a Rapture and contradicting
yourself about what imminent means and denying the
common sense wording of the Bible, because your
personal beliefs contradict it, then I'd say that's a
pretty big divide. Unfortunate.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
George Peatty
>You mean that you're as intellectually challenged as Jason? Or that
>you're as honesty-challenged as he is?
You know good and well what I mean .. You are projecting ..
George Peatty
>And in which you were so thoroughly trounced you might as well have
>not bothered showing up.
Dude, you are not the one keeping score ..
Don Kresch
<pttyg4...@copper.net> let us all know that:
Dude, he is.
lizzard woman
| Mike Painter wrote:
(snip)
| Start a new thread.
| Ask your questions about JEPD.
| I will answer.
Didn't work with McHugh or myself so why should it work with Painter?
You're dicking around.
| Can I make it any more clear? It's hard to believe that you're not
| purposefully trying to stall for time and talk in circles because it is
all
| you seem to be doing. Let's go, already.
|
| > You could not answer my questions the first time and kill-filed me
| > as a result.
|
| I vaguely remember this coming up, but I don't killfile people because I
| can't answer their questions.
Bullshit. Killfilling people who ask questions you can't answer and that
undermine your mythology is your M.O.
If you say that again, I'm going to refer you again to the McHugh exchange
and this exchange.
Jason Gastrich
George,
It's rather silly that atheists like Al like to blindly attack our honesty.
They think this is some sort of major blow to us; an atheist making a
baseless attack on our integrity. Give me a break. If they only knew how
silly they looked . . .
Regards,
Robibnikoff
> George Peatty wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 02:50:26 GMT, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> You mean that you're as intellectually challenged as Jason? Or that
>>> you're as honesty-challenged as he is?
>>
>> You know good and well what I mean .. You are projecting ..
>
> George,
>
> It's rather silly that atheists like Al like to blindly attack our
> honesty.
LOL!!! Oh, the irony. You wouldn't know honesty if it bit you in the ass.
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Mike Painter
You are spoending all your time avoiding the questions I asked here and
asked before. That is avoidence.
>
>> Why do you now, based on what you *asked* ignore what you *promised*?
>
> I'm not ignoring any promise. Perhaps you don't understand my
> promise.
Then please explain what "I promise to answer your questions" means?
>
> Start a new thread.
> Ask your questions about JEPD.
> I will answer.
No you won't. You refuse to answer because you have gained no knowledge of
the subject beyond what you first posted.
>
> Can I make it any more clear? It's hard to believe that you're not
> purposefully trying to stall for time and talk in circles because it
> is all you seem to be doing. Let's go, already.
I asked, you spend a lot of time refusing to answer.
>
>> You could not answer my questions the first time and kill-filed me
>> as a result.
>
> I vaguely remember this coming up, but I don't killfile people
> because I can't answer their questions. I killfile people for being
> jerks . . . and I'm starting to remember why I killfiled you.
>
>> Unless you have increased your body of knowledge you
>> will not be able to do so now.
>
> Ask your questions.
>
>> A SINCERE christian would have taken the time to honestly answer the
>> questions rather than make excuses about why not.
>
> Ask your questions. A sincere atheist would get on with it.
>
>> I suspect you have learned nothing because you are still unable to
>> even get the letters in the right order.
>
> Ask and all doubt will be removed.
Here are the questions, again, from higher up in this post.
Mike Painter
Or to the original exchange about the subject at hand.
He did finally manage to get the letters in order but left out the commas.
There is a reason for the specific order to the letters and not knowing this
shows ingnorance of the subject, especially if you believe Friedman.
lizzard woman
| In article <0jnm01hg3l7dd91mg...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch
says...
|
|
| >>>And in which you were so thoroughly trounced you might as well have
| >>>not bothered showing up.
| >>
| >>Dude, you are not the one keeping score ..
|
| > Dude, he is.
|
| certainly is not .. Further, all contests are scored by individuals not
taking
| part, and that is another reason to disqualify him.
Look, as theistic debaters go, Gastrich is not in the same league with
people like Fernandez, let's say, who are accomplished in my opinion.
Compared to really adept theistic debaters, Gastrich is like a poof of a
feather. He cannot follow argument and uses illogical approaches. I base
this on hearing the exchanges he has had with Barker, Reggie Findlay, and
Tabash, inter alia.
I suggest even those other theistic debaters would give Gastrich very low
marks for his performances to date.
George Peatty
<newsgr...@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>And I have never run across someone who can prove
>something Biblically, that was unwilling to do it.
I'm not unable, just unwilling. If you would know what I think, read
someone who is smarter and thinks better than I do. The Apocalypse by
Joseph Seiss, and Things To Come by J. Dwight Pentecost are two excellent
pre-trib, pre-mil expositions.
Al Klein
I listened to the debate. Jason was pitiful.
--
"If anyone comes to me, and does not hate his father, mother, wife, brothers, and sisters and even himself, he cannot be my disciple."
Luke 14:26
Al Klein
<pttyg4...@copper.net> said in alt.atheism:
>On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 02:50:26 GMT, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
Yes, I know good and well what you mean - which means either that you
don't understand that Jason is no match for the average 10th grader or
that you're lying for him.
--
"Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution."
- Theodosuis Dobzhansky
Al Klein
<witc...@broomstick.com> said in alt.atheism:
>LOL!!! Oh, the irony. You wouldn't know honesty if it bit you in the ass.
Oh? Is it REALLY dishonest to call yourself Dr. when you're merely a
candidate for the honor? I mean, SO many people do it. There's "Dr."
Gastrich, and ... oh ... well ... there's "Dr." Gastrich.
--
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987
Don Kresch
>>>>not bothered showing up.
>>>
>>>Dude, you are not the one keeping score ..
>
>> Dude, he is.
>
No, the game is not.
David
> George Peatty wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 02:50:26 GMT, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> You mean that you're as intellectually challenged as Jason? Or
that
> >> you're as honesty-challenged as he is?
> >
> > You know good and well what I mean .. You are projecting ..
>
> George,
>
> It's rather silly that atheists like Al like to blindly attack our
honesty.
They can't attack your "honesty," Jason.
There's none to attack.
> They think this is some sort of major blow to us;
I think that it goes without saying that attacking those with no
integrity on the grounds of integrity would not be a "major blow" to
you.
I'll let you ponder that.
> an atheist making a
> baseless attack on our integrity. Give me a break.
Ah, here we go again, eh, Jason?
If it's an "atheist" attacking YOUR "integrity," there's a problem,
because atheists aren't to be considered trustworthy sources.
Right?
Consider the source, as you once said?
> If they only knew how
> silly they looked . . .
To whom, Jason?
David
> Uzytkownik "David" <hdsien...@yahoo.com> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:1107836398.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
< snip >
> > > He didn't say anything. That was because he didn't hear me
asking.
> > that was
> > > because I didn't ask.
> >
> > Why not?
> >
> > What are you afraid of?
> >
> > < snip >
>
> I'm afraid of looking like a fool taking your next bit of
trollobluffery
> even the remotest bit seriously.
>
> That's what.
There's no way you can look more like a fool to me, Davey, than you do
right now.
And I have little doubt that that sentiment is widely shared.
After your rather pathetic and ill-advised defense of Jason's "advice"
to defer paying credit card bills to tithe, instead - which is actually
somewhat related to the issue at hand here in this little sub-thread -
I can't imagine that you'd have any shame, or any remaining
credibility.
So you've nothing to lose.
Ask him.