Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jack the Bodiless · 02-03-2004, 04:11 AM

Quote:

Jason Gastrich
New User

Registered: June 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 19

...19 posts in 7-8 months?

If he claims to have resolved ALL Biblical contradictions, then why haven't I seen him posting in this forum?

Asha'man · 02-03-2004, 05:41 AM

Ouch, Jason's latest post just hurts my brain. He keeps stabbing and attacking, but seems to have nothing but a wet sponge to use as a weapon.

I'm especially amused by his suggestion that Sean surrender at the end. It reminds me of the Black Knight in Monty Python, limbless and bleeding on the ground, still acting as if he was victorious over Arthur.

Sven · 02-03-2004, 07:46 AM

I just read Jason's "answer". It's nearly unbelievable! Pathetic, dodging arguments, misunderstanding arguments etc. I find it hard to believe that someone could be as dumb as Jason seems to be in misunderstanding/misrepresenting arguments - does he do this intentionally?

And instead of adressing arguments, he starts and ends his post with a long rant...

Especially his claim that a child could harmonize these accounts was priceless. One should try a simple experiment: Give a number of childs who don't were indoctrinated with Christianity these accounts and let them try to write a single, non-contradictory story out of it. I bet none of them would be able to do this.

Farrell Till · 02-03-2004, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Asha'man
Ouch, Jason's latest post just hurts my brain. He keeps stabbing and attacking, but seems to have nothing but a wet sponge to use as a weapon.

I'm especially amused by his suggestion that Sean surrender at the end. It reminds me of the Black Knight in Monty Python, limbless and bleeding on the ground, still acting as if he was victorious over Arthur.

You are just seeing typical Jason Gastrich rhetoric. This guy has to be the worst debater I have ever encountered. He doesn't have a clue to what constitutes debating, so he ignores arguments that he can't answer and thinks that his opponents should give up and declare him the winner just because he says he has prevailed. He was skinned alive in this forum in my debate with him on the land-promise issue, yet he boasts in his own forum about how satisfied he is with the way that he "handled" me.

To get rid of me, he banned me from his forum for having done nothing but reply to one of his boastful posts. Here is a copy of the post that caused him to kick me off.

Quote:

Jason Gastrich:
Classic Farrell Till saber rattling and arrogance.

Till:
Nope, it is just classic Farrell Till sticking to an argument that his opponent cannot answer. As any experienced debater will tell Jason, this is the best way to demonstrate an opponent's failure. If an opponent skips or evades an argument, the audience will soon forget about it unless they are reminded. I remind the audience here that Jason won't answer certain arguments (in this case the Genesis texts that clearly show that the land promise was unconditional), and it drives him up the wall. He would much rather that I just let arguments drop when he evades them with the unsupported claim that they are irrelevant, but I don't intend to do that.

Jason:
Your comments tell me that you are living in another world, Farrell; but not the world of reality.

Till:
My comments may tell Jason that, but the audience members will see my comments telling them that Jason can't answer my argument.

Jason:
I'll consider debating you for exactly the reasons I wrote. You are a lost and wretched man, Farrell. You are an arrogant and prideful miser and debating you will help me minister to you and the lost. Plain and simple.

Till:
Yeah, sure, Jason's debating will certainly minister to me in that they will tell me that my arguments are so solid that a boastful "apologist" cannot answer them.

As for the "lost" that Jason thinks he is ministering to, I have a suggested proposition for a debate. Jason will affirm that the existence of a place of punishment after death in which people will be "lost" is a verifiable reality.

Watch him drop this one like a hot potato.

Jason:
As I've repeatedly stated, I'm very happy with the way I handled you in our land promise debate. Only a poor, naked, wretched, and blind man would arrogantly claim complete victory as you have. Your very attitude has helped people reject you and your line of reasoning (your poor exegesis and biblical education has helped, too).

Till:
If Jason is really telling us the truth here, then he should jump at the chance to accept my proposal, which entails submitting the land-promise debate to a panel of debating and logic professors to secure their opinions. If Jason is so sure that he won the debate, then he has nothing to worry about, because I, as the loser, would be required to pay the stipends. Jason won't agree to this, of course, because he knows that he was hung out to dry and that the evaluations of professionals would express that opinion.

Jason
Keep it up. You always help the cause of Christ.

Till:
How many people in this forum have said, "After seeing Farrell Till's performance in the debates with Jason Gastrich, I want to become a Christian"? I estimate that exactly none have. I have, however, received e-mails from people who tell me that my articles have convinced them that the Bible is not what they were taught to believe it is.

Jason:
It would indeed be a miracle if someone aspired to be like you, Farrell. Your very personality and character is a great deterrent from atheism and any believer that would put up with your nonsense for more than 5 minutes should be praised.

Till:
Let's see, Jason once forged a post to my ii_errancy forum under my name to make the members think that I was confessing to being homosexual. When the message was traced to his ISP, he denied that he had sent it. Before our land-promise debate began, he promised that he would reply to all of my points and answer all of my questions, and then he flagrantly reneged on this promise.

And he has the gall to attack my "personality and character"!

Jason:
I don't feel that there is an extraordinary amount of contemporary, non-biblical proof for the resurrection. Therefore, I don't feel this would be a good topic to debate. It would likely be a very short debate.

Till:
I figured that Jason would not be dumb enough to try to defend this proposition. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15 that "our faith" is vain if Jesus was not resurrected, and Jason doesn't have the courage to defend this foundation doctrine of Christianity. That speaks volumes about how much he really believes the Bible.

Jason:
Any other ideas, Farrell?

Till:
Sure, I have lots of them. Will you affirm that the virgin birth of Jesus of Nazareth is a verifiable historical fact? Will you affirm that the resurrection of Lazarus is a verifiable historical fact? Will you affirm that the Jesus of the gospels was an actual historical character? Will you affirm that Moses wrote the book of Deuteronomy? Will you affirm that Isaiah's prophecy against Babylon was fulfilled in all of its details? Will you affirm that Ezekiel's prophecy against Egypt was fulfilled in all of its details? Will you affirm that the exodus and wilderness-wandering tales are all historically accurate?

I have lots of ideas, Jason, but I predict that you will make excuses not to debate any of these.

Jason:
I'm happy to submit something to scholars if there is no fee involved.

Till:
Oh, sure, reputable scholars are just going to agree to donate their time to reading a debate as long as the one on the land-promise. If Jason really believes that he cleaned my plow on this one, he would jump at the chance to have professional opinions posted that would confirm that his performance was better than mine. I have no doubt at all that professionals would blast his poor performance, and so that is why I am willing to take the risk.

He isn't willing to take the risk and that speaks volumes about what he really thinks.

Jason:
P.S. I remember telling you that I'd copy the IIDB debate into Inerrancy.com. I sure do. However, I also remember you saying that you'd do it. You are so arrogant and prideful about your performance, it is a bit hypocritical to avoid copying the debate into Inerrancy.com; especially after you said you would. Isn't it?]

Till:
I am still pretty much an amateur in navigating web-based forums, so it would take me much, much longer than someone who knows his way around. However, if Jason refuses to do it, I will do it when I can find time. Right now I am very busy with an ignorant fundamentalist who has submitted to me a "narrative" in which he thinks he has harmonized all of the resurrection narratives in the gospels, the book of Acts, and 1 Corinthians 15. This is taking up quite a bit of my time. Meanwhile, I will just tell the readers here that they can go to http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...9&goto=newpost
and read the debate there. They will see how thoroughly Jason was raked over the coals.

When I returned to his forum the next day, I found the following message where I had posted the above reply to Jason.

Quote:

Jason
Farrell,

You are becoming quite an annoyance. Your last post at Inerrancy.com was deleted because it was inflammatory. Your next offense will result in your expulsion.

You are suspended from Inerrancy.com for one week. When you return, you may post your answer to my question in the thread where you [sic] post was deleted. Subsequent inflammatory posts will be deleted.

This should go without saying, but if you try and deceive Inerrancy.com as you tried to deceive the JCSM Forum by returning during your suspension and logging on with fake names, you will be banned, immediately.

Jason's way of handling those who oppose him in his own forum with arguments that he can't answer is to ban them. I kept hammering away at him with repostings of arguments that he wouldn't answer in this forum when we were "debating" the land-promise issue, so finally he decided to get rid of me.

gagster · 02-03-2004, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sven
One should try a simple experiment: Give a number of childs who don't were indoctrinated with Christianity these accounts and let them try to write a single, non-contradictory story out of it. I bet none of them would be able to do this.

I actually tried an experiment not all that different from this a few years ago. Unfortunately, I wasn't smart enough to keep good notes, so I may get a few details wrong, but here's what happened:

I had been debating a theist about the contradiction in the bible about how Judas died. So, I decided to have a group of christians read the accounts of how Judas died in Acts and Matthew.

I started by asking each participant, individually, if they knew how Judas died. The first two said that they thought he hanged himself, but they weren't sure. The next two said they didn't know. The fifth (and last) person was pretty sure he hanged himself.

I had the first two read Matthew (which says he hanged himself). I had the next two read Acts (which says he died from a fall) and I had the last participant also read Acts.

After reading the verses, they were each to answer a few questions. One of the questions was "How did Judas die?" All five gave answers completely consistent with what they read. None gave any indication that there might be more to the story - except participant #5. Ironically, even though he wasn't a very devout christian, he realized that what I had him read wasn't consistent with what he had heard. So, he found the verses in Matthew that told of Judas's death. He agreed with me that the verses were in conflict.

So after asking a small group of christians to read the story of Judas's death in one part of the bible, not one claimed that the death occurred the way apologists like to claim it did. I told all of them to pray or do whatever they needed to to properly interpret the bible before they started. Yet none of them came to the conclusion that apologists argue is obviously the correct one.

Greg

Kosh · 02-03-2004, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Let's see, Jason once forged a post to my ii_errancy forum under my name to make the members think that I was confessing to being homosexual. When the message was traced to his ISP, he denied that he had sent it. Before our land-promise debate began, he promised that he would reply to all of my points and answer all of my questions, and then he flagrantly reneged on this promise.

Matthew 7:20
"So then, you will know them by their fruits.

gagster · 02-03-2004, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
...19 posts in 7-8 months?

If he claims to have resolved ALL Biblical contradictions, then why haven't I seen him posting in this forum?

Oh, you have to buy his book.

Greg

gagster · 02-03-2004, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by J. F. Till
You are just seeing typical Jason Gastrich rhetoric. This guy has to be the worst debater I have ever encountered. He doesn't have a clue to what constitutes debating...

He also doesn't have much of a clue as to who America's founders were. The latest addition to his list is George Washington Carver.

http://www.michaelnewdow.com/

Quote:

Originally posted by J. F. Till
...so he ignores arguments that he can't answer and thinks that his opponents should give up and declare him the winner just because he says he has prevailed. He was skinned alive in this forum in my debate with him on the land-promise issue, yet he boasts in his own forum about how satisfied he is with the way that he "handled" me.

To get rid of me, he banned me from his forum for having done nothing but reply to one of his boastful posts.

I was wondering why I hadn't seen any posts from you there in a while. I've debated him in alt.atheism, but he doesn't respond to my posts anymore. I think he's probably kill filed me, along with most of the other posters to AA.

I mentioned my study about the death of Judas to him before he kill filed me. He responded that my test was ridiculous. He says you've got to read each passage in the context of the entire bible before you can understand it. That's why I got such odd results.

That was the last time he responded to me. Too bad because his response raises a number of questions. Like, if I've read half of the bible, can I really not interpret anything I've read until I finish reading the other half three months from now? And, if reading a passage from the bible leads you to believe something that's not true, how can you then claim it's infallible?

Greg

Farrell Till · 02-03-2004, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gagster
[B]He also doesn't have much of a clue as to who America's founders were. The latest addition to his list is George Washington Carver.

http://www.michaelnewdow.com/

Jason posted on the ii_errancy forum a claim that George Washington and other "founding fathers" were devout Christians. He was pulverized instantly with posts that clearly refuted this claim. He left and never came back to discuss this issue. That is typical of him. He will hit and then run.

Quote:

I was wondering why I hadn't seen any posts from you there in a while. I've debated him in alt.atheism, but he doesn't respond to my posts anymore. I think he's probably kill filed me, along with most of the other posters to AA.

Actually, Jason just banned me a few days ago. I had some other priorities that kept me away from his forum for several days, but as soon as I came back and posted replies to his boast that I had run away because I knew that he had won, he got rid of me by banning me.

That too is typical of him.

Kosh · 02-03-2004, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by J. F. Till
Jason posted on the ii_errancy forum a claim that George Washington and other "founding fathers" were devout Christians. He was pulverized instantly with posts that clearly refuted this claim. He left and never came back to discuss this issue. That is typical of him. He will hit and then run.

Could it be that Jason is actually Magus55?

02-03-2004, 05:41 AM	#62
Asha'man Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: southeast Posts: 2,526	Pathetic Ouch, Jason's latest post just hurts my brain. He keeps stabbing and attacking, but seems to have nothing but a wet sponge to use as a weapon. I'm especially amused by his suggestion that Sean surrender at the end. It reminds me of the Black Knight in Monty Python, limbless and bleeding on the ground, still acting as if he was victorious over Arthur.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-03-2004, 07:46 AM	#63
Sven Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: outraged about the stiffling of free speech here Posts: 10,987	I just read Jason's "answer". It's nearly unbelievable! Pathetic, dodging arguments, misunderstanding arguments etc. I find it hard to believe that someone could be as dumb as Jason seems to be in misunderstanding/misrepresenting arguments - does he do this intentionally? And instead of adressing arguments, he starts and ends his post with a long rant... Especially his claim that a child could harmonize these accounts was priceless. One should try a simple experiment: Give a number of childs who don't were indoctrinated with Christianity these accounts and let them try to write a single, non-contradictory story out of it. I bet none of them would be able to do this.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.