You have dissapointed me. You have conveniently snipped parts of this message in the reply without stating it, and have misrepresented my position... I will respond to these below. Have honor in debate. If I state something which is explained in the second half of the statement don't "snip" the second half. And if I offer to continue 1 on 1, don't misrepresent me to be avoiding discussion in fear of my "weak argument" I BLATANTLY AND CLEARLY SAID:
"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. And if you wish to debate 1 on 1, one issue at a time... I will do that. "
I will continue. 1 on 1, but as long as you must parade our debate on "errancy" you will never be reached for Christ due to your pride. And the death of human pride is necessary for conversion. The only chance of that is 1 on 1. If you think your debate can stand up to mine. Either way, I would appreciate it if you would be honorable.
I also said "I wish that you were right" BUT you snipped the reason why. Why!? The reason I made this ridiculous statement is stated in the second half which you CUT. I saved the original quote... THIS is why I "wished" you were right:
I wish for your sake that you were right
[only so you could escape your fate].
[note: "ONLY"]
Farrell... I expected more from you. I would never stoop to these tactics. I trusted you to send the debate to "errancy" but who knows what you've snipped and twisted?
These are the main things... I will make some comments below *in* the message.
You responded:
>Reverend Briggs's response to my debate proposal:
>
><<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."
>
As stated above and below, I have the time to show you the truth individually. You have misrepresented me here.
>
><<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.
>
As apparent from this message...I only wanted to defend him from your debate tactics.
><<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.
<<sigh>..see below.>
>
><<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.
I am starting to agree....I can't trust you to forward them intact. But I will not add to your ego-fodder. If your arguments can stand, 1 on 1 is the terms. YOU can accept them or deny them.
>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.
If you have a problem with a verse, I will explain the verse in the context of Christianity! What else would you want me to do?!
> 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.
The claim was not that the WRITER understood it, It was that it was THERE and the the proof that an intelligent being made a correct statement about a cycle NO MAN would have written about, In effect A GOD who inspired it placed an accurate quote about it thousands of years before ANYONE knew about it. Another misrepresentation.
[for clarity, the orginal (and FULL)quote was:
"If you wish, I will show you in the Bible where the Earth spins on
an axis, and the Hydrological cycle [among others] thousands of years before either were discovered by Man."
Does this say that I think the writer understood it? No. [As a matter of fact it is exactly OPPOSITE of what I orginally said!]
>
><<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.
The Bible teaches that Faith CANNOT fail. One can't have Saving Faith and then turn away. You apparently have not studied these scriptures in their context.
>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.
Another MISREPRESENTATION! I agreed to defend it. I can't believe this!
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."
You exclude the personal testimony (which is enough in todays courts) because you weren't alive to hear it. You exclude the Bible's documentation of those people's testimonies as fallacy. The only proof you allow anyone would be to shuttle you back and time and witness the events! You care not about the documented Roman slaughter of a man named Jesus, and then the amazing overthrow of a regiment of Roman Guards at his tomb (by fishermen...Fishermen took a trained squad of Roman killers and defeated them! What faith!) Yet you still acknowledge that this is 1995 years after the advent of Christ, you still use money IN GOD WE TRUST, you still attack his follwers who have survied despite persecution from most governments and other religions (including the medival slaughter of true Christians by the Catholic "church") Jesus was only on earth for 33 years, yet his impact has the momentum as if he was here yester day (he was). How much imperical evidence will you deny??! It goes on and on. It's pointless to attempt debate with you.
>
>
><<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>>
>****SEE INITIAL RESPONSE AT TOP OF LETTER****
>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.)
>
I accept that.
>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."
that doesn't answer the point. ILLOGICAL.
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.
ILLOGICAL
>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.
But that is EXACTLY what I am saying. It is ILLOGICAL to educate something that will turn (back) to dust. It is ILLOGICAL to learn about a Universe that will cease to exist. It is ILLOGICAL to get married (why? Apes don't marry, snails don't marry, some choose partners for life because they are so scattered and need constant protection to rear their young but no marriage!) It is ILLOGICAL to have children who will have children who....will be destroyed in either the supernova of our sun or the Big Crunch. It is ILLOGICAL to help others who when they die will not exist, therefore your help was in vain. It is definitely illogical to waste time reading books when TIME is so very limited, same for music and It is ILLOGICAL to help society when those fall at a whim... What happened to all the atheists that tried to help Roman society. WASTED. Roman society fell. What about those who tried to help the Soviet society? It fell. What about those who tried to help the Native American society? It fell. They that attempt to help people and society apart from GOD waste their energies, for in their system it is (whether you admit it or not) ILLOGICAL.
Pardon
>me, but you will have to take this tired old theistic complaint to someone
>else. I don't buy it.
>
You may not buy it, but you sure don't refute it. (Flower poem defense?)
><<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.
>
The Jews *still* exist.
><<(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.
>
>
Another misrepresentation. You say 30,000 but what you mean is 15,000 say "A" and 15,000 say "AN" and you chalk up 30,000 instead of 1 variation.
><< 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.
I hope he gets a chance to proof the copy to make sure he's not being misrepresented!!
>
>
><< 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 was Sarcasm.
You cut this out of the original and did not respond to it.
"That [convincing me that there was no God] would still consign me to hopelessness. You have no hope unless you believe in something.
[ADDITION TO ORIGINAL: Like it or not, you DO have faith...You DO believe that there is nothing after this life. You can't prove it, so it is faith.]
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 that can be seen, eat the finest, drink the finest and be merry for tommorow, you may die. IF you die in the process.. so what! You will have done more than any other stupid "wives-tale-believing" person and you may even be famous...neat!
What a miserable pathetic thought. I feel for you Ferrell. It's no wonder kids are killing themselves enmasse, atheism is what is taught in schools. We teach kids that they come from slime and apes and that the universe just magically appeared after being tightly packed into one point in space wherever space came from. "
Richard
NOTE: This is the first [and will be the only] message was posted to ERRANCY by me, to be sure that at least one complete message made it there. I did not want to really do that, and I am sorry if I have offended any readers of "errancy" by the length or content of this document. It was necessary due to the previous experience with Farrell. I don't subscribe to the list, If you wish to email me with complaints. <rbriggs@jax.jaxnet.com> /````````````
/````````````` /```` /```` Richard Briggs /```` /```` /```` /```` http://jax.jaxnet.com/~rbriggs /```` /```` /```` mail: rbriggs@jax.jaxnet.com
/```````````` /```` /````````` /```````````
/``````````` /```` /`````````` /````````````
/```` /```` /```` /```` /```` /````
/```` /```` /```` /```` /```` /````
/```` /```` /```` /`````````` /```` /````
/```` /```` /```` /````````` /```` /````