Well, I reposted the above challenge because we had some nibbles from an "ozark preacher" who was having some exchanges with SAV on facebook. After a few emails back and forth, he sends off his last missive and says not to bother responding because he is blocking my email. Which reminds of two things:
1) I hate cowardice
2) My rule that, having done this and dealt with these people for decades, I don't have time for private lessons on these matters
So then of course, he sends along another email wanting to chat some more about these Bible/freethinker issues (please forgive me for blocking you! says he). Sorry, intellectual cowardice is like blaspheming the Holy Spirit, it's unforgivable. Anyway. I find this childish behavior terribly boring and he's terribly sloppy (or dishonest) and can't remotely get his facts straight, as you'll see.
I'll post these exchanges here (without his name) and send him a link (SAV, you may want to post your latest responses to him as well). These are my responses which pretty much contain all of his comments. If he wants any more instruction or assistance on these matters, we'll bloody well do it in public where more than one person can learn from the example that will be made of him.
************
Oct, 8...
Hello ST, good to hear from you. My name is Darrel, I'll respond to your points below.
ST: "I have been having a stimulating discussion on Facebook with [...]. I presume he is a member of your group as he said I could mention his name in my contact.
DAR
Yes, I saw those exchanges on Facebook.
ST: "In a discussion he was having with a couple of other Facebook users he mentioned a challenge by the Fayetteville Freethinkers to read the resurrection to ascension texts of the Gospels, Acts, and 1Corinthians and present a consistent homogenized narrative which includes all details present in the texts.>>
Correct. This is a variation of a challenge that has been offered by for many years by many different groups and individuals (Dan Barker, Farrell Till, Ralph Nielsen etc.).
ST: "Although his suggestion was directed toward the other Facebook members I decided to take up the challenge myself.">>
Excellent.
ST: "The study has proven fascinating for me. In the past I have simply accepted the variations in the stories without taking the time to reconcile them. I can see now that was a mistake and I have missed a great opportunity to address concerns brought up by the accounts.">>
Yes, taking the time to try to reconcile them can be a great teaching tool, in that it teaches you how great the challenge truly yes. Which is in fact the point of the challenge.
ST: "I consider myself a Christian freethinker, although some would find that to be an oxymoron.">>
While we do have people who come to our meetings that also are members of churches and attended church, usually when a Christian thinks the word "freethinker" applies to them, they are being less than accurate with what it means. Since, as you know, a freethinker is one who:
"forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief." -- Webster's New World Dictionary -- Third College Edition
Then if you are forming your opinions about religion on the basis of faith, or based upon traditions, or following religious authorities and influenced by the established belief of the Christians around you, then you are probably just a regular "Christian," and not really a "freethinker" in the sense of definition of the word.
ST: "I have always proven to be an annoyance to my instructors because I would not simply absorb what was taught without questioning, analyzing, challenging, and sometimes refuting what I was taught.">>
That is indeed a good sign, and I encourage you to pursue this tendency and inclination to be more of a goat than a sheep. Freethinkers are very in favor of the goat-like posture as opposed to the sheep-like one.
ST: "Although this project has just moved out of the initial phase and is not yet ready for a public presentation, I am sufficiently confident in what I have discovered to let you know I would like to respond to your challenge in the future.">>
Excellent. I have posted a new thread in our forum where solutions can be posted. Or you can send them to me at this address and I can post it for you, anonymously or not. See it here:
viewtopic.php?p=24453#p24453
It also lays out the challenge precisely. You'll want to read it carefully.
ST: "My schedule is heavy right now, and I have actually been robbing time from other commitments to work through this study. After the first of the year I believe I can give the needed attention to preparing the materials and a PowerPoint presentation. I am fairly certain, barring unforeseen circumstances, that I can be fully prepared before April which would be an appropriate time for such a presentation. I am sure you schedule events far in advance so I presume this will give you a sufficient advanced notice.">>
I think it would be best for you to get a little further along in the process before planning public presentations for skeptical audiences. Details and the nuance of resurrection "order of event" problems don't necessarily translate into an interesting lecture topic for our general freethinker audience (several of whom aren't even that interested in the Bible). Perhaps a debate format would be better. I think there are problems with this project you haven't yet discovered. If you'll post what you think you have at the above link (it really isn't that many verses) we'll be glad to give you a little peer review and point out some of the problems you will be dealing with.
ST: "I would consider it an honor and a privilege to make such a presentation to your group for their consideration and critiquing. I gain much by having others who are not afraid to point out my errors and weaknesses. My discussion with [...] is a case in point.">>
And we appreciate your efforts in this regard. After many years, we have never had anyone actually ever reach the point of even submitting an attempt. And that's unfortunate. I think it is a testament to the challenge working exactly as intended. A person tackles it thinking they can do it, then they learn quite a bit more about their Bible then they though they knew, and then they realize... well... I don't want to give too much away.
Anyway, this sort of detailed arcane scholarship about a very narrow topic is much better worked out in written form rather than a straight up lecture (I think). I think you will realize this once you have more time to spend on the project.
ST: "What would be the requirements and expectations for such a presentation? Respectfully, ST, Ozark, Arkansas>>
Oh, the usual: intelligent, informative, funny, with much emphasis on *accurate.* So we would need to work with you to make sure you have the *accurate* part nailed down (after all, we don't know you at all). For us, it is very premature to be considering a public lecture on this issue at this point. You have some heavy lifting to do and as you say, you've only just begun. Don't hesitate to keep us informed of your progress!
kind regards,
D.
****
Oct, 8...
Hello ST, I'll respond to your points below. As before, I'll "cc" a copy to our other co-founder Doug, and also SAV.
Sent: Saturday, October 8, 2011 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: Your Easter Challenge
Thanks for your kind and quick response! I am greatly appreciative of this opportunity to say the least.
With my research at the present phase a rough verbal presentation would be possible, though I would not do so since I keep discovering new facets as I go. This morning's study proved to be so. I have five phases to the study and have only completed the first and am part way into the second and third simultaneously as that works best for me.
But as I said I have been robbing time from other commitments and while I would love to pursue this with a single focus that is not possible.
I am well aware of the issues by this point. I have taught inductive Bible study methodology to somewhere in the neighborhood of a thousand people over the 24 years since I graduated from Bible School.">>
DAR
You will probably agree with me that it is quite possible, and even common, for someone to study and teach the Bible for many decades, or even their whole life, while still ending up getting (and teaching) material that is astonishingly wrong and unscholarly. Examples range from the Mormons to Jehovah's Witnesses to David Koresh, Jim Jones or even Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. So I think you would agree that it doesn't necessarily follow from even many years of study and teaching, that someone has a good scholarly basis for their claims about the Bible.
ST: "It is my area of specialization obviously.">>
DAR
Then you are probably aware that the position of standard mainstream Christian scholarship (non-fundie), in this regard is that the order of events, as told by the resurrection stories, cannot be worked out. When I look to answers for questions on these matters I look to the best peer reviewed Bible scholarship. It may be possible that you could find something brand new in this well worn, well established area of study, but it isn't very likely.
ST: "With respect to public speaking, I have spoken to thousands of people over these years, from small group size to several hundred at a time, and I use all of the speaking tools you mention. But to be honest, I got the impression from my interaction with [...] that creativity and humor were lost on freethinkers. I anticipated the necessity of a rather dry presentation (which I am loath to do) to satisfy critical expectations.">>
DAR
Getting into the nuances of why the order of events can or cannot be worked out is necessarily going to be a rather dry topic to folks who are not as interested in the minutia of New Testament scholarship as us. So a lecture is getting the cart well before the horse. Our challenge asks for a written response and doesn't mention anything about lectures. However, if you do manage to overturn a century or so of scholarship and fix this puzzle, then we would certainly want to hear about it. But you have some heavy lifting to do.
ST: "To be honest one of the most astonishing discoveries so far for me was to find I actually fit the definition of a freethinker. I thought the terms Christian and freethinker to be mutually exclusive.">>
I am always for letting people label themselves, within reason, but let's consider this a little. Since a freethinker is generally defined as one who:
"forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief."
Are you saying you are a Christian preacher who doesn't form your opinion about religion on:
a) the basis of faith,
b) traditions,
c) religious authority (including Jesus)
d) the established doctrinal beliefs of the Christians around you?
Are you perhaps a Unitarian Universalist then ST? Because if you are practicing your Christianity in anything like a normative way, then you are typically engaging in quite a bit of a, b, c and d. And those attributes are directly, by definition, in contrast to how a freethinker comes to their beliefs about religion.
ST: "I will not be posting anything soon, but wanted to make contact now so there might be a possibility of presenting my work to your group to tear apart before I move on toward publication.">>
This initial tearing apart will be taking place in written form. In reality, it isn't very likely that it will be progressing to the point of a public tearing apart. Unless you are interested in a public debate. We do like to sponsor those on occasion.
all the best,
Darrel
****
Oct, 9...
Hello ST, I'll respond to your questions and points below.
Thanks once again for a quick response, although I really did not expect one. To be honest, I really must be busy with other things right now, but I will respond to your points at this time.
I sincerely appreciate the effort you are making to inform me of the high expectations regarding this challenge. Can I emphasize enough, I really do understand. Really.">>
DAR
Then you will understand that it is really rather simple. So simple it can be stated in one sentence:
" without omitting a single detail from the accounts, write one consistent narrative - with scriptural citations - of the events from the Resurrection to the Ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ."
Why haven't you submitted it already ST? Is it top secret?
ST: "One thing I am more concerned with at this point is whether you understand my expectations for those who will judge my research and presentation.">>
DAR
Let's just keep it simple. It will be me. You say you have the answer to this dilemma. Why don't you send it along already? Should be rather straightforward, either you can do the task or not. A child should be able to read these verses and see that you have accomplished what you claim to have accomplished.
ST: "Who you will get who will be qualified to judge whether or not my exegesis and hermeneutic is properly applied and executed? Are you and those you mentioned who will consider my work experts in these disciplines? I am not especially excited at the prospect of entering a class action suit as defendant where plaintiffs have appointed themselves as judge, jury, and court recorder, not to mention establishing the rules of evidence to suit the situation. I trust this is not what I face, for no amount of effort on my part would overcome such a bias.">>
DAR
You anticipate being sued? Are you not well?
ST: "And by qualified, I am referring specifically to those trained in inductive Bible study methodology. I am not an expert, nor even a past student of Greek. I did not have an extra year available to enter the Greek program, and that wasn't my intended emphasis when I entered school. I know how to use the tools of those who are. My specialization is inductive Bible study, for it is the only method with reliable results.">>
DAR
In order for me to have good reason to believe that your specialized inductive Bible study method is "the only method with reliable results" I would need to see that your claims have passed some level of scholarly peer review. Have you published any scholarly papers in peer reviewed journals ST?
ST: "The surprise that everyone seems to be demonstrating in response to my confidence that I have a solution not only to the Magdalene dilemma, but my confidence in presenting a homogenous narrative based on all the required texts is most alarming to me.">>
It shouldn't be. I am not at all surprised, having witnessed confidence and bluster on this matter with every Christian that I have had talk about this subject. Then they do a little more checking, and we don't hear from them again. This suggests that their "solution" probably came up a little short and this was so obvious that even they could see it. Are you going to be different ST? Are you going to send along your solution?
ST: "If anything would discourage me from participating at this point it is the concern that no one will be able to adequately, and without bias, evaluate what I submit.">>
Then you should be able to easily over come such objections. If alternate stories of a single event are true, they should be consistent and not flatly contradictory. You say you have accomplished this with the resurrection stories. No one is without "bias" but this answer should be rather straightforward. There aren't even that many verses in question. Put them in order, providing a consistent story, don't leave anything out. A child should be able to read this and understand.
ST: "I will be proceeding with my work on the passages anyway, but I suppose without being taken as arrogant for asking, I would like to know the qualifications, experience, and affiliations of those who would examine my work. Short of that I would thank you for spurring me on to this study, but I would decline from submitting my work. It of course would be available after I find a publisher for you to consider, and I would still appreciate feedback at that time.">>
If you don't want a little critical review, then we can just wait until you publish your material. Hopefully before Jesus returns!
...snip...
ST: "I have found the solution to the enigma.">>
Excellent. Let's see it.
ST: "when I look for answers to these or any other questions on these matters, I park my butt in this chair with my Bible, my Bible study software, my reference books (sans commentaries), my Greek and Hebrew tools and I work myself into the ground until I am confident I have the answer.">>
Not impressed. This is how we get 30,000+ denominations/sects etc., of Christianity. That's not scholarship, that's homemade Bible goulash.
ST: "I asked [...], politely, for his definition of freethinker... not a Webster's, or Wikipedia answer, so I would know what HE meant by the term.">>
It is certainly appropriate to refer to dictionaries when talking about definitions of words. Dictionaries reflect common usage. If you are not using a common definition, then there is a problem.
ST: "For this I was rebuked for my insolence and told there is only one definition.">>
Nonsense. Of course different dictionaries provide slightly different understandings of this word and many others. I'm not really interested in semantic word games, label yourself as you wish. As I think you've discovered, it's rather doubtful that you are a "freethinker" in the normative usage of the word (your problem is rather common, we have to break this news to a lot of Christians).
ST: "I have patiently endured his ranting and in the process discovered that I do indeed meet that definition.">>
I answer your questions, but you ducked this one from me. So I will ask you again: Are you saying you are a Christian preacher who doesn't form your opinion about religion on:
a) the basis of faith,
b) traditions,
c) religious authority (including Jesus)
d) the established doctrinal beliefs of the Christians around you?
Do you?
ST: "I form my opinions on the basis of reason independent of authority (not because someone tells me I have to believe something), and there are religious dogmas that I both doubt and deny. So I make the statement based on [...] emphatic declaration that there is only one definition.">>
As with most words, there isn't "only one definition" but that one from Websters' gives a rather nice attempt and it hits four distinct points.
ST: "So then I come to the Freethinkers website and discover that, no, that is not the only definition of a freethinker (which is what I anticipated in the first place).">>
Oh for pity sake, do you think any label of an entire mode of thinking, say like Christianity, is ever informally defined slightly differently when different people talk about it? What's the one true definition of "Christian" ST? Ask a different Christian, get a different answer. Freethinker is far more specific than that, but you have no trouble calling yourself a Christian.
ST: "So I read your website's definition,
A freethinker is someone who forms beliefs about religion and the supernatural through conscientious reflection and rational inquiry and not based upon authority or tradition. Freethinking is a method of arriving at conclusions, not a set of beliefs. Most freethinkers are agnostics, atheists, or deists.">>
Our website doesn't give a formal definition but rather mentions in brief what general attributes refer to a freethinker.
ST "And I think "Well, that still pretty much applies to me.">>
Sure it does. So do you form your opinions about religion on:
a) the basis of faith,
b) traditions,
c) religious authority (including Jesus)
d) the established doctrinal beliefs of the Christians around you?
I bet you do. Well, that's the four things that, according to the normative standard definition, go quite against the way freethinkers form their opinions about religion. So guess what, you're probably not a freethinker.
ST: "And in the next sentence it says that MOST freethinkers are agnostics, atheists, or deists. Okay, how can someone be either an agnostic or a deist without some tradition involved?">>
Easy. They form their opinions about religion in this manner:
a) reason (as opposed to faith)
b) independently (as opposed to appealing to tradition)
c) without appeal to religious authorities
d) independently of established belief
and then, using those methods, they come to the belief that agnosticism, atheism or deism, is the belief that is mostly likely to be in line with reality, and thus true. That's how.
ST: "And it says MOST are agnostics, atheists, or deists.">>
Easily most, by far.
ST: "Anything over 51% is what is left over after most is taken out of it. What are the rest? There aren't too many categories left after you take out MOST.">>
The vast majority of those who use the label freethinker are also one of those three things as well. Labels overlap. But of course you wouldn't know these things, you've just learned about the word freethinker just two days ago.
ST: "somebody has really got to get their definitions worked out.">>
I haven't found a dictionary definition that was disagreeable. If they are causing you trouble it's probably because you don't like the conclusion that follows. You're not a freethinker. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.
ST: "So, you are probably right. It isn't a good thing for me to consider myself a freethinker, because there is no clear definition of what exactly that entails, even by the definition of dictionaries and freethinkers themselves.">>
No, the reason it probably isn't a good thing for you to consider yourself a freethinker, is because you probably aren't one. Complaining that everyone else just can't get their definitions straight, is hardly plausible. You just don't like that it doesn't apply to you.
ST: "Is what you have REALLY the ability to think freely?">>
Maybe you ought to read a bit more about this history of the word ST.
ST: "It strikes me so clearly looking through all this that you have cut yourself off from a great deal of that which I (and billions of others of sad souls) find worth thinking about!">>
Really. What is there worth thinking about that isn't amenable to the methods of:
reason
reasoning without appeal to tradition
reasoning without appeal to religious authorities
reasoning without appeal to established societal belief?
What are we missing out on ST? Do tell.
ST: "At least I have a hope of something better after this life to encourage me, even if it was just an illusion!">>
So you admit would rather believe in illusions if it would make you feel better. I can understand that opinion, but personally, I am interested in having my beliefs line up with reality and that which is actually most likely to be true. And there is no good evidence for an afterlife. Wish there was, but reality doesn't get decided by vote or what we wish to be truth. That's wishful thinking. Faith based, emotion based, self-encouragement based, tradition based, religious authority based methods are never a good reason for believing something is true. If you want comfort, go to church, if you want to know what it is most likely to be true, ask a skeptic.
ST: "Why on earth would I want to become a full blown freethinking materialist?">>
The only incentive I can think it would offer is that it gets rid of the faith based, tradition based, religious authority based, local belief based crapola that has never been a good reason for determining what is true.
ST: "Talk about something completely irrational.">>
Why would it be "completely irrational" to base your beliefs on reason, (as opposed to faith, tradition and claims made by religious authorities? You'll have to explain that one to me.
ST: "Look, if you don't want me to participate because you don't want my feelings hurt, fine.">>
I have no concerns about hurting your feelings. If you are up for the challenge, then put it up. Or don't.
St: "My work would probably either be just an amusement to those unqualified to analyze it, or it would be completely unnerving to everyone there who has believed a lie.">>
Sounds like someone isn't too confident of their material. Perfectly understandable and justified, considering the task.
Are you a Biblical inerrantist ST?
regards,
Darrel
---------------
"the sequence of events cannot be worked out. Each account is a separate summary of early Christian testimony to the fact of Jesus' resurrection."
--New Oxford Annotated Bible, Revised Standard Version, pg. 1212, note for Matt. 28:8.
My NRSV annotated says the sequence of events can't be worked out. Why are they saying this if you, with your "butt in your chair" and your software at hand, have so easily worked out the sequence of events? Maybe all of those Bible scholars at Oxford really don't know which end is up. Or perhaps they're just to lazy to sit down and give it a try. Thank goodness you have come along to set them straight and in only a few hours you have cracked the code! Now if you'll just have the courage to present it for some skeptical review. I guess we'll see.
***
Oct 10...
Howdy ST,
Subject: Re: Your Easter Challenge
ST: "I hate to say it, but I HAVE to get on with the rest of my life right now.">>
DAR: Of course. No one is making you do anything. As you know, participation in attempting to solve these resurrection problems is completely optional. It doesn't matter to me either way.
ST: "The rest of my work on this HAS to wait until after the first of the year. I have already given you the PDF (I hope you got it anyway) of the passage layout, but that is the best I can do for now.">>
No, I haven't received any PDF attached to any of these emails.
ST: "I am pulling the plug on my connection to the post through [JM] because I can't leave it alone. Obsessive compulsive tendencies I guess.
But in light of what you told me about you doing the evaluation without the necessary training and experience leaves me completely unmotivated to pursue this any farther with the Freethinker Challenge.">>
So you've gone from having the solution, to "not even going to try." Okay.
ST: "Maybe I will take it up with Till or someone else early next year, but I can't do it now.">>
I've known Farrell Till quite well for about 15 years. He had a stroke and is getting rather elderly, but he'll help you out with your solution if he can. I have had tens of thousands of exchanges on his biblical errancy list over the years.
ST: "One last question you asked before I bow out that I feel I need to address. You asked if I am an inerrantist. I amazed it took so long to ask me that question from what I read of other atheist posts.">>
I forgot. It's really not that big of a deal.
[enter stage left... paragraphs explaining why you can't tell me the answer because I don't qualify. Good grief]
ST: "That is one thing I value talking to people about. But it is one of the hot button topics that I have found that I have to be selective about sharing on with others. So I limit that to two groups of people. I go into it if they are either close friends whom I know are spiritually mature and will not be threatened by my information, and the other group is those whom I am personally discipling so they understand better the dynamics of handling the scriptures. Because of those limitations I have discussed it with few, but I did talk about it with my Sunday school class today, and plan to have a whole class session devoted to it sometime in the near future in light of our discussion. So thanks for the prodding.
But I have found that outside of those two groups it only creates arguments and hard feelings with others because most people who claim to be inerrantists do not understand the doctrine or its application.
In your case Darrell, you do not fit either group that I would normally share my position with, and though I would love do so in the hope that it would affect your understanding in the direction I would intend, I am 100% convinced that it would only serve the purpose of giving you fodder to shoot back at me. Thanks, but I get shot at enough already.">>
Hey ST, if you don't want to reveal whether you are an inerrantist or not, that's quite okay. Oops, I guess you kinda did though. I can't imagine a person who isn't an inerrantist, being reticent to admit it. I'm not going to make fun of you for it. Being an inerrantist is burden enough (oops, I guess I did).
ST: "I can already anticipate your response of "That is cowardice and avoidance." Think what you like. You are of course a freethinker after all. I put a particularly long post on FB which I am sure you will read that might fill in any empty blanks.">>
Actually, I skimmed that material and don't have the link. Maybe Michael will send it to me. [Note: I later read this an observed ST making piles of patently false claims about what I had said in these exchanges. SAV has detailed them and hopefully will post them).
ST: "I am not being harsh and judgmental in my appraisal of your analytical abilities. They may indeed exceed my own in many other disciplines. But not this one.">>
About sixteen years ago I wrote a book about the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Perhaps you saw the sample on our website. It's under "our books." I've learned a lot more since then. Sometimes believers get the notion that if they can just write enough pages of apologetic and rhetoric, they can massage these order of event problems with the resurrection stories and patch it all together. But in fact, they cannot. And this doesn't require advanced training to point this out. A child in grade school can understand why these problems can't be solved. Hence the beauty and simplicity of this challenge. Some contradictions just can't be fixed.
ST: "I am not being sarcastic in any sense when I say that my interaction with you and [...] are deeply appreciated. I think I understand the issues better with Freethinkers now. I certainly had misconceptions before the discussions. Again, thank you for taking the time to enlighten me.">>
You're most welcome. Feel free to respond, as time allows of course.
ST: "I sincerely wish there was more I could do or say that would not allow this contact to end like this. But you must do what you are convinced you must do, and believe it or not, I respect that. Neither of us is free, Darrell, to do or say anything other than what our logic and experience lead us to. We are compelled to live out what we are in our minds, wills, and emotions. Anything else qualifies for insanity.
You cannot believe what I believe, what I believe, Darrell, because you believe it isn't real and nothing will convince you otherwise. I cannot believe or act any differently because I know that is not the case. God is real, Darrell, he does real, tangible stuff in my life.">>
I used to believe that too. Then, about 20 years ago, I sharpened up my critical thinking skills and discernment, and discovered I was fooling myself. It's very easy to do and humans are really good at fooling themselves into believing things that aren't true. You know this is true because you believe that the vast number of religions in the world have gotten it wrong, and perhaps even the vast number of sects of your own religion also have it very wrong.
ST: "Don't even bother asking what because no matter what I say, you will find some way to deny or explain it away.">>
You don't sound very confident of your anecdotal stories.
ST: "It was the same in Jesus' day. This is nothing new.">>
I agree. People were exceedingly gullible at that time too. Even perhaps more so than now, if that is even possible.
ST: "And I am as sorry for you, as you are frustrated with me right now.">>
I am not frustrated in the least. If you are interested in sharing what you have on this, simply pass along this PDF you are referring to. Or not. No big deal either way.
all the best,
Darrel
***
Oct 10...
Attachment received.
Subject: Re: Your Easter Challenge
ST: "Darrel (sorry I was misspelling your name), I don't know how I can say this anymore clearly, I am not giving up, far from it. Forgive me, but you and [...] seem to be ignoring me when I say this.">>
I guess you didn't mean it when you said: "
completely unmotivated to pursue this any farther with the Freethinker Challenge.">>
Incidentally, I've known from the beginning that without an agreed upon mechanism for judicial review the offer of a "reward" doesn't mean much. In fact, in order to emphasize that this challenge really isn't about the money we changed it sometime ago to... a goat. This was detailed at the link I provided you: Here.
Although I do notice that our booklet, the Fabulous Fayetteville Freethinker Fact Filled Family Fun Folder, still has it as a $1,000 reward. Oh well. As far as I know, Farrell Till, Ralph Nielsen and Dan Barker still (each) offer a thousand dollar reward. But you would have to check with them. It really isn't about the money.
ST: "It is no exaggeration for me to say I LOVE to study my Bible.">>
My mother does too. But she belongs to a different religion, so she gets very different answers than you do.
ST: "I have no idea what happened to the attachment, but here it is again. Let me know if you do not get it this time. It is the rough first draft of the entire account, not the Mary Magdalene portion the Till Challenge requires. I had already spent what time I had available first working on the whole to find out if it was as impossible as everyone says. It isn't, but it will be a lot more work for me to get the final product.
No[w], I have no illusions that this rough draft will satisfy you (it doesn't satisfy me either) or the ultimate end of the challenge, so please don't tell me it misses the mark. I know, but you seemed to be insistent that I show I was really doing something. Again this isn't even close in any sense to what I will have when I am finished. All I wanted was to quickly lay out the texts to see what happened when I did. I was greatly encouraged to press on after I finish my next major commitment at the end of November.
It is ironic in the highest sense to me that God (like it or not that is my perspective) has used the people that have had some of the greatest growth impact on my spiritual life.">>
Well, that's what us freethinkers do, we stimulate thinking and intellectual growth.
have fun,
Darrel
***
And didn't respond to this one because ST said not to because he blocked my email...
snip...
I am not pursuing the Freethinker Challenge in trying to win any prize (my oldest daughter would love the goat), or the approval or validation of the FF's. I no longer have any intention to submit my work to you for evaluation. I know that you cannot adequately do so because of what you told me, thus you removed any motivation to pursue the Challenge with your organization. I have given you the rough draft to show that I really had done what I said I had done, started the project. But we both know that even presenting it in person would be pointless. Nothing I can say, or write can persuade you that you are wrong.
I am however starting communication with potential publishers, and received acknowledgment today from Josh McDowell ministries of my contact. I will email Ravi Zacharias and Kay Arthur ministries later this week.
I find it most enlightening that freethinkers reject all religious authority, including Jesus as you pointed out, and yet turn to ecclesiastical authority to deny the possibility of reconciling the texts as in the case of "peer reviewed research" and comments by Christian leaders that you depend on. "Most freethinkers are agnostics, atheists, and deists." but there is no supernatural because science disproves it according to you and [...], so the poor agnostics and deists are tolerated until they wise up? Darrel, is this rational thinking? You are seriously self deceived to be blunt. Sorry, but there is no delicate way to say it.
No, I am reconciling the texts out of a love for Jesus and my brothers and sisters in Christ, using the gifts I have been given. I want to leave this behind as a legacy, what I can do for my Savior after what he did for me. And I want to do it for those who are still seeking, those who are free thinkers who are looking for genuine answers.
You would enjoy nothing more than showing me that the issues in Scripture and scientific evidence conspire to remove all reasonable doubt to the statement that God does not exist. I would enjoy nothing more than seeing you come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. So it is, an irresistible force meets an immovable object.
There I have wasted more of my time on an email to you, and you have wasted more of your time on an email to me. You and I both have precious little of it to spare. Someday we die, maybe tomorrow. If you are right we both will die believing we did what we really wanted to do in life and that's it, we're gone and none of this conversation mattered. If I am right, we both die believing we did what we really wanted to do in life, and then we give an account for ourselves. So either way we both did what we really wanted to do here and now. But since the possibility there is something beyond the material exists, something others have born witness to, no matter how small you want to make the possibility, then there is a much greater chance that the one who prepares for it will have the opportunity to enjoy what is to come.
Darrel, freethinking may be rational, but it is not logical. I will take the second option hands down every time.
I have learned much. But my wife has gone to bed alone and frustrated with me for spending my time on the computer emailing you with no point to it. I live with her, you I can get along without.
Don't bother emailing back, it won't make it to my inbox. But you have helped me a great deal. I am more firm in my faith than ever. Say or think anything of me you like.
Live long and prosper, and may the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, ancestors of Jesus the Messiah, the King who is to come and who will judge the living and the dead, including you and I, have mercy on your soul. May he open the eyes of your spiritual understanding and grant you repentance unto eternal life.
I will be praying for you and [...].
***
Oct 15th, this one arrives, which I will now respond to.
Hey, Darrel! I know, I know, I said I wouldn't be contacting you until after the first of the year. Thanks for being understanding about the address block.
When did I say I was understanding about the email block?
It has been a help to know there wouldn't be any emails I felt like I had to get back to you on.
But this is like setting a dish of candy in front of a starving kid. I sneak in moments in the cracks of my days to look over the texts. Some are serious study moments, others are just skimming and reflecting. But the net result has left me with one question that I am dying to ask, because I really do take seriously the admonition to not leave any details out.
Any notion that you are a detail man was set aside long ago.
So the question is, what on earth are you using for a translation and source material?
I owned about 15 translations before the internet. But this hardly relevant. If you think you are going to solve these problems (and of course you do) by appealing to a little translation hopscotch, you are mistaken.
I am dumbfounded that a serious Bible student like yourself could have missed all the details in the passages.
I understand you are dumbfounded, but what detail did I miss in any passage? You forgot to provide an example. Freethinkers require assertions to be backed up with examples and evidence. You forgot that part. You're not in church.
They leap off the pages for me. Maybe knowing what you are reading might assuage my curiosity. It isn't a big deal, more like sand in my shoe. Just curious.
What am I reading?
No, I am still not interested in presenting my work at a Fayetteville Freethinker gathering.
Excellent. That works out perfectly with our plans because:
a) this challenge says nothing about an opportunity to lecture
b) we require a threshold of competency for that sort of things, and you clearly don't meet it.
I really think it would throw a kink in the works as far as your less committed members are concerned. But I will be inviting as many as would like to come to a public presentation. I am however working on a getting a considerably larger venue. I will get back to you on that.
Barnhill is available for rent, and you might also consider Bud Walton Arena. It's very nice. Remember to turn down the reverb on the PA. It can be a little boomy when the place is empty.
One last thing you mentioned that I need to respond to:
Dar [said]: "Hey ST, if you don't want to reveal whether you are an inerrantist or not, that's quite okay. Oops, I guess you kinda did though. I can't imagine a person who isn't an inerrantist, being reticent to admit it. I'm not going to make fun of you for it. Being an inerrantist is burden enough (oops, I guess I did).">>
ST: "Well, I was assuming that your powers of deductive reasoning were more refined, but, to put it bluntly, you blew it. And since you only had two choices, you don't get to guess again.">>
No need to guess again. Having authored a book on the doctrine of biblical inerrancy 15 years ago (do try to pay attention) I am well aware that like all inerrantists, your variation will necessarily have included an entire boatload of waffles, caveats, qualifiers, asterisk, footnotes and usually just for good measure, contradictions. That's par for the course. If you weren't an inerrantist, you would have plainly said so.
Sorry. I hope you aren't PO'd by that, but as I told you (and unfortunately like me you weren't listening to someone trying to communicate to you) since you are neither spiritually mature (your decision) nor a close friend (my decision), my guess is that will produce some tension between us. And there you go, yet another brick in the wall. But that's what happens when I assume too much. You are so right though, being an inerrantist is a burden when so many misunderstand the issues. Are you in that camp?
No, having my senses intact, I am not in the inerrantist camp. I do however on occasion give them a good public thrashing.
Anyway, get back to me when you can on the textual question. Since you were raised in a JW home maybe I should check out the NW Translation. Maybe that would fill in some blanks for me.
I have a section on my book revealing specifically the problems with that translation, and a few others.
Then again, maybe not. Might just add more fuel to the fire, and it's already pretty hot.
I have unblocked your email addy so you can respond.
That problem has been solved. I don't have time for private instruction, but I'll be glad to help you out in this public forum. You can remain anonymous if you like. But no more of this nonsense of sending an email and then running away like a grade school child. Have the courage to stand up for what you believe, or run. It doesn't matter to me.
D.
--------------
“Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;” 1 PET. 3:15
“. . . ye should earnestly contend for the faith.” Jude 3
"Run away, run away!" --Monty Python (Holy Grail) (audio) http://tinyurl.com/5sj3fvj"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
