A Formal Debate with Dr. Jason (arrangements).
Sean McHugh
for
a debate can be negotiated. I would like to debate the
post-resurrection accounts in the gospels. I maintain that they
conflict. Jason would, no doubt, maintain that they don't.
As a venue, I would suggest the Internet Infidels Discussion Forum.
I note that in there, Jason has invited anyone to debate him:
~ If you wish to engage in a debate with me, please let me know.
~ I’d be happy to consider your offer. Perhaps you can fare better
~ than Mr. Till. [Jason Gastrich]
BTW, I don't particularly like the way the challenge is posed. It
it assumes that an acceptance means that one will need to try
to do better than Farrell Till. I believe that Farrell Till did
very well. I know others shared that view. In fact, I don't
actually know anyone who has a greater knowledge of the Bible or
anyone who can argue it more thoroughly.
To Jason,
Are you happy with Internet Infidels Discussion Forum as a venue?
I would suggest six rounds, with the last round being a summary.
I personally felt that the ten rounds in your last debate dragged
on a bit.
I would prefer to start in the New Year. Otherwise holidays and
social commitments will probably cause interruptions for both of
us.
These, of course, are only preliminary suggestions. I am eager
to hear your own thoughts, or thoughts from anyone else.
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
Dr. Jason Gastrich
Hey Sean,
Thanks for your message.
Could you tell me a bit about yourself? I'm curious about your background
and debating experience.
I liked most of the terms you mentioned. I agree that a 10 round debate
with a 22 page post limit per round (per person) can get very long; as my
last debate did.
What kind of posting limit would you like to have per round? Would 11 pages
(e.g. 2500 characters) be sufficient?
Why do you want the debate at IIDB? IIDB is a decent place for a debate.
It gets a lot of traffic. I'm just curious if there are any alternatives
because I just finished a debate at IIDB.
Beginning our debate in January would be fine. I could prioritize it and
start it sooner, but you are probably right about the holidays and other
commitments. I have a full schedule, too.
The topic for the debate that you chose sounds interesting. Could you be a
bit more specific, though? We'll need a specific resolution statement
before we can debate.
Take care,
Jason
Don Kresch
<ne...@jcsm.org> let us all know that:
So, little coward--why won't you debate me here? I know damned
well you wouldn't want to debate me at Infidel Guy's board (having had
your clock cleaned there, too).
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"
Wayne W.
"Don Kresch" <ROT13....@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:9pnisvci7q3qbfi2q...@4ax.com...
-snip-
Stop crossposting. This is your one and only warning before you are added to
the killfile list.
Wayne
Ron Baker
"Sean McHugh" <smc...@shoal.net.au> wrote in message
news:3FCA530C...@shoal.net.au...
> As requested by Jason, I have started a new thread in which arrangements
> for
> a debate can be negotiated. I would like to debate the
> post-resurrection accounts in the gospels. I maintain that they
> conflict. Jason would, no doubt, maintain that they don't.
I, for one, look forward to following such a formal debate.
No offense, but I find that particular topic not to be of
major consequence in the overall atheist/theist debate, but
if you've got a strong argument I look forward to hearing it.
>
> As a venue, I would suggest the Internet Infidels Discussion Forum.
> I note that in there, Jason has invited anyone to debate him:
>
> ~ If you wish to engage in a debate with me, please let me know.
> ~ I'd be happy to consider your offer. Perhaps you can fare better
> ~ than Mr. Till. [Jason Gastrich]
>
>
<http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=d617423fcf94651e6e4806f55112b75e&t
hreadid=58419&perpage=25&pagenumber=2>
>
> BTW, I don't particularly like the way the challenge is posed. It
> it assumes that an acceptance means that one will need to try
> to do better than Farrell Till.
Yes, well, maybe there was some slight in that but I am
sure that you will rise above it.
> I believe that Farrell Till did
> very well. I know others shared that view. In fact, I don't
> actually know anyone who has a greater knowledge of the Bible or
> anyone who can argue it more thoroughly.
>
> To Jason,
>
> Are you happy with Internet Infidels Discussion Forum as a venue?
>
> I would suggest six rounds, with the last round being a summary.
> I personally felt that the ten rounds in your last debate dragged
> on a bit.
>
> I would prefer to start in the New Year. Otherwise holidays and
> social commitments will probably cause interruptions for both of
> us.
>
> These, of course, are only preliminary suggestions. I am eager
> to hear your own thoughts, or thoughts from anyone else.
My comments as a spectator:
Sounds good. Six sounds better than ten.
New Year? I'm eager to see it, but it is your show.
I'm not familiar with the Internet Infidels Discussion Forum
but seek access.
Don Kresch
<eww...@nospam.charter.net> let us all know that:
Fuck off. Die. Horribly.
Dr Dave W
> In alt.atheism on Sat, 29 Nov 2003 21:14:46 -0600, "Wayne W."
> <eww...@nospam.charter.net> let us all know that:
>>
>>"Don Kresch" <ROT13....@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
>>news:9pnisvci7q3qbfi2q...@4ax.com...
>>
>>-snip-
>>
>>Stop crossposting. This is your one and only warning before you are
>>added to the killfile list.
>
> Fuck off. Die. Horribly.
>
>
<Golf clap>
--
Dave W a.a.#1967
Dr. Jason Gastrich
Hi Wayne and welcome to free.christians. Don Kresch is already on many
people's killfile list.
God bless,
Jason
P.S. Which group do you read the most? I'm wondering if anyone here is
from the angels group. It seems that f.c. and alt.atheism are the two most
popular groups among this common cross-posting dialogue.
Dr. Jason Gastrich
Hi Ron,
Thanks for your interest.
The IIDB is located at http://iidb.org. It's a popular hangout for
atheists. They chat and have some formal debates. There are several other
boards that do the same, though.
Sincerely,
Jason
Dr. Jason Gastrich
I'm having trouble with http://www.iidb.org. Is anyone else? It appears to
be down and was apparently down earlier, today.
Jason
Sean McHugh
Ron Baker wrote:
> "Sean McHugh" <smc...@shoal.net.au> wrote in message
> news:3FCA530C...@shoal.net.au...
> > As requested by Jason, I have started a new thread in which arrangements
> > for
> > a debate can be negotiated. I would like to debate the
> > post-resurrection accounts in the gospels. I maintain that they
> > conflict. Jason would, no doubt, maintain that they don't.
> I, for one, look forward to following such a formal debate.
> No offense, but I find that particular topic not to be of
> major consequence in the overall atheist/theist debate, but
> if you've got a strong argument I look forward to hearing it.
I know what you mean, but to the inerrantist, it's very major.
Jason's previous opponent, Farrell Till, left the ministry
because he found errors in the Bible. I actually get the
impression that a fundamentalist, upon realising there are
errors in the Bible, will be more likely to become an atheist
than a liberal. This does not mean that I am expecting Jason
to lose his faith.
> > As a venue, I would suggest the Internet Infidels Discussion Forum.
> > I note that in there, Jason has invited anyone to debate him:
> > ~ If you wish to engage in a debate with me, please let me know.
> > ~ I'd be happy to consider your offer. Perhaps you can fare better
> > ~ than Mr. Till. [Jason Gastrich]
> > BTW, I don't particularly like the way the challenge is posed. It
> > it assumes that an acceptance means that one will need to try
> > to do better than Farrell Till.
> Yes, well, maybe there was some slight in that but I am
> sure that you will rise above it.
No worries.
> > I believe that Farrell Till did
> > very well. I know others shared that view. In fact, I don't
> > actually know anyone who has a greater knowledge of the Bible or
> > anyone who can argue it more thoroughly.
> > To Jason,
> > Are you happy with Internet Infidels Discussion Forum as a venue?
> > I would suggest six rounds, with the last round being a summary.
> > I personally felt that the ten rounds in your last debate dragged
> > on a bit.
> > I would prefer to start in the New Year. Otherwise holidays and
> > social commitments will probably cause interruptions for both of
> > us.
> > These, of course, are only preliminary suggestions. I am eager
> > to hear your own thoughts, or thoughts from anyone else.
> My comments as a spectator:
> Sounds good. Six sounds better than ten.
> New Year? I'm eager to see it, but it is your show.
> I'm not familiar with the Internet Infidels Discussion Forum
> but seek access.
It may happen earlier. Here is the URL to IIDB. The site seems to
be down at the moment:
<http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?forumid=60>
Thanks for you interest.
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
Sean McHugh
Yes, it appear to be down. BTW, sorry about not completing your name
in the subject header. I only just noticed it.
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh.
Sean McHugh
"Dr. Jason Gastrich" wrote:
> <http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=d617423fcf94651e6e4806f55112b75e&t
> hreadid=58419&perpage=25&pagenumber=2>
> > To Jason,
> > Best Regards,
As far as religion goes, strictly layman. As for formal debating
experience, that is zero.
> I liked most of the terms you mentioned. I agree that a 10 round debate
> with a 22 page post limit per round (per person) can get very long; as my
> last debate did.
> What kind of posting limit would you like to have per round? Would 11 pages
> (e.g. 2500 characters) be sufficient?
I suspect you mean 25,000 characters. I'm agreeable to that.
> Why do you want the debate at IIDB? IIDB is a decent place for a debate.
> It gets a lot of traffic. I'm just curious if there are any alternatives
> because I just finished a debate at IIDB.
I suggested it because that is where I saw your challenge and
that is the forum with which I am familiar. I am open to other
suggestions.
> Beginning our debate in January would be fine. I could prioritize it and
> start it sooner, but you are probably right about the holidays and other
> commitments. I have a full schedule, too.
How about we play that by ear?
> The topic for the debate that you chose sounds interesting. Could you be a
> bit more specific, though? We'll need a specific resolution statement
> before we can debate.
I'll get back to you with that.
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
Constance Vigilant
"Dr. Jason Gastrich" <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
news:jIjyb.60381$t01....@twister.socal.rr.com...
Usually when people leave their profession or their ministry stating that it
is over errors or doctrine, that is just an excuse. more often than not they
have a sin that they cannot repent of and come out of. More often than not
the minister is a crypto homosexual, and leaves in order to go live with
another man, like this guy did http://www.royclements.co.uk in this case
actually, he blames his church for kicking him out, but what happened was he
left his wife and kids and shacked up with some other fruit in London. He is
still trying to put a positive spin on it in in his site and to his credit,
he doesn't fall off into athirstism. Nevertheless, he needs to be a bit more
humble and not be publicly making his old church out to have been in the
wrong.
I wonder whether the deeds of some of the ex pastors you've been debating
have more to do with their sexuality than their thought lives. I expect that
even if you knew, you'd be too courteous to give them gip about it in the
recorded debates anyway.
In Love,
Constance Vigilant
Kate
<anyon...@arthurandersen.com> wrote:
>Usually when people leave their profession or their ministry stating that it
>is over errors or doctrine, that is just an excuse. more often than not they
>have a sin that they cannot repent of and come out of. More often than not
>the minister is a crypto homosexual, and leaves in order to go live with
>another man, like this guy did http://www.royclements.co.uk in this case
>actually, he blames his church for kicking him out, but what happened was he
>left his wife and kids and shacked up with some other fruit in London. He is
>still trying to put a positive spin on it in in his site and to his credit,
>he doesn't fall off into athirstism. Nevertheless, he needs to be a bit more
>humble and not be publicly making his old church out to have been in the
>wrong.
>
>I wonder whether the deeds of some of the ex pastors you've been debating
>have more to do with their sexuality than their thought lives. I expect that
>even if you knew, you'd be too courteous to give them gip about it in the
>recorded debates anyway.
>
>In Love,
>Constance Vigilant
>
Usually when people always think it can only be one motive when it
comes to explaining other people's reasons for doing something it's
because they are projecting their own motivation.
You must feel you are always constantly vigilant for that, eh Connie?
Sean McHugh
I reckon you are full of crap and that you invented that. I'll bet you
can't support it.
> and leaves in order to go live with
> another man, like this guy did http://www.royclements.co.uk in this case
> actually, he blames his church for kicking him out, but what happened was he
> left his wife and kids and shacked up with some other fruit in London.
Then this has nothing to do with an example of someone using the
"excuse" that the Bible has errors, does it? So, is this your best
example of the alleged _real_ reason the exegetically disillusioned
leave the ministry? You know what I think, Constance? I think you
feel it's your duty to lie and smear for your beloved Jesus.
> He is still trying to put a positive spin on it in in his site and to
> his credit, he doesn't fall off into athirstism. Nevertheless, he
> needs to be a bit more humble and not be publicly making his old
> church out to have been in the wrong.
This has NOTHING to do with how discovering biblical and atheism,
does it? It's just a dishonest and clumsy attempt to smear Jason's
ex-ministerial debating opponents.
> I wonder whether the deeds of some of the ex pastors you've been debating
> have more to do with their sexuality than their thought lives.
I wonder if the others in your church are as malicious, dishonest and
stupid as you are.
> I expect that
> even if you knew, you'd be too courteous to give them gip about it in the
> recorded debates anyway.
You mean more courteous than you?
It will be interesting to see who supports you.
> In Love,
> Constance Vigilant
That sig is nauseating enough, let alone when one sees it coming
from the likes of you.
Sean McHugh
Don Kresch
Vigilant" <anyon...@arthurandersen.com> let us all know that:
>Usually when people leave their profession or their ministry stating that it
>is over errors or doctrine, that is just an excuse. more often than not they
>have a sin that they cannot repent of and come out of.
Ad hominem fallacy.
Don Kresch
>> "Don Kresch" <ROT13....@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
>> news:9pnisvci7q3qbfi2q...@4ax.com...
>>
>> -snip-
>>
>> Stop crossposting. This is your one and only warning before you are
>> added to the killfile list.
>>
>>
>>
>> Wayne
>
>Hi Wayne and welcome to free.christians. Don Kresch is already on many
>people's killfile list.
Because I represent the greatest threat to you: I have a
functioning brain.
Don Kresch
>> "Don Kresch" <ROT13....@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
>> news:9pnisvci7q3qbfi2q...@4ax.com...
>>
>> -snip-
>>
>> Stop crossposting. This is your one and only warning before you are
>> added to the killfile list.
>>
>>
>>
>> Wayne
>
>Hi Wayne and welcome to free.christians. Don Kresch is already on many
>people's killfile list.
Oh Jason--why won't you debate me in alt.atheism? Is it because
you're too cowardly? Is that the reason, you little shit?
Walking on Glass
in alt.atheism, news:DMjyb.60383$t01....@twister.socal.rr.com:
> Sean McHugh wrote:
>> As requested by Jason, I have started a new thread in which
>> arrangements for
>> a debate can be negotiated. I would like to debate the
>> post-resurrection accounts in the gospels. I maintain that they
>> conflict. Jason would, no doubt, maintain that they don't.
>>
>> As a venue, I would suggest the Internet Infidels Discussion Forum.
>> I note that in there, Jason has invited anyone to debate him:
>>
>> ~ If you wish to engage in a debate with me, please let me know.
>> ~ I'd be happy to consider your offer. Perhaps you can fare better
>> ~ than Mr. Till. [Jason Gastrich]
>>
>>
> <http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=d617423fcf94651e6e4806f55112b
> 75e&t hreadid=58419&perpage=25&pagenumber=2>
>>
>> BTW, I don't particularly like the way the challenge is posed. It
>> it assumes that an acceptance means that one will need to try
>> to do better than Farrell Till. I believe that Farrell Till did
>> very well. I know others shared that view. In fact, I don't
>> actually know anyone who has a greater knowledge of the Bible or
>> anyone who can argue it more thoroughly.
>>
>> To Jason,
>>
>> Are you happy with Internet Infidels Discussion Forum as a venue?
>>
>> I would suggest six rounds, with the last round being a summary.
>> I personally felt that the ten rounds in your last debate dragged
>> on a bit.
>>
>> I would prefer to start in the New Year. Otherwise holidays and
>> social commitments will probably cause interruptions for both of
>> us.
>>
>> These, of course, are only preliminary suggestions. I am eager
>> to hear your own thoughts, or thoughts from anyone else.
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>>
>> Sean McHugh
>
> I'm having trouble with http://www.iidb.org. Is anyone else? It
> appears to be down and was apparently down earlier, today.
I couldn't access it yesterday or today. 500 internal server error.
--
Walking on Glass (remove NOSPAM to email me)
AA #2053 Zymurgist #12
"If you want to save your child from polio, you can pray or
you can inoculate...Try science"
Carl Sagan - "The Demon-Haunted World"
The Teacher
<snip>
> Oh Jason--why won't you debate me in alt.atheism? Is it because
> you're too cowardly? Is that the reason, you little shit?
Name calling huh? Wow.
Being honest- if I was going to spend my time reading through a debate, I
would seriously hope that the arguments would have a greater depth than to
simply refer to someone as excrement.
Surely you are a better man than that.
>
> 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"
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.544 / Virus Database: 338 - Release Date: 25/11/2003
Al Klein
>-snip-
And anyone would care, why? Killfile *@*.* for all we care.
--
"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
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
Dr. Jason Gastrich
Hi Constance,
This is an interesting theory. You may have a point.
However, Dan Barker is apparently heterosexual and married to the founder of
his organization.
Jason
Dr. Jason Gastrich
> "Dr. Jason Gastrich" wrote:
>> Could you tell me a bit about yourself? I'm curious about your
>> background and debating experience.
>
> As far as religion goes, strictly layman. As for formal debating
> experience, that is zero.
I'm not sure what this means. A layman is basically a church worker that
volunteers time; at least at my church. Is this what you mean?
I was hoping to get some background information on you. Please introduce
yourself. What do you do? How old are you? I generally discover a few
things about the people I debate. However, I know absolutely nothing about
you except that you live in New Zealand and are male.
>> I liked most of the terms you mentioned. I agree that a 10 round
>> debate with a 22 page post limit per round (per person) can get very
>> long; as my last debate did.
>
>> What kind of posting limit would you like to have per round? Would
>> 11 pages (e.g. 2500 characters) be sufficient?
>
> I suspect you mean 25,000 characters. I'm agreeable to that.
Yes. 25,000. Very well.
>> Why do you want the debate at IIDB? IIDB is a decent place for a
>> debate. It gets a lot of traffic. I'm just curious if there are any
>> alternatives because I just finished a debate at IIDB.
>
> I suggested it because that is where I saw your challenge and
> that is the forum with which I am familiar. I am open to other
> suggestions.
Let's see if it comes back up. We could also have it at Inerrancy.com or ?
>> Beginning our debate in January would be fine. I could prioritize
>> it and start it sooner, but you are probably right about the
>> holidays and other commitments. I have a full schedule, too.
>
> How about we play that by ear?
I'd prefer settling on a specific week that the debate will begin. How is
either the first or second week of January?
>> The topic for the debate that you chose sounds interesting. Could
>> you be a bit more specific, though? We'll need a specific
>> resolution statement before we can debate.
>
> I'll get back to you with that.
How is this? Resolution: The post-resurrection accounts, in all of the
gospels, are harmonious and inerrant.
Sincerely,
Jason
Sean McHugh
"Dr. Jason Gastrich" wrote:
> Sean McHugh wrote:
> > "Dr. Jason Gastrich" wrote:
> >> Could you tell me a bit about yourself? I'm curious about your
> >> background and debating experience.
> > As far as religion goes, strictly layman. As for formal debating
> > experience, that is zero.
> I'm not sure what this means. A layman is basically a church worker that
> volunteers time; at least at my church. Is this what you mean?
No. I am using the primary definition: "One without training or skill
in a profession or branch of knowledge." That is
from the Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary. Its secondary
definition is in keeping with your inference.
> I was hoping to get some background information on you. Please introduce
> yourself. What do you do? How old are you? I generally discover a few
> things about the people I debate. However, I know absolutely nothing about
> you except that you live in New Zealand and are male.
I'm not from New Zealand. Your previous guess was correct and was
affirmed. My occupation is technical officer. I am over fifty and
married. I attended a Catholic school and found religion to be
boring.
> >> I liked most of the terms you mentioned. I agree that a 10 round
> >> debate with a 22 page post limit per round (per person) can get very
> >> long; as my last debate did.
> >> What kind of posting limit would you like to have per round? Would
> >> 11 pages (e.g. 2500 characters) be sufficient?
> > I suspect you mean 25,000 characters. I'm agreeable to that.
> Yes. 25,000. Very well.
I propose a maximum of a week, rather than five days, between
replies. That way there be will less likelihood of either of us
needing to ask for extended time.
> >> Why do you want the debate at IIDB? IIDB is a decent place for a
> >> debate. It gets a lot of traffic. I'm just curious if there are any
> >> alternatives because I just finished a debate at IIDB.
> > I suggested it because that is where I saw your challenge and
> > that is the forum with which I am familiar. I am open to other
> > suggestions.
> Let's see if it comes back up. We could also have it at Inerrancy.com or ?
Something that makes Inerrancy.com seem less desirable is that interest
there appears to have dropped off, even with you. The last post there
was on the 8th of November. BTW, who moderates at Inerrancy.com?
> >> Beginning our debate in January would be fine. I could prioritize
> >> it and start it sooner, but you are probably right about the
> >> holidays and other commitments. I have a full schedule, too.
> > How about we play that by ear?
> I'd prefer settling on a specific week that the debate will begin. How is
> either the first or second week of January?
If you commence the debate, a start in the first week in January
should be be OK for me.
> >> The topic for the debate that you chose sounds interesting. Could
> >> you be a bit more specific, though? We'll need a specific
> >> resolution statement before we can debate.
> > I'll get back to you with that.
> How is this? Resolution: The post-resurrection accounts, in all of the
> gospels, are harmonious and inerrant.
That's fine by me.
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
Dr. Jason Gastrich
Hi Sean,
It looks like we are good to go.
Inerrancy.com has an enormous number of "readers" (also called lurkers).
When I began my debate with Farrell, it was at Inerrancy.com and it quickly
received nearly 1,000 views. We moved it and it is still being seen quite a
bit.
I haven't had time to post much on Inerrancy.com. Plus, I find it quaint
thing that we don't have many posts in there about the Bible's errors. It
affirms that there aren't any.
Let's just have our debate at IIDB. It came back up, today. Let's hope it
stays up.
Would you mind proposing our debate in their formal debate proposal section?
That is how they do things there. If you don't have an IIDB account, you'll
need to sign up for one.
One week between posting is fine. Since we have an 11 page limit, it will
help me read and respond within the limit.
If there are any other details that need to be finalized (and I don't think
there are), then perhaps we should finalize them at IIDB after you propose
the debate there.
I'll mark my calendar to make my first post in the week of January 5th.
Sincerely,
Jason
Gregory A Greenman
ne...@jcsm.org said...
>
> Plus, I find it quaint
> thing that we don't have many posts in there about the Bible's errors. It
> affirms that there aren't any.
I find it quaint that there aren't any posts on
spencersoft.com about the bible's accuracy. It affirms that
it isn't.
Greg the Reprobate
Missionary of Death
-------------------
greg -at- spencersoft -dot- com
Dr. Jason Gastrich
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 10:13:18 GMT, Dr. Jason Gastrich
> ne...@jcsm.org said...
>>
>> Plus, I find it quaint
>> thing that we don't have many posts in there about the Bible's
>> errors. It affirms that there aren't any.
>
>
> I find it quaint that there aren't any posts on
> spencersoft.com about the bible's accuracy. It affirms that
> it isn't.
> Greg
There is no way to post a message on that web site. It is a single page ad
with email addresses.
Jason
Gregory A Greenman
> Gregory A Greenman wrote:
> > On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 10:13:18 GMT, Dr. Jason Gastrich
> > ne...@jcsm.org said...
> >>
> >> Plus, I find it quaint
> >> thing that we don't have many posts in there about the Bible's
> >> errors. It affirms that there aren't any.
> >
> >
> > I find it quaint that there aren't any posts on
> > spencersoft.com about the bible's accuracy. It affirms that
> > it isn't.
> > Greg
>
> There is no way to post a message on that web site. It is a single page ad
> with email addresses.
Is my claim only valid if there's a message board?
Anyway, you are mistaken. There is a message board. It's at:
http://www.spencersoft.com/trhl/
Dr. Jason Gastrich
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:50:28 GMT, Dr. Jason Gastrich
> ne...@jcsm.org said...
>> Gregory A Greenman wrote:
>>> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 10:13:18 GMT, Dr. Jason Gastrich
>>> ne...@jcsm.org said...
>>>>
>>>> Plus, I find it quaint
>>>> thing that we don't have many posts in there about the Bible's
>>>> errors. It affirms that there aren't any.
>>>
>>>
>>> I find it quaint that there aren't any posts on
>>> spencersoft.com about the bible's accuracy. It affirms that
>>> it isn't.
>>> Greg
>>
>> There is no way to post a message on that web site. It is a single
>> page ad with email addresses.
>
>
>
> Is my claim only valid if there's a message board?
Your initial claim isn't valid for many reasons. One reason is because
there is no link to a message board on the URL you posted.
> Anyway, you are mistaken. There is a message board. It's at:
> http://www.spencersoft.com/trhl/
I'm not mistaken. This is a different web page. This is a glorified guest
book with frames.
A number of the most avid, intellectual, and internet savvy atheists are
members of Inerrancy.com. They can't seem to produce any biblical errors,
though. Therefore, my statement had some validity and yours was, of course,
out to lunch.
God bless,
Jason
Mike Painter
<snip>
> A number of the most avid, intellectual, and internet savvy atheists are
> members of Inerrancy.com. They can't seem to produce any biblical errors,
> though. Therefore, my statement had some validity and yours was, of
course,
> out to lunch.
>
> God bless,
> Jason
>
It's always nice to be in the in crowd. Especially when it is a small
minority.
No major and most minor schools of (christian and jewish) theology have held
the bible inerrant in over 100 years.
In fact the people that are real scholars say that the errors and
contradictions jump out if you know the language.
Gregory A Greenman
> Gregory A Greenman wrote:
> > On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:50:28 GMT, Dr. Jason Gastrich
> > ne...@jcsm.org said...
> >> Gregory A Greenman wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 10:13:18 GMT, Dr. Jason Gastrich
> >>> ne...@jcsm.org said...
> >>>>
> >>>> Plus, I find it quaint
> >>>> thing that we don't have many posts in there about the Bible's
> >>>> errors. It affirms that there aren't any.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I find it quaint that there aren't any posts on
> >>> spencersoft.com about the bible's accuracy. It affirms that
> >>> it isn't.
> >>> Greg
> >>
> >> There is no way to post a message on that web site. It is a single
> >> page ad with email addresses.
> >
> >
> >
> > Is my claim only valid if there's a message board?
>
> Your initial claim isn't valid for many reasons. One reason is because
> there is no link to a message board on the URL you posted.
I didn't post a URL, I referenced a domain. The message board
is part of that domain. Also, the existence, or lack thereof,
of a message board is irrelevant to the claim.
> > Anyway, you are mistaken. There is a message board. It's at:
> > http://www.spencersoft.com/trhl/
>
> I'm not mistaken. This is a different web page. This is a glorified guest
> book with frames.
Guest book? It was a discussion board. Currently it's not in
use. It was used by a fantasy baseball league.
> A number of the most avid, intellectual, and internet savvy atheists are
> members of Inerrancy.com.
Really? I pulled up the atheists group and the only post I
found was yours.
> They can't seem to produce any biblical errors, though.
Jason, I really have to feel sorry for you. You're damn
religion is more important to you than the truth. In writing
this post, I've revisited your site. The very first thread I
pulled up was the "Death of Judas" thread in "The Inerrancy
of the Synoptic Gospels and Acts" section. The very first
post there is one by John Powell. In it, he points out there
are two very different stories as to what happened to Judas
and how he died. At most, one can be right. You can ignore
the facts all you want, but that doesn't make them go away.
> Therefore, my statement had some validity and yours was, of course,
> out to lunch.
Actually, my point was that lack of claims of bible errors on
you site is no more evidence that there are none, than lack
of claims of bible inerrancy on mine is evidence that it's
not. The claims, one way or the other, are on many other
sites.
Also, you really shouldn't tell me that my claim was "out to
lunch" in one breath, after telling a bald-faced lie with the
previous. It's rather unbecoming.
Sean McHugh
> >> Yes. 25,000. Very well.
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Sean McHugh
> Hi Sean,
Hi Jason,
> It looks like we are good to go.
> Inerrancy.com has an enormous number of "readers" (also called lurkers).
> When I began my debate with Farrell, it was at Inerrancy.com and it quickly
> received nearly 1,000 views. We moved it and it is still being seen quite a
> bit.
> I haven't had time to post much on Inerrancy.com. Plus, I find it quaint
> thing that we don't have many posts in there about the Bible's errors. It
> affirms that there aren't any.
The last debates I recall were those that had Michael Moss floundering
hopelessly on the side of inerrancy. He was down for the count in more
than one debate with a couple of different opponents. He quit and
everything stopped. I believe that his quitting was an act of mercy
for his hopeful readers. Anyway folks, there's no need to take my word
for it. Here are the starting pages for those debates:
<http://inerrancy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=87>
<http://inerrancy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=92>
<http://inerrancy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=86>
<http://inerrancy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=40&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0>
There was another poster who since who presented some very erudite
analysis on Exodus. That analysis would seriously challenge any
notion of biblical inerrancy. Jason said he would look at it and
presumably respond to it. That was on the 11th of November.
<http://inerrancy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=97>
Now I am not saying that this means that Jason loses by default.
I am just showing that this, along with the other examples,
makes his claims of victory for 'inerrancy' in Inerrancy.com
somewhat premature.
> Let's just have our debate at IIDB. It came back up, today. Let's hope it
> stays up.
Perhaps the administrator explains why it went down. I haven't had a
look yet.
> Would you mind proposing our debate in their formal debate proposal section?
> That is how they do things there. If you don't have an IIDB account, you'll
> need to sign up for one.
I will do that.
> One week between posting is fine. Since we have an 11 page limit, it will
> help me read and respond within the limit.
I'm glad we agree on that.
> If there are any other details that need to be finalized (and I don't think
> there are), then perhaps we should finalize them at IIDB after you propose
> the debate there.
> I'll mark my calendar to make my first post in the week of January 5th.
That will make my first post due by the 12th.
I would also wish to borrow a few proposals from your debate with
Farrell. I propose, that in similitude with that debate, we agree
to refrain from argumentation by assertion, question begging and
special pleading. I would also propose that we endeavour to answer
each of the opponent's points, especially after being alerted to
an omission of the same.
I will include one more proposal, that we agree to refrain from ad
hominem argument, either by assertion or innuendo.
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
Sean McHugh
Just remember, Jason; what goes around comes around.
>
> However, Dan Barker is apparently heterosexual and married to the founder of
> his organization.
I think it was very unwise of you to lend any support to Constance
with this trash. I would have thought you would have already learned
your lesson.
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
> Jason
Dr. Jason Gastrich
You should be able to understand these accounts. They are from two,
different people. Can't you see how one could have seen Judas as he was
hanging and one could have seen him as he was on the ground with his bowels
coming out? The branch apparently broke.
>> Therefore, my statement had some validity and yours was, of course,
>> out to lunch.
>
>
> Actually, my point was that lack of claims of bible errors on
> you site is no more evidence that there are none, than lack
> of claims of bible inerrancy on mine is evidence that it's
> not. The claims, one way or the other, are on many other
> sites.
>
> Also, you really shouldn't tell me that my claim was "out to
> lunch" in one breath, after telling a bald-faced lie with the
> previous. It's rather unbecoming.
I have no idea what this "bald-faced lie" is. Nonetheless, it was an out to
lunch claim to say that your defunct fantasy baseball guestbook was
comparable to the active, Inerrancy.com Discussion Board.
Jason
Dr. Jason Gastrich
Hi Sean,
Is Sean McHugh your real name of an alias?
I agree that we should avoid ad hominem and arguing by assertion.
I won't agree to a strict guideline where we MUST answer every question
proposed. Some questions are ridiculous and one may question bomb. So, we
should have the liberty to avoid off-topic questions.
I haven't read the post on Inerrancy.com that you mentioned above. I'll
have to make the time to read it and respond. I suppose it may appear that
I don't have an answer, so I better read it and get on it.
I'll post in the first week of January 5th. This means that your post will
come within 7 days of my post (which could come on the 5th, 6th, etc. of
that week).
God bless,
Jason
386sx
> You should be able to understand these accounts. They are from two,
> different people. Can't you see how one could have seen Judas as he was
> hanging and one could have seen him as he was on the ground with his
> bowels coming out? The branch apparently broke.
"Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,
'And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was
valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; And gave them for the
potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.'"
Where can we find this "prophecy," pastro? If "close enough" works for
horseshoes and grenades, then there shouldn't be any reason why it wouldn't
work for the perfect LORD, who is inerrant. If we were going to give
someone lots of wiggle room, then who better than the Holy Word? The
reasonable doubt we would give to our brothers, we should give unto the LORD
a thousand fold more.
--
"If an opponent rebuts a claim of irrelevance, the other party must reply to
the opponent's rebuttal of the claim." -- J.F. Till
Mike Painter
>
> You should be able to understand these accounts. They are from two,
> different people. Can't you see how one could have seen Judas as he was
> hanging and one could have seen him as he was on the ground with his
bowels
> coming out? The branch apparently broke.
>
The branch broke, the rope broke?
If he climbed a tree and was far enough off the ground so a fall after death
would have been a possible problem, his jumping would have broken the rope
or limb.
He would not have died by hanging and he would not have broken open as
described unless it was a *very* tall tree. Even at 100 feet it is very
unlikely.
Had he been seen while hanging why would they have left him there? Jewish
law requires immediate burial.
If he hung there long enough for the rope or the branch to break because of
age then he would have been there a long time and the animals would have
made sure there was little or no blood.
Even a medium time would not have left a scene as described. As soon as he
is dead the blood pools in the low part of the body and starts to congeal.
Cut a body open after a very few days and you don't see a lot of blood in a
liquid form.
I've seen a lot of autopsies, a few where the person was dead for a day or
so and a few where the time was long enough for a dropped body to splash
open. Very little blood.
One of the accounts is false, probably both.
Don Kresch
[snip]
>> Jason, I really have to feel sorry for you. You're damn
>> religion is more important to you than the truth. In writing
>> this post, I've revisited your site. The very first thread I
>> pulled up was the "Death of Judas" thread in "The Inerrancy
>> of the Synoptic Gospels and Acts" section. The very first
>> post there is one by John Powell. In it, he points out there
>> are two very different stories as to what happened to Judas
>> and how he died. At most, one can be right. You can ignore
>> the facts all you want, but that doesn't make them go away.
>
>You should be able to understand these accounts. They are from two,
>different people. Can't you see how one could have seen Judas as he was
>hanging and one could have seen him as he was on the ground with his bowels
>coming out? The branch apparently broke.
That's stretching, and you know it. The two stories contradict.
Dr. Jason Gastrich
> "Dr. Jason Gastrich" <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
> news:cc7zb.666$WT6...@twister.socal.rr.com...
> >
>> You should be able to understand these accounts. They are from two,
>> different people. Can't you see how one could have seen Judas as he
>> was hanging and one could have seen him as he was on the ground with
>> his bowels coming out? The branch apparently broke.
>>
> You jest and you ignore the problem of who bought the alleged field.
From "The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained" -
http://sab.jcsm.org
* The money that Judas received to betray Jesus Christ was used to buy this
Potter's field. This Greek word for "purchased" doesn't mean that he
literally gave the money for the Potter's field. A better translation is:
"acquired" or "owned." This field was bought, by the priests, with Judas'
money. Therefore, it was his.
* This Greek word for "bought" in Matthew 27:7 indicates the priests
literally bought the Potter's field.
* This alleged problem may be better understood like this: Imagine I have
$20 and tell you to go to the store and buy me some bread. You do this and
return. Who bought the bread? You did - but it was my money, so it could
also be said that I bought the bread. The priests bought the field with
Judas' money. Judas figuratively bought the field and the priests literally
bought the field.
Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich
Gregory A Greenman
No. Each story gives a completely different account of how
Judas died and the events surrounding his death. Here's the
story in Matthew -
Matthew 27:3-10 (KJV)
Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was
condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty
pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I
have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And
they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. And he cast
down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and
went and hanged himself. And the chief priests took the
silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them
into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they
took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to
bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field
of blood, unto this day. Then was fulfilled that which was
spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the
thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued,
whom they of the children of Israel did value; And gave them
for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.
And here's the story in Acts -
Acts 1:18-19 (KJV)
Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of
iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the
midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto
all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is
called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The
field of blood.
So, if we ask the following questions about each story, we
get different answers.
1. How did Judas die?
2. What happened to the money that Judas got for betraying
Jesus?
3. Who bought the field?
4. Why was the field known as the field of blood?
According to Matthew, the answers are:
1. he hanged himself
2. he threw it into the temple
3. the priests did, using the money that Judas threw in the
temple
4. because it was purchased with the money that was given in
payment of Judas' betrayal of Jesus
According to Acts, the answers are:
1. he fell and burst open (which, admittedly, makes little
sense)
2. he bought a field with it
3. Judas
4. because Judas died in it
See that? Four questions, four different answers.
Yes, I know, you're going to claim that both are true and
you'll have some ridiculous version of events that
contradicts both stories, but makes you feel all warm and
fuzzy. Well, try this. Pretend that you knew nothing of
either story, and you were reading Matthew for the first
time. Would your answers to my four questions differ from
what I wrote above for Matthew? If so, please explain how and
why. Next, pretend you've heard neither story and you're
reading Acts for the first time. Would your answers to my
four questions differ from what I wrote above for Acts?
Try this experiment, ask several people if they know how
Judas died. Divide the people into three groups, those that
say they don't know, those that say he hanged himself and
those that say he died from a fall. Ask half the people in
each group to read Matthew 27:3-10 and then answer my four
questions. Ask the other half to read Acts 1:18-19 and then
answer my four questions. See how many come up with the
apologetic you propose.
I actually tried that once, albeit with a rather small sample
size. It was a few years ago, and unfortunately, I didn't
keep any notes, so I might not remember all the details quite
right. I'll try to tell you the results as best I can.
I asked five people, all christians, if they knew how Judas
died. Three said they didn't know and two said they thought
he died by hanging himself. I told them all to pray to the
Holy Ghost or do whatever ritual was necessary to be able to
read and understand the bible.
Each person answered pretty much along the lines of the
answers I gave above for each book, except for one lady gave
one answer that was just off the wall. The guy who said Jesus
died by hanging, but was told to read Acts, searched for the
verse where it says he hanged himself. He said that according
to Acts the answers were the ones I gave above. He agreed
that the bible contradicts itself on this point. Of course,
he wasn't a fundy.
> >> Therefore, my statement had some validity and yours was, of course,
> >> out to lunch.
> >
> >
> > Actually, my point was that lack of claims of bible errors on
> > you site is no more evidence that there are none, than lack
> > of claims of bible inerrancy on mine is evidence that it's
> > not. The claims, one way or the other, are on many other
> > sites.
> >
> > Also, you really shouldn't tell me that my claim was "out to
> > lunch" in one breath, after telling a bald-faced lie with the
> > previous. It's rather unbecoming.
>
> I have no idea what this "bald-faced lie" is.
Uh, as I just pointed out, your site does indeed have bible
errors listed on it. You claimed that it didn't. Can you
really not tell when you're lying?
> Nonetheless, it was an out to
> lunch claim to say that your defunct fantasy baseball guestbook was
> comparable to the active, Inerrancy.com Discussion Board.
(Again, that was a message board, not a guest book. Surely,
you understand the difference.)
The point was that you were making an empty claim. Pointing
to a site where you would not expect to find people citing
bible errors and saying that since there are none there, that
supports your position, is a pretty empty claim. Having
looked a little further at your site, I was mistaken. Your
claim was not as empty as I first thought. Unfortunately,
instead of being an empty claim, it turns out your claim was
just a blatant lie. IMHO, that's considerably worse.
Dr. Jason Gastrich
I didn't lie about anything. The accounts of Judas' death and the field are
easily explained and harmonized.
The Bible is meant to be read - in its entirety - and understood. Testing
people by having them read parts of it is absurd.
By harmonizing what the eyewitnesses saw, we can find a great number of
facts about the events in the Bible. I see that you have attacked the
accounts, but not the harmonization. Try attacking the harmonization (if
you can). You've probably avoided doing so because it makes perfect sense
and joins the two accounts perfectly and without error.
Sincerely,
Jason
Ron Baker
>
>
> Ron Baker wrote:
>
> > "Sean McHugh" <smc...@shoal.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:3FCA530C...@shoal.net.au...
> > > As requested by Jason, I have started a new thread in which
arrangements
> > > for
> > > a debate can be negotiated. I would like to debate the
> > > post-resurrection accounts in the gospels. I maintain that they
> > > conflict. Jason would, no doubt, maintain that they don't.
>
> > I, for one, look forward to following such a formal debate.
>
> > No offense, but I find that particular topic not to be of
> > major consequence in the overall atheist/theist debate, but
> > if you've got a strong argument I look forward to hearing it.
>
> Jason's previous opponent, Farrell Till, left the ministry
> because he found errors in the Bible. I actually get the
> impression that a fundamentalist, upon realising there are
> errors in the Bible, will be more likely to become an atheist
> than a liberal. This does not mean that I am expecting Jason
> to lose his faith.
Hmm.
Jason's reference for testing biblical accounts is
his interpretation of the bible.
Based on that reference he will never recognize
any error.
Are there referees for this debate?
If so, who are they?
>
> > > As a venue, I would suggest the Internet Infidels Discussion Forum.
> > > I note that in there, Jason has invited anyone to debate him:
>
> > > ~ If you wish to engage in a debate with me, please let me know.
> > > ~ I'd be happy to consider your offer. Perhaps you can fare better
> > > ~ than Mr. Till. [Jason Gastrich]
>
> >>
<http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=d617423fcf94651e6e4806f55112b75e&t
hreadid=58419&perpage=25&pagenumber=2>
>
> > > BTW, I don't particularly like the way the challenge is posed. It
> > > it assumes that an acceptance means that one will need to try
> > > to do better than Farrell Till.
>
> > Yes, well, maybe there was some slight in that but I am
> > sure that you will rise above it.
>
> No worries.
>
> > > I believe that Farrell Till did
> > > very well. I know others shared that view. In fact, I don't
> > > actually know anyone who has a greater knowledge of the Bible or
> > > anyone who can argue it more thoroughly.
>
> > > To Jason,
>
> > > Are you happy with Internet Infidels Discussion Forum as a venue?
>
> > > I would suggest six rounds, with the last round being a summary.
> > > I personally felt that the ten rounds in your last debate dragged
> > > on a bit.
>
> > > I would prefer to start in the New Year. Otherwise holidays and
> > > social commitments will probably cause interruptions for both of
> > > us.
>
> > > These, of course, are only preliminary suggestions. I am eager
> > > to hear your own thoughts, or thoughts from anyone else.
>
> > My comments as a spectator:
> > Sounds good. Six sounds better than ten.
> > New Year? I'm eager to see it, but it is your show.
> > I'm not familiar with the Internet Infidels Discussion Forum
> > but seek access.
>
> It may happen earlier. Here is the URL to IIDB. The site seems to
> be down at the moment:
>
> <http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?forumid=60>
I couldn't get in earlier but was able later.
Why was that chosen as the forum?
The interface is somewhat foreign.
Dr. Jason Gastrich
> Are there referees for this debate?
> If so, who are they?
IIDB has a number of moderators. Nightshade (aka Jason) is one of them.
Silent Dave is another.
> I couldn't get in earlier but was able later.
> Why was that chosen as the forum?
> The interface is somewhat foreign.
This is a standard vBulletin forum. What do you consider domestic or
normal? This forum was chosen because of its popularity. We are happy to
have a large number of people reading and commenting on the debate.
Sincerely,
Jason
Mike Painter
transaction.
But that's not what we are discussing.
In the one case it specifically says Judas does it.
In the second case it says the priests bought it because they could not
return it to the treasury.
There would have been no need for a discussion of what they could or could
not do with the money if they were acting as an agent.
They spent the money they had accepted on something else.
To use your analogy, if you gave me $20.00 and said go buy some bread I
would not have to decide what to buy, much less weather I should buy the
bread or place it back in my bank account.
This is clearly a doublet.
Sean McHugh
I believe that that is absolutely correct. If one
is prepared to give the Bible any latitude it requires,
one will find no errors. The trouble is, one can
reconcile _anything_ that way.
> Are there referees for this debate?
> If so, who are they?
Yes, as Jason has subsequently explained.
I agree, but I still find the interface easier than
Inerrancy.com. I think that with all of these interfaces,
the fancier they get, the unfriendlier they become. I think
Farrell Till made the same mistake with his new Errancy site.
His old site used to have a good following. Another reason I
settled on IIDB is because I don't know of too many such
debating forums.
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
Sean McHugh
Hi Jason,
Are you having a lend of us? Your analogy is useless because
Paul did not give the money to the priests with a request that they
purchase a block of land for him. Let's look at these five verses
(KJV, Mat 27:3-5):
~ (3)Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was
~ condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of
~ silver to the chief priests and elders, (4)Saying, I have sinned in
~ that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, ~ What is
~ that to us? see thou to that. (5)And he cast down the pieces of
~ silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
~ (6)And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is
~ not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the
~ price of blood. (7)And they took counsel, and bought with them the
~ potter's field, to bury strangers in.
Verse (3) makes it clear Judas is _remorseful_ and that Judas
is _returning_ the money. So in that verse, we are not only told
that he is _returning_ the money we are a given a corresponding
reason for his doing so.
In verse (4) he makes it more clear that he has come there because
of his remorse and not for reasons of wishing to purchase real
estate. The verse also makes it clear that the priests have
no further interest with him. Why would they go do his shopping?
Verse (5) makes it clear that Judas has dispossessed himself
of the money. He tosses it. This is consolidated by his not
making any requests regarding the money, by his departure
and by his hanging himself. This is not the way someone
purchases land or anything else.
Verse (6) shows that the priests now consider themselves
to be the owners of the money. after all, if they considered
that the money was for them to spend on Judas, why would the
first option be to put it into the treasury? The only reason
they decided not to put it into the treasury is because it
was blood money.
Therefore, in verse (7), they decided to spend it on land,
not for Judas, but for the purpose of burying strangers.
There is no that those verses constitute Judas buying,
purchasing or acquiring land. There is not even any way the
land purchase can reasonably be made similar to your
analogy, Jason, where someone gives money to another
for the latter to make a purchase for the former.
There is therefore no way to make those verses
harmonious with Acts 1:18 where JUDAS purchases land.
~ Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity;
~ and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all
~ his bowels gushed out. [KJV, Acts 1:18]
That's before we even get to the incompatibility of the two
descriptions of Judas' death, where in one he hangs himself and
in the other he falls headlong and his guts burst out!
Jason, unless we are to deny the means by which humanity
communicates, we can't continually stretch the semantics beyond
recognition to try to harmonise biblical accounts. What is more,
just in this example, inerrancy requires multiple stretching in
a very short space. I don't know if you know anything about
probability but improbabilities don't add, they multiply.
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
Sean McHugh
It's my real name.
> I agree that we should avoid ad hominem and arguing by assertion.
That's good.
> I won't agree to a strict guideline where we MUST answer every question
> proposed. Some questions are ridiculous and one may question bomb. So, we
> should have the liberty to avoid off-topic questions.
I agree that that is a possibility, however, I think that if it is
a major point that the opponent has issued, it should be
answered or its irrelevance or unanswerable nature should be
explained. Ultimately, though, this will be hard to enforce
and the readers will decide who is playing the game and who isn't.
> I haven't read the post on Inerrancy.com that you mentioned above. I'll
> have to make the time to read it and respond. I suppose it may appear that
> I don't have an answer, so I better read it and get on it.
You will note that I didn't even imply that. :-)
> I'll post in the first week of January 5th. This means that your post will
> come within 7 days of my post (which could come on the 5th, 6th, etc. of
> that week).
That's still good.
In the next few days, I will get back to you with some of the major
points I will be addressing. This should allow you argue for the
affirmative on the points I will be disputing. My reason for doing
this is to get things moving quicker once the debate starts.
Otherwise we might spend a round just finding out what we are
arguing about. Of course, as this will be issued outside the
debate, there is no obligation on you to use the information.
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
386sx
> Dr. Jason Gastrich writes:
>
>> You should be able to understand these accounts. They are from two,
>> different people. Can't you see how one could have seen Judas as he was
>> hanging and one could have seen him as he was on the ground with his
>> bowels coming out? The branch apparently broke.
>
> "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,
> 'And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was
> valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; And gave them for
> the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.'"
>
> Where can we find this "prophecy," pastro?
Mr. Gastrich, I see you have been unsuccessful in locating that quote from
Jeremy the prophet. By the way, have you yet modified your religious views
so that we are able to rescue Mr. Ben Franklin from his eternal damnation?
I'll bet it goes something like this, "I'm not about to change mine,
therefore Mr. Franklin must have changed his right at the nick of time."
Dr. Jason Gastrich
I don't know what this means. It's not an American expression.
> Your analogy is useless because
> Paul did not give the money to the priests with a request that they
> purchase a block of land for him. Let's look at these five verses
> (KJV, Mat 27:3-5):
What does this have to do with Paul? My analogy isn't useless. It makes
very good sense.
> ~ (3)Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was
> ~ condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of
> ~ silver to the chief priests and elders, (4)Saying, I have sinned in
> ~ that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, ~ What is
> ~ that to us? see thou to that. (5)And he cast down the pieces of
> ~ silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
> ~ (6)And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is
> ~ not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the
> ~ price of blood. (7)And they took counsel, and bought with them the
> ~ potter's field, to bury strangers in.
>
> Verse (3) makes it clear Judas is _remorseful_ and that Judas
> is _returning_ the money. So in that verse, we are not only told
> that he is _returning_ the money we are a given a corresponding
> reason for his doing so.
>
> In verse (4) he makes it more clear that he has come there because
> of his remorse and not for reasons of wishing to purchase real
> estate. The verse also makes it clear that the priests have
> no further interest with him. Why would they go do his shopping?
They received money and couldn't keep it because it was blood money. This
is in the text. Did you read it?
> Verse (5) makes it clear that Judas has dispossessed himself
> of the money. He tosses it. This is consolidated by his not
> making any requests regarding the money, by his departure
> and by his hanging himself. This is not the way someone
> purchases land or anything else.
These are irrelevant points. They are irrelevant because they don't effect
my assertion. The money was used to buy a field. It doesn't matter who
literal purchased the field. It was this money that Judas returned. The
text could say he bought it or it could say the priests bought it. Either
would be acceptable.
> Verse (6) shows that the priests now consider themselves
> to be the owners of the money. after all, if they considered
> that the money was for them to spend on Judas, why would the
> first option be to put it into the treasury? The only reason
> they decided not to put it into the treasury is because it
> was blood money.
Blood money. This should have answered your question above.
> Therefore, in verse (7), they decided to spend it on land,
> not for Judas, but for the purpose of burying strangers.
>
> There is no that those verses constitute Judas buying,
> purchasing or acquiring land. There is not even any way the
> land purchase can reasonably be made similar to your
> analogy, Jason, where someone gives money to another
> for the latter to make a purchase for the former.
> There is therefore no way to make those verses
> harmonious with Acts 1:18 where JUDAS purchases land.
This is simply wrong. You are wrong. I've already given an analogy to show
what I mean. You are ignoring it or misunderstanding it. The money that
bought the field belonged to Judas. Therefore, it can be said that he
bought the field.
If a donator gives JCSM $150 and we buy some equipment, then two things are
true: JCSM bought the equipment (because we literally bought it) and the
donator bought the equipment. Both are true. Saying either is perfectly
acceptable.
> ~ Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity;
> ~ and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all
> ~ his bowels gushed out. [KJV, Acts 1:18]
>
> That's before we even get to the incompatibility of the two
> descriptions of Judas' death, where in one he hangs himself and
> in the other he falls headlong and his guts burst out!
You are wrong, again. The two descriptions are not incompatible. I've
already illustrated how they are perfectly harmonious.
> Jason, unless we are to deny the means by which humanity
> communicates, we can't continually stretch the semantics beyond
> recognition to try to harmonise biblical accounts. What is more,
> just in this example, inerrancy requires multiple stretching in
> a very short space. I don't know if you know anything about
> probability but improbabilities don't add, they multiply.
This is a bad conclusion based on bad logic and reasoning. Frankly, it
looks like you are just turning a blind eye to common semantics.
Jason
Dr. Jason Gastrich
You bet. Thanks, Sean.
Jason
Dr. Jason Gastrich
> 386sx writes:
>
>> Dr. Jason Gastrich writes:
>>
>>> You should be able to understand these accounts. They are from two,
>>> different people. Can't you see how one could have seen Judas as
>>> he was hanging and one could have seen him as he was on the ground
>>> with his bowels coming out? The branch apparently broke.
>>
>> "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet,
>> saying, 'And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him
>> that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; And
>> gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.'"
>>
>> Where can we find this "prophecy," pastro?
>
> Mr. Gastrich, I see you have been unsuccessful in locating that quote
> from Jeremy the prophet.
What if we can't find this prophecy? If we do not have a text that WAS
available to people 2000 years ago, would it matter?
Jason
386sx
> 386sx wrote:
Then all your laudations to the "perfect harmony" of the scriptures are
nothing short of superfluous to your cause, because if you found something
that was not harmonious you could always say that the hormonization could
always be found where they can't be found, but they used to be. An
hypothetical infinite and omnipotent god has an infinite and omnipotent
wiggle room.
Dr. Jason Gastrich
Wrong. The Bible is perfectly allowed to reference a prophecy that wasn't
contained in the Bible.
Jason
386sx
>> Then all your laudations to the "perfect harmony" of the scriptures are
>> nothing short of superfluous to your cause, because if you found
>> something that was not harmonious you could always say that the
>> hormonization could always be found where they can't be found, but they
>> used to be. An hypothetical infinite and omnipotent god has an infinite
>> and omnipotent wiggle room.
>
> Wrong.
An hypothetical infinite and omnipotent god has an infinite and omnipotent
wiggle room because he can do whatever he wants, including going back in
time and "inspiring" some lost prophesies whenever his believers get into
difficulties. So I'm not wrong there.
> The Bible is perfectly allowed to reference a prophecy that wasn't
> contained in the Bible.
That's what I said! So I'm not wrong there either. The Bible can be
harmonious with things that don't exist, therefore the Bible is always
harmonious! And so would every other book under those circumstances.
Kate
wrote:
So what's the point. Jason doesn't want to believe there are any
errors so he doesn't see any, so he claims he wins no matter what.
>
>> Are there referees for this debate?
>> If so, who are they?
>
>Yes, as Jason has subsequently explained.
>
It depends on whether Jason takes the word of the referee even if he's
lost. I don't see any evidence that Jason is ethical enough to admit
defeat.
Mike Painter
Yes, they were supersticious and believed that the object itself was
tainted.
They did not decide they could not keep it, they decided the tainted money
could not be put back in the treasury. So they spent the money the man had
released title to on something else.
>
> > Verse (5) makes it clear that Judas has dispossessed himself
> > of the money. He tosses it. This is consolidated by his not
> > making any requests regarding the money, by his departure
> > and by his hanging himself. This is not the way someone
> > purchases land or anything else.
>
> These are irrelevant points. They are irrelevant because they don't
effect
> my assertion. The money was used to buy a field. It doesn't matter who
> literal purchased the field. It was this money that Judas returned. The
> text could say he bought it or it could say the priests bought it. Either
> would be acceptable.
Part of the argument is exactly that "who purchased the field". Up to now
you have said that Judas purchased the field either directly or through an
agent. The book does not say that and now you are saying it is not
important.
Fine. It is not important what the bible says about who purchased the field.
Why defend teh passage and say it is not contradictory then?
>
> > Verse (6) shows that the priests now consider themselves
> > to be the owners of the money. after all, if they considered
> > that the money was for them to spend on Judas, why would the
> > first option be to put it into the treasury? The only reason
> > they decided not to put it into the treasury is because it
> > was blood money.
>
> Blood money. This should have answered your question above.
How do they know that the money returned was the same as the money given?
Judas may have spent some of it and replaced it.
Or perhaps you want to now claim that it wsa not the object itself but the
idea?
If so there should be some rather stringent rules for determining the source
of the cash.
I've never heard of it and it certainly does not apply today.
>
> > Therefore, in verse (7), they decided to spend it on land,
> > not for Judas, but for the purpose of burying strangers.
> >
> > There is no that those verses constitute Judas buying,
> > purchasing or acquiring land. There is not even any way the
> > land purchase can reasonably be made similar to your
> > analogy, Jason, where someone gives money to another
> > for the latter to make a purchase for the former.
> > There is therefore no way to make those verses
> > harmonious with Acts 1:18 where JUDAS purchases land.
>
> This is simply wrong. You are wrong. I've already given an analogy to
show
> what I mean. You are ignoring it or misunderstanding it. The money that
> bought the field belonged to Judas. Therefore, it can be said that he
> bought the field.
No the money did not belong to Judas.
If you sent somebody to the store with your $20.00 and he bought bread he is
acting as an agent.
If when he returned he said that he did not want the money you gave him to
buy the bread, the money would be yours, not his. I need no formal method
to abandon anything.
But above you say it does not matter and here you say it does.
>
> If a donator gives JCSM $150 and we buy some equipment, then two things
are
> true: JCSM bought the equipment (because we literally bought it) and the
> donator bought the equipment. Both are true. Saying either is perfectly
> acceptable.
That's not true. Even with fund accounting that claim can't be made. You
would not say that if not defending the bible.
By now you should realize the analogy has nothing to do with what is under
discussion.
Judas was paid to do something and returned the money. He abandoned it.
If you had a real job would you honestly say that your employer bought your
groceries or would you say you bought the groceries with your money that you
earned.
>
> > ~ Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity;
> > ~ and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all
> > ~ his bowels gushed out. [KJV, Acts 1:18]
> >
> > That's before we even get to the incompatibility of the two
> > descriptions of Judas' death, where in one he hangs himself and
> > in the other he falls headlong and his guts burst out!
>
> You are wrong, again. The two descriptions are not incompatible. I've
> already illustrated how they are perfectly harmonious.
No you have not. You have made weak excuses that the rope broke or that the
branch broke.
You have not answered how this could have happened in light of the
information I've given.
Add to that the fact that eviseration rarely has a lot of blood even if the
person is still alive.
>
> > Jason, unless we are to deny the means by which humanity
> > communicates, we can't continually stretch the semantics beyond
> > recognition to try to harmonise biblical accounts. What is more,
> > just in this example, inerrancy requires multiple stretching in
> > a very short space. I don't know if you know anything about
> > probability but improbabilities don't add, they multiply.
>
> This is a bad conclusion based on bad logic and reasoning. Frankly, it
> looks like you are just turning a blind eye to common semantics.
Submit this story with no reference to the bible to 10,000 christians and
they would say it could not have happened that way.
And I've never seen a church question the money or say the property they
bought with the money was not theirs.
Mike Painter
"386sx" <38...@email.com> wrote in message
news:m2ptf6au5r...@jms.localhost.localnet...
> Dr. Jason Gastrich writes:
>
> >> Then all your laudations to the "perfect harmony" of the scriptures are
> >> nothing short of superfluous to your cause, because if you found
> >> something that was not harmonious you could always say that the
> >> hormonization could always be found where they can't be found, but they
> >> used to be. An hypothetical infinite and omnipotent god has an
infinite
> >> and omnipotent wiggle room.
> >
> > Wrong.
>
> An hypothetical infinite and omnipotent god has an infinite and omnipotent
> wiggle room because he can do whatever he wants, including going back in
> time and "inspiring" some lost prophesies whenever his believers get into
> difficulties. So I'm not wrong there.
>
> > The Bible is perfectly allowed to reference a prophecy that wasn't
> > contained in the Bible.
>
> That's what I said! So I'm not wrong there either. The Bible can be
> harmonious with things that don't exist, therefore the Bible is always
> harmonious! And so would every other book under those circumstances.
>
I just remembered the prophecy that referenced a prophecy. Neither made it
to the bible but that should not matter.
Everybody must be save *and* send me five dollars.
The Mad Doctor
wrote:
Please show where Judas asked the priests to buy the field.
If you can't, it becomes quite obvious that the priests used the money
that Judas denied, because they didn't want to retain the money as it
was tainted, but that no way implies that Judas purchased the field,
or intended to do so.
GK
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Jason Gastrich
>
Mike Painter
There seem to be a very large number of answers to the death of Judas.
Here's one that is as valid as any put forth by the fundies but apparently
by an atheist.
"The solution to the Judas problem is very simple.
Where in Acts does Luke say that Judas died?
This is an *implication*. There is *no* actual statement that Judas died
as a result of his bowels gushing out. This is the same sort of
implication as the implication that David was alone or that Rahab was
rewarded for the actions that she did take to shelter the spies, rather
than the actions that she could have taken.
It is simply naturalistic bias on Till's part to assume that somebody
died as a result of his stomach splitting.
It is the same sort of naturalistic bias that assumes that dead people
don't get up and start walking around or that donkeys don't talk."
--
Steven Carr
Sean McHugh
Kate wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 08:41:12 GMT, Sean McHugh <smc...@shoal.net.au>
> wrote:
> >Ron Baker wrote:
> >> "Sean McHugh" <smc...@shoal.net.au> wrote in message
> >> news:3FCAD681...@shoal.net.au...
> >> > Ron Baker wrote:
> >> > > "Sean McHugh" <smc...@shoal.net.au> wrote in message
> >> > > news:3FCA530C...@shoal.net.au...
<snip>
> >> Hmm.
> >> Jason's reference for testing biblical accounts is
> >> his interpretation of the bible.
> >> Based on that reference he will never recognize
> >> any error.
> >I believe that that is absolutely correct. If one
> >is prepared to give the Bible any latitude it requires,
> >one will find no errors. The trouble is, one can
> >reconcile _anything_ that way.
> So what's the point. Jason doesn't want to believe there are any
> errors so he doesn't see any, so he claims he wins no matter what.
Public debates aren't only for the benefit of the participants.
> >> Are there referees for this debate?
> >> If so, who are they?
> >Yes, as Jason has subsequently explained.
> It depends on whether Jason takes the word of the referee even if he's
> lost. I don't see any evidence that Jason is ethical enough to admit
> defeat.
What?? You mean he won't be declaring himself the loser? :-)
Seriously, I think the opinions of those following the debate
will be more important than what Jason and I think of it.
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
Vera Six
Uncle Davey
Użytkownik "Dr. Jason Gastrich" <ne...@jcsm.org> napisał w wiadomości
news:w6Byb.60551$t01....@twister.socal.rr.com...> > news:jIjyb.60381$t01....@twister.socal.rr.com...
> >> Ron Baker wrote:
> >>> "Sean McHugh" <smc...@shoal.net.au> wrote in message
> >>> news:3FCA530C...@shoal.net.au...
> >>>> arrangements for
> >>>> a debate can be negotiated. I would like to debate the
> >>>> post-resurrection accounts in the gospels. I maintain that they
> >>>> conflict. Jason would, no doubt, maintain that they don't.
> >>>
> >>> I, for one, look forward to following such a formal debate.
> >>>
> >>> No offense, but I find that particular topic not to be of
> >>> major consequence in the overall atheist/theist debate, but
> >>> if you've got a strong argument I look forward to hearing it.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I note that in there, Jason has invited anyone to debate him:
> >>>>
> >>>> ~ If you wish to engage in a debate with me, please let me know.
> >>>> ~ I'd be happy to consider your offer. Perhaps you can fare better
> >>>> ~ than Mr. Till. [Jason Gastrich]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
<http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=d617423fcf94651e6e4806f55112b75e&t
> >>> hreadid=58419&perpage=25&pagenumber=2>
> >>>>
> >>>> BTW, I don't particularly like the way the challenge is posed. It
> >>>> it assumes that an acceptance means that one will need to try
> >>>> to do better than Farrell Till.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, well, maybe there was some slight in that but I am
> >>> sure that you will rise above it.
> >>>
> >>>> very well. I know others shared that view. In fact, I don't
> >>>> actually know anyone who has a greater knowledge of the Bible or
> >>>> anyone who can argue it more thoroughly.
> >>>>
> >>>> To Jason,
> >>>>
> >>>> Are you happy with Internet Infidels Discussion Forum as a venue?
> >>>>
> >>>> I would suggest six rounds, with the last round being a summary.
> >>>> I personally felt that the ten rounds in your last debate dragged
> >>>> on a bit.
> >>>>
> >>>> I would prefer to start in the New Year. Otherwise holidays and
> >>>> social commitments will probably cause interruptions for both of
> >>>> us.
> >>>>
> >>>> These, of course, are only preliminary suggestions. I am eager
> >>>> to hear your own thoughts, or thoughts from anyone else.
> >>>
> >>> My comments as a spectator:
> >>> Sounds good. Six sounds better than ten.
> >>> New Year? I'm eager to see it, but it is your show.
> >>> I'm not familiar with the Internet Infidels Discussion Forum
> >>> but seek access.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks for your interest.
> >>
> >> The IIDB is located at http://iidb.org. It's a popular hangout for
> >> atheists. They chat and have some formal debates. There are
> >> several other boards that do the same, though.
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >> Jason
> >>
> >
> > Usually when people leave their profession or their ministry stating
> > that it is over errors or doctrine, that is just an excuse. more
> > often than not they have a sin that they cannot repent of and come
> > out of. More often than not the minister is a crypto homosexual, and
> > leaves in order to go live with another man, like this guy did
> > http://www.royclements.co.uk in this case actually, he blames his
> > church for kicking him out, but what happened was he left his wife
> > and kids and shacked up with some other fruit in London. He is still
> > trying to put a positive spin on it in in his site and to his credit,
> > he doesn't fall off into athirstism. Nevertheless, he needs to be a
> > bit more humble and not be publicly making his old church out to have
> > been in the wrong.
> >
> > I wonder whether the deeds of some of the ex pastors you've been
> > debating have more to do with their sexuality than their thought
> > lives. I expect that even if you knew, you'd be too courteous to give
> > them gip about it in the recorded debates anyway.
> >
> > In Love,
> > Constance Vigilant
>
> Hi Constance,
>
> This is an interesting theory. You may have a point.
>
> However, Dan Barker is apparently heterosexual and married to the founder
of
> his organization.
>
> Jason
>
I wonder if it was that woman that pulled him off the track, then.
I found his attitude in that phone call completely shocking. He has no
remorse for his apostacy whatsoever and has completely turned his back on
God.
Best,
Uncle Davey, even writing a book to gloat about it, I ask you.
Dr. Jason Gastrich
True. And there was a serious "Darth Vader moment" in my debate with him.
Do you remember him telling me that sin didn't exist and how I should grow
up and stop having faith? He wanted me to turn to the dark side. But that
won't ever happen. That debate helped fuel me to go and write a book on the
Bible's inerrancy. The same book I told him I'd write. Funny how Vader
won't debate me, now.
I'm interested in hearing Pastor Eric Loundsberry's debate with him. I know
Eric a little. The debate was last week. I'll post the MP3 in
free.christians.binary. It's also on http://infidelguy.com (or it was).
God bless,
Jason
Sean McHugh
Uncle Davey wrote (about Dan Barker):
<snip>
> I wonder if it was that woman that pulled him off the track, then.
It was simple disbelief that "pulled him off the track".
> I found his attitude in that phone call completely shocking. He has no
> remorse for his apostacy whatsoever and has completely turned his back on
> God.
Where's the mystery? It would make no sense to have remorse over
turning your back on that which you no longer believe. Surely that
is bleeding obvious.
> Best,
> Uncle Davey, even writing a book to gloat about it, I ask you.
No, you didn't write the book; Dan Barker did.
Now don't you go trying to write a book.
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
Uncle Davey
Uzytkownik "Sean McHugh" <smc...@shoal.net.au> napisal w wiadomosci
news:3FD193F8...@shoal.net.au...
Like I had the time.
Uncle Davey, in heaven, that's where I'll be writing books.
Sean McHugh
"Dr. Jason Gastrich" wrote:
<snip>
> True. And there was a serious "Darth Vader moment" in my debate with him.
> Do you remember him telling me that sin didn't exist and how I should grow
> up and stop having faith? He wanted me to turn to the dark side. But that
> won't ever happen. That debate helped fuel me to go and write a book on the
> Bible's inerrancy. The same book I told him I'd write. Funny how Vader
> won't debate me, now.
Well, Farrell Till, the other minister turned atheist, has asked to
debate you again.
<snip>
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
Uncle Davey
He sounds like the archetypal de-vangelical.
Uncle Davey
Sean McHugh
"Bible, the Sequel"?
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
Uncle Davey
"Just men made perfect"
The title'll be a pun on the two meanings of the word 'just'.
Uncle Davey
Sean McHugh
Very good. However, I don't understand why you refer to the
heaven-bound as being "just". For instance, in what way are
you being just in your references to the ex-minister? Anyway,
since when has justice been a requirement for heaven? Keep
in mind the place is apparently run by the most unjust being
that is imaginable. He even makes the Devil look good.
Best Regards,
Sean Mchugh
Dr. Jason Gastrich
Yes, the book will be "heaven-bound." Haha. Sorry for the bad joke, but I
saw the shot and had to take it.
Sean, for a Christian, they experience something called "justification."
You can remember the term like this: "just as if I'd never sinned" (although
I have).
Lastly, your judgment is corrupt. You are a sinner and do things against
God's will. Therefore, you have little ability or credibility to call God
an unjust judge. On the contrary, the fact that you live and breathe is
evidence for a perfect God's patience and mercy on you, a sinner.
Couldn't you at least agree that if there is a perfect God, then you are
less than perfect and receiving a large portion of His grace?
Jason
Dr. Jason Gastrich
I have agreed to debate Farrell after our debate. We haven't agreed on the
details, yet, though.
Jason
Jos Flachs
wrote:
>Yes, the book will be "heaven-bound." Haha. Sorry for the bad joke, but I
>saw the shot and had to take it.
>
>Sean, for a Christian, they experience something called "justification."
Quite so. That is why the RCC ran the inquisition.
>You can remember the term like this: "just as if I'd never sinned" (although
>I have).
>Lastly, your judgment is corrupt. You are a sinner and do things against
>God's will.
Only if your gods exist, and sin concequently exist.
> Therefore, you have little ability or credibility to call God
>an unjust judge.
Far from it. The concept of divine justice, as pictured in the bible
is completely wrong. Or can I hang you, because your great grand
father stole a horse?
> On the contrary, the fact that you live and breathe is
>evidence for a perfect God's patience and mercy on you, a sinner.
Nonsense. Unless you can proof this, of course. Can you?
>Couldn't you at least agree that if there is a perfect God, then you are
>less than perfect and receiving a large portion of His grace?
No. Proof it.
Michelle Malkin
wrote:
You should actually read his autobiography "Losing Faith In Faith".
He describes how it took years for him to completely lose his faith in
religion. And, he came to his own conclusions all by himself. He
wasn't gloating about it when he wrote the book. It was a long very
painful process that he went through. He was very brave, as far as
I'm concerned. And, shock of shocks, some members of his close
family (the very people who were so horrified by his deconversion)
ended up realizing that they were atheists, too, once they really
thought about it.
But, of course, this all means nothing to you and others like you who
go through their lives wearing blinders. You'll never read Dan
Barker's book. You're afraid to read it.
And, the impression I got was that the only remorse Barker felt was
over having been suckered by a phony mindsucking mythology for so
long. Lots of people in alt.atheism feel the same way. And, if you
ever come to your senses, you will, too.
Michelle Malkin (Mickey)
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Hands that work are better than mouths that pray -
Robert Ingersoll
****************************************************
Sean McHugh
I hope you will forgive a suggestion. I for one find it very hard
to read responses when there is no space between them and the
previous poster's comments. Lines that are too long and by one
contributor, often wrap and take on the same appearance. I initially
scanned through your post looking for where you commented and then
had to back up. It may be OK in Google, where the different
contributors' comments appear in different colours, but a lot
of people do most of their news reading outside Google.
Best Regards,
Sean McHUgh
Sean McHugh
I confess I did smile at that.
> Sean, for a Christian, they experience something called "justification."
> You can remember the term like this: "just as if I'd never sinned" (although
> I have).
But I already have the feeling of having never sinned. Sin is
wrongdoing done to God - as distinct from wrongdoing done to others.
As I don't believe in God, it is impossible for me to believe in sin.
> Lastly, your judgment is corrupt. You are a sinner and do things against
> God's will. Therefore, you have little ability or credibility to call God
> an unjust judge.
If I lack the ability to regard your God as unjust then I must also
lack the ability to regard him as just.
> On the contrary, the fact that you live and breathe is
> evidence for a perfect God's patience and mercy on you, a sinner.
I don't agree that my not being terminated is proof of God's
perfection. Firstly, my not being terminated could be evidence that
God doesn't exist. Secondly, I don't agree that for a reasonable
divine being, termination would be the appropriate action for
creatures that are less perfect than himself. In fact, it wouldn't
make any sense at all. Thirdly, IF God's terminating me were to be
the appropriate punishment, then sparing me must be less
appropriate. Less appropriate actions must make God less than
perfect.
> Couldn't you at least agree that if there is a perfect God, then you are
> less than perfect and receiving a large portion of His grace?
Grace as in clemency/mercy? I think that that is a non sequitur.
It assumes that that which is perfect is morally justified to
punish or deny assistance to that which is less perfect. I submit
that even seeing mercy given to non perfect creatures, as grace,
is already an imperfect attitude. Therefore if we require God's
grace even to have him not harm us, then he is already less than
perfect. So I guess my answer to your question has to be in
the negative.
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
Sean McHugh
> > <snip>
> > Best Regards,
That's great. I'm wondering what the subject will be.
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
Jos Flachs
wrote:
>Hi Jos,
>
>I hope you will forgive a suggestion.
Not at all.
> I for one find it very hard
>to read responses when there is no space between them and the
>previous poster's comments.
Normally, I place my responses right below, and then separate them
with a line space. Otherwise, answers tend to get mighty long.
> Lines that are too long and by one
>contributor, often wrap and take on the same appearance. I initially
>scanned through your post looking for where you commented and then
>had to back up. It may be OK in Google, where the different
>contributors' comments appear in different colours, but a lot
>of people do most of their news reading outside Google.
Is this better?
Sean McHugh
I think so. :-)
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
Constance Vigilant
"Jos Flachs" <'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> wrote in message
news:dn23tvorh3mdef26o...@4ax.com...
Yes.
I feel less like attacking you now.
Though that might not necessarily be a Good Thing.
In Love,
Constance Vigilant
Sean McHugh
Thanks for your vote on that, Constance.
I was very harsh with you the other day. I apologise.
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
Constance Vigilant
Apology accepted!
In Love,
Constance Vigilant
Misty
Sean McHugh
"Dr. Jason Gastrich" wrote:
> Sean McHugh wrote:
<snip>
> >> I'll post in the first week of January 5th. This means that your
> >> post will come within 7 days of my post (which could come on the
> >> 5th, 6th, etc. of that week).
> >
> > That's still good.
> >
> > In the next few days, I will get back to you with some of the major
> > points I will be addressing. This should allow you argue for the
> > affirmative on the points I will be disputing. My reason for doing
> > this is to get things moving quicker once the debate starts.
> > Otherwise we might spend a round just finding out what we are
> > arguing about. Of course, as this will be issued outside the
> > debate, there is no obligation on you to use the information.
> > Best Regards,
> > Sean McHugh
> You bet. Thanks, Sean.
> Jason
Hi Jason,
Do we also agree to this:
~ (h) Any quote from outside sources will be permitted so long as
~ copyright is not breached, and so long as no more than 10% of a
~ statement consists of quotes from outside sources.
IIDB requires agreement as to the amount of outside material to be
quoted. The "10%" is what it used in the quoted example.
Also, IIDB limits words, rather than characters. The word limit is
5000. The 25,000 character limit we agreed upon is about 4000 words
(very roughly). Can we agree on 4000 words as the limit for each
post?
Here is the page where I obtained these requirements:
<http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=d58c707bda0277ee35e4fc4be882c301&threadid=56978>
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
Sean McHugh
Sean McHugh wrote:
>
> "Dr. Jason Gastrich" wrote:
>
> > Sean McHugh wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > >> I'll post in the first week of January 5th. This means that your
> > >> post will come within 7 days of my post (which could come on the
> > >> 5th, 6th, etc. of that week).
> > >
> > > That's still good.
> > >
> > > In the next few days, I will get back to you with some of the major
> > > points I will be addressing. This should allow you argue for the
> > > affirmative on the points I will be disputing. My reason for doing
> > > this is to get things moving quicker once the debate starts.
> > > Otherwise we might spend a round just finding out what we are
> > > arguing about. Of course, as this will be issued outside the
> > > debate, there is no obligation on you to use the information.
>
> > > Best Regards,
>
> > > Sean McHugh
>
> > You bet. Thanks, Sean.
>
> > Jason
>
> Hi Jason,
>
> Do we also agree to this:
>
> ~ (h) Any quote from outside sources will be permitted so long as
> ~ copyright is not breached, and so long as no more than 10% of a
> ~ statement consists of quotes from outside sources.
I supplied this example without giving it much thought. Because our
debate specifically addresses the matter of inerrancy/errancy in the
post-resurrection accounts in the gospels, a 10% limit for quotes
from outside sources will probably be too restrictive. I have looked
at other debates on biblical inerrancy and they demonstrate, that by
their nature, they require greater appeal to quotations to illustrate
points. I have noticed this also with your own submissions. I
therefore suggest that we make it a 25% limit.
What do you think?
Dr. Jason Gastrich
Till and I had no formal agreement on this, so I don't see why we need one.
> Also, IIDB limits words, rather than characters. The word limit is
> 5000. The 25,000 character limit we agreed upon is about 4000 words
> (very roughly). Can we agree on 4000 words as the limit for each
> post?
I just did a test on one of my documents and 4990 words equals 23116
characters. Therefore, 5000 words or 25000 characters is fine.
> Here is the page where I obtained these requirements:
>
>
<http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=d58c707bda0277ee35e4fc4be882c301&t
hreadid=56978>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Sean McHugh
Sincerely,
Jason
Sean McHugh
That is fine by me.
> > Also, IIDB limits words, rather than characters. The word limit is
> > 5000. The 25,000 character limit we agreed upon is about 4000 words
> > (very roughly). Can we agree on 4000 words as the limit for each
> > post?
> I just did a test on one of my documents and 4990 words equals 23116
> characters. Therefore, 5000 words or 25000 characters is fine.
I think that that must be 23116 characters not counting spaces. In any
case 5000 words is fine. We can go with that.
> > Here is the page where I obtained these requirements:
> <http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=d58c707bda0277ee35e4fc4be882c301&threadid=56978>
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
Dr. Jason Gastrich
hreadid=56978>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
> Sean McHugh
Fantastic. Have a good day, Sean.
JG
Sean McHugh
"Dr. Jason Gastrich" wrote:
> Sean McHugh wrote:
<snip>
>> In the next few days, I will get back to you with some of the major
>> points I will be addressing. This should allow you argue for the
>> affirmative on the points I will be disputing. My reason for doing
>> this is to get things moving quicker once the debate starts.
>> Otherwise we might spend a round just finding out what we are
>> arguing about. Of course, as this will be issued outside the
>> debate, there is no obligation on you to use the information.
>> [Sean]
> You bet. Thanks, Sean.
Here is the stuff I said I would provide:
One area where I expect to be submitting challenges, is with regard
the movements of the Apostles and the women (particularly Mary
Magdalene) on the morning of the resurrection.
Another is a matter of geography. Did the Apostles return to Galilee
to see the risen Jesus or did they stay in Jerusalem to do the same?
Another issue that may arise is the length of Jesus' time on earth
after the resurrection. Did he ascend on the day of the resurrection
or was it some time later?
This is just a rough guide. Some issues might be quickly reconciled
and others may arise in their place.
One reason for keeping it general at this stage, is that specifics
might cause us to start our debate here. I suggest a good response to
this might be a link from here to IIDB Formal Debates, after you have
submitted your first post in the week of January the 5th.
Debate Setup:
"Post-Resurrection, contradiction or harmony?"
<http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=75>
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
Dr. Jason Gastrich
I'm looking forward to the debate.
Sincerely,
Jason
Don Kresch
<smc...@shoal.net.au> let us all know that:
>
>"Dr. Jason Gastrich" wrote:
>
>> Sean McHugh wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>> In the next few days, I will get back to you with some of the major
>>> points I will be addressing. This should allow you argue for the
>>> affirmative on the points I will be disputing. My reason for doing
>>> this is to get things moving quicker once the debate starts.
>>> Otherwise we might spend a round just finding out what we are
>>> arguing about. Of course, as this will be issued outside the
>>> debate, there is no obligation on you to use the information.
>>> [Sean]
>
>> You bet. Thanks, Sean.
>
>Here is the stuff I said I would provide:
>
>One area where I expect to be submitting challenges, is with regard
>the movements of the Apostles and the women (particularly Mary
>Magdalene) on the morning of the resurrection.
Jason doesn't believe in biblical contradictions. You will get
nowhere trying that. He will just scream at the top of his lungs that
he has "solved all of them" and point you to his "website correcting
skepticsannotatedbible.com".
Jason is a dishonest fuck, as evidenced by my offer to debate him
here and his claim that I never did.
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"
Mike Painter
"Don Kresch" <ROT13....@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:iakbuvosemags33f0...@4ax.com...
> In alt.atheism on Sun, 21 Dec 2003 03:04:08 GMT, Sean McHugh
> <smc...@shoal.net.au> let us all know that:
> >
> >Here is the stuff I said I would provide:
> >
> >One area where I expect to be submitting challenges, is with regard
> >the movements of the Apostles and the women (particularly Mary
> >Magdalene) on the morning of the resurrection.
>
> Jason doesn't believe in biblical contradictions. You will get
> nowhere trying that. He will just scream at the top of his lungs that
> he has "solved all of them" and point you to his "website correcting
> skepticsannotatedbible.com".
>
> Jason is a dishonest fuck, as evidenced by my offer to debate him
> here and his claim that I never did.
Absolutely.
In most cases he will simply say that he sees no contradictions or that you
just are not reading it right.
He does not have the education to argue some of the real issues.
William Barwell
Also interesting to explore. Did the end of the world (Matthew 24;3)
and judgment day itself (Matthew 16:27-8, Matthew 24 -5) happen as
prophecied after the promised resurrection (Matthew 24:30, Matthew 26:64)?
In the time framed promised? "This generation", (Matthew 24:36, Luke 21,
Mark 13), in the lifetime of "Some standing here" (Matthew 16;27-8) in the
lifetime of the high priest at Jerusalem (Matthew 26:64, Matthew 24:30).
These post-resurrection prophecies of judgment day itself some 1930 years
ago did not seem to happen as promised.
Even if the gospels did not contradict each other badly on the ressurection
and post resurrection happenings 2000 years ago, this alone would be reason
for doubt as to the whole sceme of Christianity. The crucifiction and
resurrection are only a way station to the this final end of the mundane
world as mankind knew it.
--
Bush! Chimp or chump?
Cheerful Charlie
Al Klein
>Here is the stuff I said I would provide:
>One area where I expect to be submitting challenges, is with regard
>the movements of the Apostles and the women (particularly Mary
>Magdalene) on the morning of the resurrection.
He already answered that question here on usenet. Don't expect any
more honest an answer in your debate than we've seen here.
--
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he
unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
-- Bertrand Russell.
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>In most cases he will simply say that he sees no contradictions or that you
>just are not reading it right.
>He does not have the education to argue some of the real issues.
Jonathan doesn't have the intelligence to absorb the education, or the
honesty to accept it.
--
"...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand
why I dismiss yours."
- Stephen F. Roberts
Sean McHugh
You're right, it is interesting. Unfortunately it's outside the
charter of the upcoming debate.
I agree, that with the above, there is blatant false prophesy in
the NT. I also agree that this alone should be sufficient reason to
dismiss Christianity.
Here is a temporally long debate from the Skeptical Review that dealt
with the prophesy and "This generation":
<http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1999/6/996genea.html>
<http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/2000/2/002genea.html>
<http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/2000/2/002rides.html>
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/2000/4/004genea.html
<http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/2001/1/011evade.html>
<http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/2001/1/011genea.html>
<http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/2001/4/014repl.html>
<http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/2001/4/014wrap.html>
Apologies if I missed any of the submissions.
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
Ron Baker, Pluralitas!
> <smc...@shoal.net.au> let us all know that:
> >
> >"Dr. Jason Gastrich" wrote:
> >
> >> Sean McHugh wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >>> In the next few days, I will get back to you with some of the major
> >>> points I will be addressing. This should allow you argue for the
> >>> affirmative on the points I will be disputing. My reason for doing
> >>> this is to get things moving quicker once the debate starts.
> >>> Otherwise we might spend a round just finding out what we are
> >>> arguing about. Of course, as this will be issued outside the
> >>> debate, there is no obligation on you to use the information.
> >>> [Sean]
> >
> >> You bet. Thanks, Sean.
> >
> >Here is the stuff I said I would provide:
> >
> >One area where I expect to be submitting challenges, is with regard
> >the movements of the Apostles and the women (particularly Mary
> >Magdalene) on the morning of the resurrection.
>
> Jason doesn't believe in biblical contradictions. You will get
> nowhere trying that. He will just scream at the top of his lungs that
> he has "solved all of them" and point you to his "website correcting
> skepticsannotatedbible.com".
Dr G has it all worked out. He has tested his theories
and all of the challenges he can conceive.
He has proved to himself that the bible is inerrant.
And he is correct when he measures the bible against his own
interpretation of the bible.
Using his own interpretation, he can not be wrong.
I pointed this out to Mr. McHugh previously and he
seemed to be fully aware and undaunted.
I suspect that Mr. McHugh has some special resource.
I look forward to this debate.
I've followed links to IIDB. I've been able to read posts
so far but it is still unfamiliar ground.
I hope that progress continues to be posted in
alt.atheism too.
-Ron Baker, Pluralitas!
Sean McHugh
Al Klein wrote:
>
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 03:04:08 GMT, Sean McHugh <smc...@shoal.net.au>
> posted in alt.atheism:
>
> >Here is the stuff I said I would provide:
>
> >One area where I expect to be submitting challenges, is with regard
> >the movements of the Apostles and the women (particularly Mary
> >Magdalene) on the morning of the resurrection.
>
> He already answered that question here on usenet.
Really! If you could find that Usenet discussion and get the link,
I would be interested to have a look.
I also have had Usenet discussions with Jason on this topic.
I wasn't as blessed as that other party would seem to have been.
> Don't expect any more honest an answer in your debate than we've
> seen here.
I am expecting zealous 'inerrancy'.
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
Sean McHugh
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" wrote:
> "Don Kresch" <ROT13....@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
> news:iakbuvosemags33f0...@4ax.com...
> > In alt.atheism on Sun, 21 Dec 2003 03:04:08 GMT, Sean McHugh
> > <smc...@shoal.net.au> let us all know that:
> > >
> > >"Dr. Jason Gastrich" wrote:
> > >
> > >> Sean McHugh wrote:
> > >
> > ><snip>
> > >
> > >>> In the next few days, I will get back to you with some of the major
> > >>> points I will be addressing. This should allow you argue for the
> > >>> affirmative on the points I will be disputing. My reason for doing
> > >>> this is to get things moving quicker once the debate starts.
> > >>> Otherwise we might spend a round just finding out what we are
> > >>> arguing about. Of course, as this will be issued outside the
> > >>> debate, there is no obligation on you to use the information.
> > >>> [Sean]
> > >
> > >> You bet. Thanks, Sean.
> > >
> > >Here is the stuff I said I would provide:
> > >
> > >One area where I expect to be submitting challenges, is with regard
> > >the movements of the Apostles and the women (particularly Mary
> > >Magdalene) on the morning of the resurrection. [Sean McHugh]
> > Jason doesn't believe in biblical contradictions. You will get
> > nowhere trying that. [Don Kresch]
The problem occurs because an inerrantist relinquishes his religion
the moment he allows a biblical error.
> > He will just scream at the top of his lungs that
> > he has "solved all of them" and point you to his "website correcting
> > skepticsannotatedbible.com". [Don Kresch]
I am under no illusions. Examples from more than one apologist,
of these astonishing declarations of victory, are happening in a
current debate. It starts here:
<http://inerrancy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=87>
And resumes here:
<http://inerrancy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=90>
Jason enters in the 1st page of the second lot.
> Dr G has it all worked out. He has tested his theories
> and all of the challenges he can conceive.
> He has proved to himself that the bible is inerrant.
> And he is correct when he measures the bible against his own
> interpretation of the bible.
> Using his own interpretation, he can not be wrong [Ron Baker].
True. If all else fails, the inerrantist can have a verse saying
what he wants it to say, even if it means that all the other
translations are wrong. There is a good example in the debate
that I linked above.
The latitude they give themselves may work on their own
kind, but I doubt that it would impress observers who are
unbiased and who are simply applying Occam's Razor. The latter
have no reason to assume inerrancy and so they don't use the
assumption of inerrancy to conjure of evidence for inerrancy.
These debates may be beneficial for Jason's profile, within
his own community, but it is unlikely they would be creating
more believers than unbelievers.
> I pointed this out to Mr. McHugh previously and he
> seemed to be fully aware and undaunted.
> I suspect that Mr. McHugh has some special resource.
> [Ron Baker]
Yes, a little black book.
> I look forward to this debate.
> I've followed links to IIDB. I've been able to read posts
> so far but it is still unfamiliar ground. [Ron Baker]
Unfortunately, IIDB is not the friendliest to navigate.
> I hope that progress continues to be posted in
> alt.atheism too. [Ron Baker]
I hope so too :-)
> -Ron Baker, Pluralitas!
> > Jason is a dishonest fuck, as evidenced by my offer to debate him
> > here and his claim that I never did. [Don Kresch]
I saw your offer.
You might consider an informal debate at his own inerrancy.com:
http://inerrancy.com/forum/index.php
If you provided links to it from alt.atheism, I'm sure it would
create interest.
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh