ex-xian

[trying to give the benefit of the doubt]
Did he realize that his first post was the opening statement of a debate? It seems that he just wanted to introduce himself and pitch his book?!

Perhaps he doesn't understand how formal debate structure works?
[/trying to give the benefit of the doubt]

Toto

How charitable of you. Except that Jason Gastrich has participated in a debate in that Forum with J.F. Till. He should have caught on by now that debates are about debating.

It seems clear to me that Gastrich is trying to market his refutation of the Skeptics Annotated Bible, which he sells for around $32. He could easily cut and paste some arguments from there, but then we wouldn't have to buy the book (which has been panned on Amazon.com by the only critic who wrote at length about it.)

Doctor X

Indeed, the positive reviews appear from a "peanut gallery" that is "happy" someone wrote against those "nasty ol' Skeptics." No details given--I doubt the reviewers actually read either work.

The approach of Gastrich is a simple one: "it just is."

Too bad this approach does not work in reality.

--J.D.

Amaleq13

Anyone interested in what has been going on "behind the scenes" should check out Jason's complaints on the complaint board:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=73353


Maybe it is just me but I'm am completely addicted to that board. The complaints are absolutely hilarious (for those of us who don't have to deal with them, that is).

Doctor X

I generally think complaints should be handled privately. If tempers flare it is without the public "spill-over."

It does seem that the majority are of the: "Why the fuck did you fucking censor me for fucking saying that So-and-So was a fucking whore for fucking disagreeing with me you fuck!" variety.

Mod: Have you considered the rules?

Complaint: Fuck the rules! I fucking have a right to fucking freedom of fucking speech!

Without the maledicta or attack on a poster, Gastrich's complaint seemed much like that. However, he did concede the point and promised to return with a better response of sorts. This has not happened yet.

--J.D.

Amaleq13

Knowing this you still want the complaints private? This is exactly the sort of stuff that I LOVE to read!

I'm still not getting my hopes up. To all appearances, so far, we've got a guy with a pocketknife showing up to a gunfight. Brief and mildly entertaining but unlikely to provide any surprises.

CX

Why do we keep on humoring Jason Gastrich? Does anyone seriously think he's going to put forward anything remotely interesting? Or anything like an actual debate for that matter.

Doctor X

Oh yeah, CX?! Fuck you for fucking [Stop that!--Ed.]

Er . . . sorry . . . wrong forum.

Seriously, I can understand it a bit because I am sure detractors to this site state that we are "intolerant" and "will not listen" to "the truth" and all of that. In that spirit, some bend backwards to the point of contortion to allow an apologist his chance to present a case.

However . . . after awhile it starts to get tedious. I, for one, would have enjoyed a spirited attempt to defend the lack of contradictions. I guess I should not hold my breath! Sean McHugh may just "win" without ever firing a shot or even showing up!

--J.D.

Asha'man

Well, Sean showed up and fired a broadside, and it's a good one.

I think the presentation was quite well done, and the primary contradictions cited are solid. I also like how he set the bar for the apologist: provide a more likely scenario than human error. It's not enough just to come up with something that is vaguely possible, it has to be plausable and likely as well.

Amos

The problem with the women at the tomb challenge will be that it must be proven as a historical event that is acceptable to the analytic rational reader. Personally I don't see a contradiction but welcome the different reports as confirmation that my interpretation is in the right direction -- and I don't really care what loud mouth Danny Barker has to say about it.

John wouldn't report any women at the tomb except Magdalene who was the only stronghold of Jesus the crucified and therefore the light of common day did not return to her until she was illuminated by others. I understand that John had never met Jesus and reports from his own experience so therefore he does not know what happened in the mind of Jesus the Jew.

Matthew does not recongnize Mary theotokos (he can't!!) and calls her "the other Mary." He knows Magadelne very well but does not recognize any pagan influence. Hence, only two.

Mark is the pagan view and he knows Mary Magdalene, doesn't know Mary theotokos but recgonizes a pagan Mary(?). My question is: who are James and Salome? If I remember correctly Jesus attracted her as a slave servant outside of Judaism along the shore of a lake somewhere. Mark needs the light of common day to see anything because he is outside religion and outside omniscience.

Luke would have the most because he brings in contributions from the subconscious mind such as Joanna (I think). Luke also reports females from a previous trip to Galilea where he attracted followers on the shoreline of that lake.