>Fine...All else set aside, you cannot escape the logical fact that
>if I am wrong I lose nothing, but if you are wrong you lose
>everything... conversely, If you are right, I am no worse off, I
>simply die and nothing else (according to you) happens. However if
>I am right, you are in the worse condition of your existence.
>Therefore the only logical conclusion, based on those two
>premises of our separate belief systems, is to choose Christianity.
Evidently, logic isn't one of your strong points. The above is called Pascal's Wager and it has been widely discredited as being wholly irrational.
The problem is as follows: If there are only two choices, your version of Christianity and atheism, it works well. However, there are many other religions to contend with. If another deity exists, for example Vishnu, and you worship God, then you are in a very poor position indeed. Vishnu probably won't like it much that you are worshipping a false god. Vishnu might not mind someone who is an atheist since, after all, they didn't follow the opposition. In this case, you are in a much worse position than I. Further, if another deity exists, we might both be in poor positions as neither of us are worshipping the "correct" deity.
When it comes right down to it, Christianity is no better than no Christianity when it comes to "betting". Let's face it, don't you think that God will know that you're just hedging your bet?
>BRIGGS:
>Well, the Bible says it.... and is the Bible reliable...<snip>
That's laughable.
>However, the Bible differs from your supposed "proof" using the
>Koran and the Book of Mormon. The Bible is RELIABLE! This is
>the key word. The Book of Mormon and the Koran are good
>examples of UN reliable religious books... both contain massive
>errors in Science and History. NO archaeologist has been able to
>find any supporting evidence for the Book of Mormon, yet many
>great archaeologists have used the Bible to unearth cities and
>treasures, used it as a guide post for all sorts of expeditions.
>The Koran states that (in so many words) that earthquakes are
>caused by the elephants upon which the earth is riding!" Even
>you should see the difference in the Bible vs. The Book of Mormon
>and the Koran. The Bible (KJV) has undergone no editing,
>translation changes, corrections, yet both the Book of Mormon
>and the Koran have been revised and edited and CORRECTED over the
>years. The Koran offers contradictory statements about
>Allah (NOTE ALLAH IS NOT GOD though some people want to make
>him one and the same, it is clear from my readings in the Koran
>that Allah is a completely different person from that of GOD. )
>It also contradicts the Bible on areas of HISTORY we know to be
>the way the Bible states them (Wars, Characters in events etc.)
>SO... when a Mormon says "The book of Mormon says..." I say,
>the Book of Mormon has not been scientifically, or historically
>or doctrinally proven reliable thus The book of Mormon CAN NOT
>"say" with any authority.
There are so many problems with these statements that I don't know where to begin. First off, let me assure you that the Bible is *NOT* historically or scientifically reliable. I can point out many places where the Bible is plainly wrong in regard to both history and science. In fact, while you claim that the Bible has led archaeologists to finds, the fact is that archaeologists of the past century used to make finds and then look in the Bible to see what it was. Many, if not most of these sites have been identified differently than originally thought. Biblical Archaeology Review is hardly a bastion of realistic information.
Secondly, it is plainly ridiculous to claim that the BoM hasn't been proven "doctrinally" reliable. Compared to what? The Bible? So what? Compared to the Qu'ran, the Bible is about as unreliable doctrinally as you can get.
>In reading the debate, you made personal attacks on Geisler which
>were out of order and unacceptable. You want an all out yelling
>match between you and your opponent and that is NOT a debate.
That's laughable, Richard. Geisler didn't even attempt a debate, he simply read prepared speeches, many of which made claims about Farrell that Farrell never said.
>Don't get mad a Geisler because he PREPARED what he was going to
>say. Any student of debate knows you don't just walk in to a
>debate empty handed! The reason you could not answer all of the
>"assertions" is because there are SO MANY to disprove! Doesn't
>that seem a little odd? There are so MANY arguments for the bible
>that you could not respond to them?
There is a big difference between prepared and pre-written. I personally think that Geisler got his head handed to him on a platter in that debate.
>The evidence is the documented manner of the copying process. IT IS
>possible to see a copy and (with knowledge of the copying process
>determine that they are accurate copies...!) If I have a
>document here that you need, and I FAX it to you. YOU CAN DETERMINE
>whether the copy has changed in transit or if I made changes...they
>will be evident to anyone with a brain to read and eyes
>to examine!) The process of copying scripture was the most TEDIOUS
>job any scribe could get. It involved counting backward and forward
>the number of Characters in the book.
The problem here isn't that copies are accurate to the copy before, but if the copies are accurate to the original. You cannot determine this without the original which we all know does not exist.
>Only a dyed-in-the-wool skeptic would not believe the authors own
>testimony, the Church Fathers testimony, the Traditions of the
Church
>and the resultant Church History.
Now you will tell us, of course, how the Church Fathers, who lived hundreds of years after the fact, knew that the copies they were working with were accurate, right?
>Matthew did write Matthew, John (Compare "THE DISCIPLE WHOM JESUS
>LOVED" in that book) did write John, 1,2,3 John and Revelation.
So says you. You cannot demonstrate it and there are certainly many reasons to doubt it. If we take a look at Paul, for instance, even your own Church Fathers say he didn't write half of what is attributed to him. In the original copies of the KJV, which you seem to hold in such high regard, the following appears as a footnote to 1 Corinthians: "The first epistle to the Corinthians was written from Philippi by Stephanus, and Fortunatus, and Archaicus, and Timotheus." The footnote for 2 Corinthians reads "The second epistle to the Corinthians was written from Philippi, a city of Macedonia by Titus and Lucas."
Tertullian, one of your beloved Church Fathers, said that Hebrews was written by someone named Barnabas. Even Origen said of Hebrews: "Who wrote this Epistle, God only knows."
We can easily show the same kind of evidence for the Gospel writers.
<snip>
>Do I deny the existence and the occurrence of Miracles? Surely you
>jest, Farrell, of course miracles by the hand of God can happen.
>However, you must try to remember that Josephus is a historian of
>the time... his books are sources of information but not Scripture,
they
>contain errors in some areas.
As, obviously, does the Bible.
>Interesting. Scholars I know are certain that he did.
Would you care to name any of these nameless scholars? As I have already shown, there is more than sufficient reason to doubt that Paul wrote much of what is attributed to him.
>This is a separate question from your "accuracy of content" question
>above. Historical accuracy has nothing to do with the number of MSS
>found. HISTORY IS THE STANDARD! Any idiot can compare the Bible
>with KNOWN HISTORY and therein lies it's proof or disproof.
Then therein lies it's disproof. Let's examine the OT for a second. Are you suggesting that there really was a world-wide flood as recorded in Genesis 6-7? Are you suggesting that the universe was created by fiat in six literal days? If so, then the Bible is instantly falsified as both of these supposed events are patently false.
>You see, the existence of Christ is not open to debate. We know
that
>a person named Jesus Christ of Nazareth lived in ancient Israel in
the
>first century. This is documented fact. So really what you say
>about historical accuracy is not an "accuracy" question to begin
with.
So what? There really was a person named Guatama Buddha. There was also a Mohammed. There is pretty darned good evidence that Zoroaster really lived. Are the claims of all these people, the religions that rose up around them now true because they really lived?
>Jesus existed. You now want to argue with some of the details about
>his life, as found in the Bible. The many places that the
>Bible lines up with Known History is a clue that the other portions
>of it that detail Undocumentable history are in themselves correct.
That's fallacious on the face of it. Historic accuracy in one area does not guarantee historic accuracy in another. If I wrote a book that was 100% historically accurate in every way except a line on the last page that said "Oh yeah, I'm God", would that make it so?
>By any standard of statistics, the possibility of corruption in a
text
>is STATISTICALLY less in a shorter period of time than in a greater
>period of time. Novel Idea.
Which, of course, assumes that the documents were correct in the first place. This has not been demonstrated.
>Geisler knows this from studying methods used to copy manuscripts in
>ancient times. IT is a fascinating study. You should look it up.
>I've already addressed this at the top of this response.
I've done it. It is fascinating. Your point?
>In studying these two cites it is clear that these passages were
removed
>by ignorant bishops/scribes who thought they fostered an attitude of
>acceptance of adultery. The Ethiopian Eunuch was removed by those
>wishing to change the doctrine of baptism and other doctrines. They
>appear in MSS dated before the ones missing the texts as well as
>ones after. Clearly they come from a corrupted (edited) copy if
they
>miss those texts.
Sorta makes you wonder what else got added or removed, doesn't it?
>Well... your recently written "book" would hardly qualify as a
>contender with the Bible. The Bible has a 3000 year old stance. If
>your "Elvis Book" could even claim 100 years of stance unrefuted, it
>would be a miracle... but it couldn't. FRAUD can never survive the
test
>of Time. Truth can.
Of course it can. Look at how long the Bible has survived. Further, in 2000 years, Farrell's "Elvis Book" will have exactly the same standing as your Bible, with it's own rabid group of defenders and it's own church. You're simply making baseless claims.
>Resurrections from the dead happen today! Many documented claims by
>doctors and nurses have been recorded. Doctors who declare some one
>physically, and mentally dead, and then 40 minutes later, the person
is
>Alive ( I just saw this report on 20/20 a few weeks ago, or was it
>Unsolved Mysteries) Most resurrections occur in less time but that
>people actually come back from being clinically dead HAPPENS... so
>don't say that those people lived at a time when resurrections
>happened...So do we.
Please! Yes, people who are declared clinically dead can and do come back occasionally, but not because they have been "resurrected" but because they were improperly declared dead. And it won't be 40 minutes, it will be more like 3-5 minutes. After 7 minutes, the brain undergoes irreversible damage due to lack of oxygen and there is nothing that can bring that individual back.
BTW: Unsolved Mysteries is a tabloid show on the par with Sightings and [Encounters]. It is full of malarkey. If that is where you are getting your information, you need to look for a reliable source.
>Well.. we will part ways here... because you do not believe that
>anything supernatural can occur, therefore you have a predisposed
>bias against any thing in that category (Which is wrong...in
>research you should have NO biases, but an open mind, which you
don't)
>So the likelihood of the event is really dependent upon who you ask
>and what their prejudices are.
I think that supernatural occurrences can happen, I simply have not been convinced that any supernatural occurrences *HAVE* happened. Perhaps you can present irrefutible proof of this?
>NO DISCIPLE EVER RENOUNCED THEIR TESTIMONY OF CHRIST. Plain.
Simple.
How, exactly, do you know this? We know for a fact that the early church actively destroyed anything that disageed with their position. Archbishop Chrysostom boasted "Every trace of the old philosophy and literature of the ancient world has disappeared from the face of the earth." It is not only possible, but highly likely that had the disciples recanted their belief in Jesus, it would have been destroyed in favor of the fledgling church.
>Which was then rebutted by me. You say MOST not all, and that may
be
>misleading because, MOST of the scholars I know of, accept Johanian
>authorship.
Of course, all the scholars you know of are fundamentalist Christians, so that's hardly surprising. Expand your reading a bit, Richard.
>Paul claimed to be a witness of the Resurrected, not the
Resurrection.
A claim that is impossible to substantiate, of course.
>The 500 witnesses are not named. There is nothing I can do about
that.
>If it was wrong, it would have been argued by contemporaries of the
>writings, but no one argued because it was true, only now 2000 years
>later can you argue when there is no way to prove (OR disprove I
>might add) the testimony of the 500 witnesses.
The problem is, there *IS* no testimony of 500 witnesses. Not one of those reported witnesses ever wrote down their story, therefore, the claim that 500 saw Jesus after death is no more valid than if I claim that 50,000 people saw me flying around town this morning.
>EXCUSE ME??!! Please elaborate on the supposed contradictions.
Oh, please, you cannot claim to not have seen dozens of plain Biblical contradictions.
-Brian