<<I just don't have that kind of time. You have been occupying my entire week. Not only online but offline in prayer, and meditation. Now Krishna! I hope that you know that I am not some glib who skulks in and says "I'm praying for you" or "God loves you" and then never hear one shred of intelligent thinking. I certainly attempt *within the scope of Christianity" to give an answer to everyman of the hope that lies in me. >>
Me? Why, I have all the time in the world, nothing at all to do but debate you. You know, this is a two-way street, and your response has taken a hugh chunk out of my week too. I publish a bimonthly paper that generates several letters per week that call for personal responses from me, I write a regular column for *The Secular Humanist Bulletin,* I am engaged in a book-length written debate with a preacher of my former church, I have a book review to write for *Free Inquiry* magazine, a chapter to write for the "Jury" response to Josh McDowell's ETDAV that is being put together by subscribers to the mcdowell@atheist.tamu.edu list, I participate in several other internet lists that pertain to biblical issues, and I am trying to cope with carpal tunnel syndrome. I would be willing to bet that you are no busier than I am, but I would gladly find the time somehow to debate you if you are willing to do it. Quite honestly, if the best you can do is what I have seen from your responses to me and Krishna K, I can understand why you "don't have the time."
<<You can't concieve [sic] of how a rational thinking human being with nominal intelligence can subscribe to "Christianity." And I can't conceive of how you, a learned person of obviously great intelligence cannot. We are at an impass. >>
Well, of course, we are at an impasse, but I just recently posted on sechum-l a response to someone who thought it was dumb to debate Christian fundamentalists. I said that I never went into a debate with any expectations of converting my opponent; I debated for the benefit of those who would hear or read it. Now I would think that this would be something you should seriously consider. If the Bible is so obviously the inspired, inerrant "word of God," you should be able to make a good case for that and make me appear ridiculous before all who would read it. This should give a big boost to your side. I am perfectly willing to find the time to debate you on this issue because I am confident that you will be the one to wind up looking ridiculous, and that would have some positive fallout for my side.
You are worried about what I might be doing to the faith of the 14 year old whose involvement in discussions with me caused you so much concern, so this would be your opportunity to demonstrate to him that the Bible can be defended against skeptics like me.
<<I can't have all my time taken in *useless* defense...which even if I was allowed to make a point would fall on "deaf" ears. You and errancy DO NOT want to hear me. You want to debate me. I can debate for years...it never does anything. I would rather find people like Matt and encourage them.>>
You are assuming that the ears of all who read the debate will be "deaf" ears, and that simply isn't so. I have subscribers to my paper who were first contacted through public debates that I had when they were Christian believers. They have examined the evidence and are now skeptics, so I reject your claim that debating "never does anything." Others have told me that they read this book or that book and were able to see that there were no good reasons for them to continue believing in the Bible, so people do change their opinions. If you were proposing that you and I just engage in a personal correspondence that no one else would see, I would tell you that I just don't have the time to spend on something that would probably be fruitless. This is why I have proposed a debate on the internet where others will be able to consider both sides. If you can't see the value in such a discussion, then your confidence in your position must not be as strong as you claim in your postings.
<<I absolutely *hate* to write a message like this, because I know, beyond any doubt that the Bible is defensible, and Christianity is defensible... there is no question of it.>>
I am very sure that the Bible cannot be successfully defended in any debate where the opponent of your position is informed on the issues involved. If there were no question of the Bible's inerrancy, then I wouldn't have the position that I have on the issue, would I? And neither would thousands of others.
<< And by saying I don't want to continue I feel as if you and errancy may think that I will not debate because my arguments will not stand up.>>
Well, sir, as nicely as I can say it, this is exactly what I believe. You are not the first one to begin a discussion with me on this issue and then suddenly decide that you don't have time for it after seeing that I know something about the subject.
<<I hope that you will not think that. And if you wish to debate 1 on 1, one issue at a time... I will do that. Herein lies a problem... If you have a problem with the Bible, I must defend it with the Bible. It just doesn't break down any further. >>
I am perfectly willing to debate one issue at a time. Didn't you read my proposed guidelines in which I suggested that each exchange be limited to the discussion of just one argument? As for the one-on-one matter, that is exactly what it would be, you against me. However, if you mean that you don't want anyone else to read the exchanges, I will not agree to that for reasons explained above. I want as many people as possible to read the debate, and I would think that you would too. As for defending the Bible with the Bible, that brings us back to the matter of question begging. I won't allow you to assume that matters can be settled automatically by just quoting a scripture.
You must analyze the scripture and show that whatever it says has value and merit worthy of consideration. You can quote the Bible, of course, and I don't see how you could prove that the Bible is scientifically accurate unless you do quote it. However, whatever you quote will have to be analyzed and supported with information that would prove (1) your interpretation is correct, (2) this interpretation conforms with known scientific facts, and (3) this scientific information was not known at the time the statement was written. Do that and you can prove your premise, but I think I should warn you that you will have to do better than that old wornout claim that the writer of Ecclesiastes understood the water cycle before it was scientifically proven.
<<But I must say this, Farrell, I know that if you have turned your back on Christ after seeing what you've seen and knowing what you know, Hebrews says there is no hope for you. >>
I know what Hebrews 6:4-6 says, and I also know what 1 Peter 2:20-22 and 1 John 2:19 say; however, this proves nothing more than that the NT condemns "apostasy." It doesn't prove that the consequences of abandoning faith in Jesus are what these scriptures say will happen. Surely you know that other "inspired" books warn of dire consequences for those who do not accept what those books say. This is a point that you can't seem to understand. There were Moslems in the audience at my debate with Michael Horner at Seattle-Pacific University, and now I am being flooded with Islamic literature that doesn't paint a very rosy picture for those who reject Islam.
Please tell me how much you worry about those warnings. I suspect you worry about as much as I do over biblical warnings to those who reject what is written in it.
<< God loves you more than I possibly could. He wants to give you complete peace and happiness...but will not force it on you. If he wants to give it, but will not force it, what can else can He do? His Son laid down is life to pay the "wages of sin" for you...before you were born.>>
Please spare me trite platitudes until you are willing to take your position and defend it. I'll just put you on the spot. Prove that God's "son laid down is [sic] life to pay the 'wages of sin' for [me] before [I] was born."
It's easy to quote scripture, but it isn't so easy to prove that what those scriptures teach is true. So let me see your proof that (1) Jesus was the son of God and (2) that his death paid "the wages of sin."
<<I don't know what more to say, except that we *will* inherrently [sic] find out who was right and who was wrong.>>
No, that's the tragedy of the whole thing. You will live your life preaching absurd nonsense to people, some of whom you will convert, and then one day you will die and never know that you wasted your life on nothing when you could have devoted it to something that may have improved life for the present and future generations. That's about as tragic as anything I can imagine.
<< wish for your sake that you were right>>
You had better hope that I am, because the Bible teaches that so few will be saved that the odds against your being in the group are so unlikely that you just might find yourself burning in hell... if the Bible is true.
<<[onlynothing after this "life" what USE would life be? What purpose does an atheist have in living. >>
One has whatever purpose to living that he gives to it. Some people admittedly don't have much purpose in life. They decide to be preachers.
<< If there is no God, why obey the laws, why be subject to other peoples definitions of "right" and "wrong" after all if we are only a distant by- product of primordial pond scum...why worry about peace, and saving the wales [sic] and saving the planet? >>
Why should we be concerned about saving Wales. I didn't know that Wales was in any kind of danger. (You started the siccing, so I warned you that I could continue it.)
Why obey laws? Because it is to my advantage to contribute to the orderliness of society. It will make life better for me personally. That's a good enough reason, isn't it? Of course, you are trying to get off on this old kick about the impossibility of morality without God. That has been refuted so often that I am not going to waste time on it here. It has been discussed in *The Skeptical Review.* If you are interested in seeing the material, I can e-mail it to you.
<<It is illogical to continue life if you are an atheist. Life is pointless.>>
If I don't continue life, then I throw away the only thing I have and the only thing I will ever have. When people say this to me, I simply quote what Philip Freneau, the Deistic poet of the Revolutionary War period, said in his poem "To a Honeysuckle": "If nothing once, you nothing lose, for when you die, you are the same. The space between is but an hour, the frail duration of a flower." Life is not a waste to me. I didn't exist before I was born, and I won't exist after I die, but I will have had the space between. To say that it is pointless to live is to say that it is pointless to become educated and to learn what one can about the universe we live in, to love, to get married, to have children, to engage in work that helps both the person and his society, to read good books, to listen to good music, etc. Pardon me, but you will have to take this tired old theistic complaint to someone else. I don't buy it.
<<You see? If you were to convince me that there was no God and some bunch of Jews somewhere made the Bible up as a big JOKE on mankind>>
Who thinks that a "bunch of Jews" made up the Bible as a big joke on mankind?
I certainly don't think that. I think that they were very serious in their belief that they were "God's chosen people," because superstitious people at that time took their religion very seriously, and belief that one's tribe was favored by the gods was commonplace. The Jews thought that they could appease their god by burning animal sacrifices to him, but the other nations thought the same thing about their gods. The Jews built an elaborate temple to their god, but the nations around them also built temples to their gods.
The Jews thought that Yahweh led them to victory over their enemies when they were good and punished them when they were evil, but King Mesha of the Moabites expressed the same beliefs about his god Chemosh in the inscription on the Moabite Stone. Now will you please tell me why we should think that the ancient Jews were any different from the nations around them? By this, I mean, why should we believe that the Jews were right about their god but that the nations around them were wrong about parallel ideas that they had about their gods? If you would ever investigate this particular matter, you might begin to see the utter folly of your position on the Bible. The Moabite Stone wasn't inspired by a god, and neither were the books that Hebrews contemporary to the times wrote.
<<(I mean that's feasible, Men writing a book that has lasted thousands of years and been amazingly preserved when every other book half it's [sic] age has been corrupted,>>
Ho-hum, here we go again, argument by cliches. There are "holy books" older than the Bible. Their age doesn't prove anything, and neither does the age of the Bible. Yes, the Bible has been "amazingly preserved"; that's why over 30,000 variant readings have been identified in it.
<< and men devising such a complex yet simply understandable system of "faith" [invented that too] and make up a neat back drop for a theistic universe and keeping it going for 1500 years, finding people to write the next chapter, guessing all the dates and times and places that things would happen [prophecy] die horrible deaths for it.... What fun!!>>
Oh, well, if you want to get into prophecy, we will add that to the proposition if you decide to accept my debate proposal. You can affirm that the Bible's divine origin is proven by prophecy fulfillment, and I will deny it. To get things started, I will challenge you to prove (now that is prove, not assume) just one biblical prophecy fulfillment. I don't think you can do it. In the January/February issue of *The Skeptical Review,* I will be debating Dr. Hugh Ross on the issue of prophecy fulfillment. Maybe you would like to read it before you stick your neck out.
<< And the Men who wrote it... think of all they gained from writing it. What say me and you get some of "errancy" together and write "Bible II." We make God a little less brutal and do all kinds of neat stuff! Get another person to be a martyr to start it all off... some one cool like John Kennedy Jr, or Mick Jagger, or Cal Ripkin! Let's do something different without a cross this time.. say.. Electric Chair? Yeah. ) [end parenthetical sarcasm]>>
It won't work. The world isn't superstitious enough today to get such a project off the ground. Bibles need superstitious times to gain a foothold.
Our times are superstitious all right, but I don't think there is enough of it to pull off such a deception today. It's too easy to expose fraud through the rapid communications and other technology available.
F. Till
That would still consign me to hopelessness. You have no hope unless you believe in something. This life is the only one you have [in your system]. Are you going to sit back and waste it away on AOL arguing about some stupid Man-made-story book? Are you as an atheist, going to sit and work for 40 years at some company and retire on a fixed income if this is ALL THERE IS?! Are you going to devote your life to one or two women when you could have thousands? Are you going to pay taxes and worry with bills? Why? Rob a bank, steal a car, travel the world, grab some women, enjoy everything there is, see everything