| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sean McHugh" |
| Date: |
29 Nov 2003 07:28:25 PM |
| Object: |
A Formal Debate with Dr. Jason (arrangements). |
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.
~ Id 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&threadid=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
.
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: A Formal Debate with Dr. Jason (arrangements). |
29 Nov 2003 09:43:24 PM |
|
|
"Sean McHugh" <smchugh@shoal.net.au> wrote in message
news:3FCA530C.B31BD1CB@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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean McHugh" |
|
| Title: Re: A Formal Debate with Dr. Jason (arrangements). |
30 Nov 2003 04:49:18 AM |
|
|
Ron Baker wrote:
"Sean McHugh" <smchugh@shoal.net.au> wrote in message
news:3FCA530C.B31BD1CB@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]
<http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=d617423fcf94651e6e4806f55112b75e&threadid=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>
Thanks for you interest.
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: A Formal Debate with Dr. Jason (arrangements). |
03 Dec 2003 12:33:34 AM |
|
|
"Sean McHugh" <smchugh@shoal.net.au> wrote in message
news:3FCAD681.F962674A@shoal.net.au...
Ron Baker wrote:
"Sean McHugh" <smchugh@shoal.net.au> wrote in message
news:3FCA530C.B31BD1CB@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.
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean McHugh" |
|
| Title: Re: A Formal Debate with Dr. Jason (arrangements). |
03 Dec 2003 02:41:12 AM |
|
|
Ron Baker wrote:
"Sean McHugh" <smchugh@shoal.net.au> wrote in message
news:3FCAD681.F962674A@shoal.net.au...
Ron Baker wrote:
"Sean McHugh" <smchugh@shoal.net.au> wrote in message
news:3FCA530C.B31BD1CB@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.
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.
Are there referees for this debate?
If so, who are they?
Yes, as Jason has subsequently explained.
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.
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: A Formal Debate with Dr. Jason (arrangements). |
03 Dec 2003 12:04:13 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 08:41:12 GMT, Sean McHugh <smchugh@shoal.net.au>
wrote:
Ron Baker wrote:
"Sean McHugh" <smchugh@shoal.net.au> wrote in message
news:3FCAD681.F962674A@shoal.net.au...
Ron Baker wrote:
"Sean McHugh" <smchugh@shoal.net.au> wrote in message
news:3FCA530C.B31BD1CB@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.
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.
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean McHugh" |
|
| Title: Re: A Formal Debate with Dr. Jason (arrangements). |
04 Dec 2003 12:16:22 AM |
|
|
Kate wrote:
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 08:41:12 GMT, Sean McHugh <smchugh@shoal.net.au>
wrote:
Ron Baker wrote:
"Sean McHugh" <smchugh@shoal.net.au> wrote in message
news:3FCAD681.F962674A@shoal.net.au...
Ron Baker wrote:
"Sean McHugh" <smchugh@shoal.net.au> wrote in message
news:3FCA530C.B31BD1CB@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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vera Six" |
|
| Title: Re: A Formal Debate with Dr. Jason (arrangements). |
04 Dec 2003 01:37:29 PM |
|
|
Please stop cross-posting.
Thanks in advance.
V.S.
"Sean McHugh" <smchugh@shoal.net.au>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jason Gastrich" |
|
| Title: Re: A Formal Debate with Dr. Jason (arrangements). |
03 Dec 2003 12:54:09 AM |
|
|
Ron Baker wrote:
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
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jason Gastrich" |
|
| Title: Re: A Formal Debate with Dr. Jason (arrangements). |
30 Nov 2003 04:33:51 AM |
|
|
Ron Baker wrote:
"Sean McHugh" <smchugh@shoal.net.au> wrote in message
news:3FCA530C.B31BD1CB@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.
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Constance Vigilant" |
|
| Title: Re: A Formal Debate with Dr. Jason (arrangements). |
30 Nov 2003 07:14:58 AM |
|
|
"Dr. Jason Gastrich" <news@jcsm.org> wrote in message
news:jIjyb.60381$t01.16073@twister.socal.rr.com...
Ron Baker wrote:
"Sean McHugh" <smchugh@shoal.net.au> wrote in message
news:3FCA530C.B31BD1CB@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.
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
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean McHugh" |
|
| Title: Re: A Formal Debate with Dr. Jason (arrangements). |
30 Nov 2003 08:34:51 AM |
|
|
Constance Vigilant wrote:
"Dr. Jason Gastrich" <news@jcsm.org> wrote in message
news:jIjyb.60381$t01.16073@twister.socal.rr.com...
Ron Baker wrote:
"Sean McHugh" <smchugh@shoal.net.au> wrote in message
news:3FCA530C.B31BD1CB@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.
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
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,
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
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jason Gastrich" |
|
| Title: Re: A Formal Debate with Dr. Jason (arrangements). |
01 Dec 2003 12:22:20 AM |
|
|
Constance Vigilant wrote:
"Dr. Jason Gastrich" <news@jcsm.org> wrote in message
news:jIjyb.60381$t01.16073@twister.socal.rr.com...
Ron Baker wrote:
"Sean McHugh" <smchugh@shoal.net.au> wrote in message
news:3FCA530C.B31BD1CB@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.
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
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean McHugh" |
|
| Title: Re: A Formal Debate with Dr. Jason (arrangements). |
02 Dec 2003 05:19:20 AM |
|
|
"Dr. Jason Gastrich" wrote:
Constance Vigilant wrote:
"Dr. Jason Gastrich" <news@jcsm.org> wrote in message
news:jIjyb.60381$t01.16073@twister.socal.rr.com...
Ron Baker wrote:
"Sean McHugh" <smchugh@shoal.net.au> wrote in message
news:3FCA530C.B31BD1CB@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.
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
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.
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
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Davey" |
|
| Title: Re: A Formal Debate with Dr. Jason (arrangements). |
05 Dec 2003 05:45:59 AM |
|
|
Użytkownik "Dr. Jason Gastrich" <news@jcsm.org> napisał w wiadomości
news:w6Byb.60551$t01.60017@twister.socal.rr.com...
Constance Vigilant wrote:
"Dr. Jason Gastrich" <news@jcsm.org> wrote in message
news:jIjyb.60381$t01.16073@twister.socal.rr.com...
Ron Baker wrote:
"Sean McHugh" <smchugh@shoal.net.au> wrote in message
news:3FCA530C.B31BD1CB@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.
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
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: A Formal Debate with Dr. Jason (arrangements). |
05 Dec 2003 09:43:25 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:45:59 +0100, "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>
wrote:
Użytkownik "Dr. Jason Gastrich" <news@jcsm.org> napisał w wiadomości
news:w6Byb.60551$t01.60017@twister.socal.rr.com...
Constance Vigilant wrote:
"Dr. Jason Gastrich" <news@jcsm.org> wrote in message
news:jIjyb.60381$t01.16073@twister.socal.rr.com...
Ron Baker wrote:
"Sean McHugh" <smchugh@shoal.net.au> wrote in message
news:3FCA530C.B31BD1CB@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.
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
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.
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
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sean McHugh" |
|
| Title: Re: A Formal Debate with Dr. Jason (arrangements). |
05 Dec 2003 07:31:09 AM |
|
|
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Davey" |
|
| Title: Re: A Formal Debate with Dr. Jason (arrangements). |
05 Dec 2003 07:37:47 AM |
|
|
Uzytkownik "Sean McHugh" <smchugh@shoal.net.au> napisal w wiadomosci
news:3FD193F8.101C8A2@shoal.net.au...
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
Like I had the time.
Uncle Davey, in heaven, that's where I'll be writing books.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean McHugh" |
|
| Title: Re: A Formal Debate with Dr. Jason (arrangements). |
05 Dec 2003 07:54:29 AM |
|
|
Uncle Davey wrote:
Uzytkownik "Sean McHugh" <smchugh@shoal.net.au> napisal w wiadomosci
news:3FD193F8.101C8A2@shoal.net.au...
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
Like I had the time.
Uncle Davey, in heaven, that's where I'll be writing books.
"Bible, the Sequel"?
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Davey" |
|
| Title: Re: A Formal Debate with Dr. Jason (arrangements). |
05 Dec 2003 08:42:08 AM |
|
|
Uzytkownik "Sean McHugh" <smchugh@shoal.net.au> napisal w wiadomosci
news:3FD19963.B012089C@shoal.net.au...
Uncle Davey wrote:
Uzytkownik "Sean McHugh" <smchugh@shoal.net.au> napisal w wiadomosci
news:3FD193F8.101C8A2@shoal.net.au...
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
Like I had the time.
Uncle Davey, in heaven, that's where I'll be writing books.
"Bible, the Sequel"?
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
"Just men made perfect"
The title'll be a pun on the two meanings of the word 'just'.
Uncle Davey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean McHugh" |
|
| Title: Re: A Formal Debate with Dr. Jason (arrangements). |
05 Dec 2003 02:34:59 PM |
|
|
Uncle Davey wrote:
Uzytkownik "Sean McHugh" <smchugh@shoal.net.au> napisal w wiadomosci
news:3FD19963.B012089C@shoal.net.au...
Uncle Davey wrote:
Uzytkownik "Sean McHugh" <smchugh@shoal.net.au> napisal w wiadomosci
news:3FD193F8.101C8A2@shoal.net.au...
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
Like I had the time.
Uncle Davey, in heaven, that's where I'll be writing books.
"Bible, the Sequel"?
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
"Just men made perfect"
The title'll be a pun on the two meanings of the word 'just'.
Uncle Davey
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jason Gastrich" |
|
| Title: Re: A Formal Debate with Dr. Jason (arrangements). |
05 Dec 2003 03:38:16 PM |
|
|
Sean McHugh wrote:
Uncle Davey wrote:
Uzytkownik "Sean McHugh" <smchugh@shoal.net.au> napisal w wiadomosci
news:3FD19963.B012089C@shoal.net.au...
Uncle Davey wrote:
Uzytkownik "Sean McHugh" <smchugh@shoal.net.au> napisal w
wiadomosci news:3FD193F8.101C8A2@shoal.net.au...
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
Like I had the time.
Uncle Davey, in heaven, that's where I'll be writing books.
"Bible, the Sequel"?
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
"Just men made perfect"
The title'll be a pun on the two meanings of the word 'just'.
Uncle Davey
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
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean McHugh" |
|
| Title: Re: A Formal Debate with Dr. Jason (arrangements). |
06 Dec 2003 03:59:04 AM |
|
|
"Dr. Jason Gastrich" wrote:
Sean McHugh wrote:
Uncle Davey wrote:
Uzytkownik "Sean McHugh" <smchugh@shoal.net.au> napisal w wiadomosci
news:3FD19963.B012089C@shoal.net.au...
Uncle Davey wrote:
Uzytkownik "Sean McHugh" <smchugh@shoal.net.au> napisal w
wiadomosci news:3FD193F8.101C8A2@shoal.net.au...
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
Like I had the time.
Uncle Davey, in heaven, that's where I'll be writing books.
"Bible, the Sequel"?
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
"Just men made perfect"
The title'll be a pun on the two meanings of the word 'just'.
Uncle Davey
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
Yes, the book will be "heaven-bound." Haha. Sorry for the bad joke, but I
saw the shot and had to take it.
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
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: A Formal Debate with Dr. Jason (arrangements). |
05 Dec 2003 09:05:00 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 21:38:16 GMT, "Dr. Jason Gastrich" <news@jcsm.org>
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean McHugh" |
|
| Title: Re: A Formal Debate with Dr. Jason (arrangements). |
05 Dec 2003 11:00:24 PM |
|
|
Hi Jos,
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
Jos Flachs wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 21:38:16 GMT, "Dr. Jason Gastrich" <news@jcsm.org>
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: A Formal Debate with Dr. Jason (arrangements). |
06 Dec 2003 04:38:40 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 05:00:24 GMT, Sean McHugh <smchugh@shoal.net.au>
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?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Constance Vigilant" |
|
| Title: Re: A Formal Debate with Dr. Jason (arrangements). |
06 Dec 2003 11:38:41 AM |
|
|
"Jos Flachs" <'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> wrote in message
news:dn23tvorh3mdef26o0gocgn388ogbighb8@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 05:00:24 GMT, Sean McHugh <smchugh@shoal.net.au>
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?
Yes.
I feel less like attacking you now.
Though that might not necessarily be a Good Thing.
In Love,
Constance Vigilant
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean McHugh" |
|
| Title: Re: A Formal Debate with Dr. Jason (arrangements). |
06 Dec 2003 02:33:57 PM |
|
|
Constance Vigilant wrote:
"Jos Flachs" <'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> wrote in message
news:dn23tvorh3mdef26o0gocgn388ogbighb8@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 05:00:24 GMT, Sean McHugh <smchugh@shoal.net.au>
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?
Yes.
I feel less like attacking you now.
Though that might not necessarily be a Good Thing.
Thanks for your vote on that, Constance.
I was very harsh with you the other day. I apologise.
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
.
|
|
|
| User: "Constance Vigilant" |
|
| Title: Re: A Formal Debate with Dr. Jason (arrangements). |
06 Dec 2003 05:42:03 PM |
|
|
"Sean McHugh" <smchugh@shoal.net.au> wrote in message
news:3FD34893.813EA6FF@shoal.net.au...
Constance Vigilant wrote:
"Jos Flachs" <'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> wrote in message
news:dn23tvorh3mdef26o0gocgn388ogbighb8@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 05:00:24 GMT, Sean McHugh <smchugh@shoal.net.au>
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?
Yes.
I feel less like attacking you now.
Though that might not necessarily be a Good Thing.
Thanks for your vote on that, Constance.
I was very harsh with you the other day. I | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
