TILL:
>Matthew instigated the correspondence by posting a message on one of the
>atheist.tamu.edu lists in which he said that a certain posting had made him
>sick or something to that effect. I sent him a brief message. He reponded
<sic>
>to it and keeps the exchange going, although he is obviously unequipped
>educationally to discuss the Bible with any depth. He replies with
>meaningless platitudes, such as, "I am praying for you," "Remember that
Jesus
>loves you," etc.
>
>You say that I am trying to place doubt in a 14 year old's mind, so I don't
>suppose that you would accept the idea that I am trying to enlighten a 14
>year old and get him to see that ancient superstitions can no longer be
>defended in a modern, technological society. You apparently see nothing
>wrong with preachers and Bible teachers filling his head with such
>superstitions, and I can assure you that I have communicated with him enough
>to see that you have succeeded. What you are apparently saying, then, is
>that you merchants of outdated superstitions should be allowed to operate
>unrestricted, but those of us who plead for rationality shouldn't.
>
BRIGGS: <<The issue here is not who is right or wrong, the issue is that this 14 year old person has already stated his position, and instead of dealing with the issue he raised, you/whoever slipped into abstract discussion of an unrelated topic that you know the 14 year old is ill-equipped to defend. This is nothing more than manipulation and in a court of law would be objected (and sustained) that your response was irrelevant; it did not deal with what the 14 year old was discussing. That is what I "objected" to. Discuss all you want with the 14 year old, knock yourself out, but realize that this kid may not be able to answer all of your absurd abstract attacks. Basically what I am saying is that you should discuss and rebut (if possible) anything the kid wants, but don't stoop to changing the subject to irrelevant (to the subject!) topics of debate! If you really want to delve into the topics below, go to an expert. Someone who has devoted their entire life to studying the Word. That's all.>>
TILL: As I have already explained, the 14 year old whom Reverend Briggs is so concerned about posted a message on one of the atheist lists in which he said that a message about the hypocrisy of Jesus had made him sick. I sent a short message to him in which I said that I had not read the posting he had referred to but that I could think of some incidents in the gospels that would indicate that Jesus was a hypocrite. He seemed eager to have a discussion with me and has kept the correspondence going. I quickly recognized that he is not equipped to engage in serious discussions about the Bible, but he refuses to give up.
As for my bringing up irrelevant topics for debate, the 14 year old wanted to discuss the Bible with me. How could my postings about the Midianite and Amalekite massacres have been irrelevant to such a discussion. Are they not a part of the Bible? What I suspect that Reverend Briggs is really upset about is the fact that a 14 year old might learn just how barbaric the OT god was and start to wonder if this is the kind of god he wants to believe in.
TILL:
>You further said that my arguments can be "easily and succinctly answered
>beyond any shadow of 'civility.'" However, you are not the first clergyman
>to come to Matthew's rescue. He first referred a preacher named Jonathan to
>me, but he dropped out after admitting that I had certainly given him some
>things to think about. Now I will look at some of your "answers" to see how
>rational they are.
BRIGGS: <<Ah ah... let's not loose [sic] sight of the ultimate measure here. The standard is not RATIONALITY, the standard is whether or not my answers line up with what the Bible (The ultimate guide book of Christianity) says. Ok? However, as a side note, I will tell you that Christianity necessarily employs the rational mind, Faith is not a denial of facts and reason, but a corollary of them. That is important.>>
TILL: But, ah, this is not okay. I don't really give a snap whether Briggs's answers "line up with what the Bible says" or not. I care whether they are logical and rational. If not, sensible people will have to reject them. The Bible may be "the ultimate guidebook for Christianity," but what it says means no more to me than what the Koran or the Avesta says. I suspect if I tried to argue with Reverend Briggs that my standard is not rationality but whether my answers line up with the Koran, he would immediately call me to task for saying it. I do the same with his claim that all his answers must do is line up with the Bible.
(Sorry about the [sic], but Reverend Briggs seemed to take a siccing delight in my misspelling of Midianite, so I will return the favor. He will see more sics as we go along.)
BRIGGS:
><<Numbers 31:1-18 . . .
>Before we go into the history behind the judgement poured out on Midian in
>Numbers, I would like to comment on your final analysis of the reasons for
>the judgement which are in error. You said: "...who killed people for
>racial and other petty reasons." This is inaccurate. The account in Numbers
>31 has nothing to do with race, and Idolatry is not "petty." It is one of
>the Ten Commandments for crying out loud!>>
>
TILL:
>According to the OT, Yahweh had commanded the Israelites to completely
>destroy the nations around them so that Israel itself would not be
corrupted.
> (If you want scripture citations, I can give them to you, but I'm trying to
>be as brief as possible in deference to my CTS.)
BRIGGS: <<I hate to say this, but because of the complexity and nature of the Bible, I will require you to cite your references as I will. Without such safeguards, there is a tendency to misuse the Scripture by misquoting, taking out of context, and other errors that are avoided when references are cited. That way if you say the bible says one thing, I can show you that the scripture you cited was incorrectly used out of context or mis-cited etc.>>
TILL: Well, excuse me, but if Briggs needs references to show that Yahweh was a blood-thirsty barbaric deity who had commanded the Israelites to destroy the nations around them, here they are.
Deut. 7:1-5, "When yahweh your God brings you into the land which you go to possess, and has cast out many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than you, and when Yahweh your God delivers them over to you, you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them nor show mercy to them.... But thus you shall deal with them: you shall destroy their altars, and break down their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images, and burn their carved images with fire."
Deut 20:10-16 has Yahweh ordering the Israelites to save nothing alive that breathes in the cities they conquer but to utterly destroy the nations living in the cities of Canaan. Joshua 10:40; 11:11, 15-23 claim that Joshua's army did just this, utterly destroyed the people in the Canaanite cities and left nothing alive that breathed, AS YAHWEH COMMANDED MOSES.
BRIGGS::: <<You see the Bible is intricately structured so that a simple overview will confuse the non-Christian. (I know this because Matthew 13:10-15 says "And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath [ears to hear, i.e., spiritual understanding (see vs 9 if you have questions)], to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not [ears], from him shall be taken away even that he hath."
TILL: Here is Briggs's question-begging thread again. He quotes the Bible as if the mere quoting of the Bible is sufficient to settle an issue. Of course, I always enjoy hearing this particular scripture quoted. Those who saw my debate with Jerry Moffitt may remember that he quoted this same scripture as proof that those with "good and honest hearts" can understand God's will, but those who don't have "good and honest hearts" can't. As we will see as the analysis of Briggs's "response" continues, he thinks he has an advantage over me. He has eyes that can see, and I don't; and he has ears that can hear, and I don't. Ah, yes, he has "spiritual understanding," and I don't. The difference, you see, is due to the simple fact that he is willing to swallow the Bible hook, line, and sinker, and I'm not. He's a Christian, and I'm not. When are people like Reverend Briggs going to understand that this line of "reasoning" proves exactly nothing, except, of course, the fact that the Christian has no evidence on his side.
And, no, I have no questions about the NT passage cited, just comments on the absurdity of someone trying to settle an issue by quoting a scripture (as if a book of superstition could prove anything) while smugly claiming that he has "the spiritual understanding" to know what it means and the evil old atheist doesn't.
BRIGGS: (Then he says this which speaks directly to your type...)
"Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand."
(You are intelligent, but you fail to make the necessary connections... you "hear" but don't/won't understand, you see but refuse to "SEE")
TILL: And Mr. Briggs constantly begs important questions that he needs to prove. I suggest that he begin trying to prove these questions by first establishing that the Bible is in any sense authoritative.
I will continue the analysis of Briggs's response tomorrow.
Farrell Till