funinspace

Hey Willowtree,
Tell you what...I've been thinking, and I realized that though it's been somewhat fun, in a way, pushing your buttons within the confines of the rules here, I should really back off and give you another chance. You know it's kind of the Christian (so to speak) thing to do anyway. So I will call your savant Mr. Scott or G. Scott. And I'll work towards staying with reasonable questions. Though I don't really consider myself your harshest critic. Did you notice that I never demanded that Hitler was Christian, but just that I really wouldn't know for sure either way. And that is why I asked for your criteria for calling any genocidal maniac atheist, not just Hitler. Or just what heinous crimes would automatically get one classified as "not a Christian"?

My point of asking you to substantiate your claims of Mr. Scott's "eminence" is that this word implies that that the world outside his sphere of influence recognizes his skills. Yet I have never heard of such. It shouldn't be too hard to find quotes of other scholars and such that compliment Mr. Scott if he is truly "eminent" in said fields. So you should be able to substantiate that word usage. If you would dial back your statements to saying something like "I find Dr. Scott's knowledge to be of the highest caliber" or sum such, then it would fall within the realm of your personal opinion. But that is not what you said. So I ask what is so wrong with what I ask of you? How is my question unreasonable?

WILLOWTREE

Okay F-Space:

The rants against Dr. Scott do not bother me per se because I know that is what happens when the inability to refute is present.

What bothers me is wasting my time, only to have opponents "win" by moving the topic to an arena that by arguing in recognizes the validity of the rationale of the inferior Forum.

When the topic was moved - I won the arguments ABOUT 2Kings 2.

Admin rage because of those arguments is the real reason and every one knows the reasons stated are a phony front to insult arguments that they have no answer for.

I ignored some of the Dr. Scott stuff because I wanted to argue about 2Kings 2.

Now that I won the argument at least by deliberate fault I will answer your Dr. Scott issues.

Your thing about Scott is: "IF he was as you say, or even close I/F-Space would of heard of him in this respect."

WT/Reply: This assumes you are current on ALL sources of scholarship. I contend that your atheism (no insult intended) has caged your sphere of knowing what is going on in the world of theist scholarship.

Evidently I am correct because not knowing who Dr. Scott is does not render my claims untrue.

Doctors know doctors.

Actors know actors.

Musicians know musicians.

Ceo's know ceo's.

Scholars know scholars.

EVERYONE knows Dr. Scott in the scholarly world - now YOU know.

He is the eminent authority on anceint mss to the utter pain in the ass to the British Museum and Huntington and N.Y. Central. He has outbid all of them for coveted mss on the auction block for some time now.

In my opinion, whether they admit it or not, the Jesus Seminar was created to try and negate Dr. Scott's research.

The most obvious reason Dr. Scott is unknown in general mainstream quarters is because he is a T.V. Bible teacher. He never publishes, his calling by God is to tell the world what THE BIBLE SAYS via live teaching on his network.

We at his church routinely screen out fake accounts of persons attempting to buy the tapes of his teaching by scholars and Pastor's who steal his material so they can present a watered down version to their congregations.

Because his teaching is oral it is plagarized beyond comprehension.

Dr. Scott says the greatest greek scholar in the world is Daniel B. Wallace.

BUT, in my opinion, based on this fact:

He can by memory write on the 3 clear boards what ANY ancient mss says in any dead language and break down the grammar and syntax and every element without notes. This means Dr. Scott is not a specialist - he is a specialist in ALL the dead languages unlike Wallace who is only in greek.

See for yourself. He routinely takes any Romans verse and writes it in 4 or 5 dead languages then compares each translation with the others then explains the whys and whats and everything.

Dr. Scott is the greatest greek, hebrew, ethipoic, arabic, syriac, aramaic, etc. etc. scholar.

How do I know ?

Just listen and watch. It is apparent. There is no other beside Dr. Scott.

In the world of theism - Dr. Scott is the Prince of Scholars.

Whether anyone in the secular world admits it does not make it untrue NOR in the secular world.

Dr. Scott built a worldwide network on this basis:

IF you have learned at my table then pay what you think it is worth.

The hundreds of millions of dollars of assets the church owns proves what people think.

Name one person in the history of mankind that can do what he has done based on: pay what you think it is worth.

I will read your reply but I am through here - nothing to gain when atheists "win" by insult and Admin powers.

WT

Amaleq13

Your Honor, the Defense's Client clearly wishes to have his cake and eat it, too. Despite willingly subjecting Himself to human judgment on human standards of what constitutes moral behavior, the Defense wishes to change the rules of this court in such a way that the concept of morality is redefined into meaninglessness.

This may be true in the his Client's courtroom but it is clearly not the case for the courtroom in which this same Client has agreed to stand trial. The Defense has attempted to argue that the Prosecution is somehow imposing its own personal standards when that is clearly not the case. The standards are those which are shared by all rational humans. As has already been pointed out, this would appear to include Defense Counsel in that he, too, condemns the willful slaughter of innocent children by way of a directed bear attack. Rather than attempt to argue that this act was not immoral, Defense Counsel seeks to 1) claim his Client exempt from the standards of morality this court applies to everyone brought before the Bench and 2) claim that his Client's self-imposed obligation to fulfill the curse somehow frees his Client from being held morally responsible for the actions involved in that fulfillment. I am sure the Court recognizes that neither of these are legitimate. The former, as was stated previously, renders this entire trial a sham while the latter clearly fails any rational consideration. His Client's self-imposed obligation in no rational way changes the immoral nature of the act.

On the contrary, your Honor, the standard being applied is one that is applied to everyone brought before your Bench. In fact, and most damning, most of his Client's followers eagerly assert that they derive this moral standard FROM THE ACCUSED!!! His Client wishes to be exempt from a standard to which his Client holds everyone else! This might be fine in his Client's courtroom but it is clearly unacceptable here.

To recognize the truth of what I am saying, your Honor, we need only ask Defense Counsel if they would consider it immoral if anyone except his Client were to cause bears to maul children regardless of any self-imposed obligation the individual felt compelled them to the act. If his Client is truly submitting Himself to the standards of this Court, there can be no such exception and his Client can only be considered just as guilty of immoral behavior as anyone else in the same circumstances.

I agree that it was a "tragic decision" on the part of his Client to choose to fulfill the curse spoken by the alleged prophet. I am still unclear how the Defense can describe a curse spoken by another as something his Client has said will happen. Even if we assume, however, that his Client felt somehow honor bound to fulfill the curse, that, in no way, changes the immoral nature of the action.

Your Honor, silencing such criticisms is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether the actions caused by his Client were immoral. That this allegedly omniscient Entity allowed Himself to be placed in such a situation is not the Court's problem and does not change the reprehensible nature of the act.

This should be sufficient for the Court to render a guilty verdict. None of the Defense's attempts to justify his Client's actions changes the fact that the actions, according to the standards of morality that apply to all humans and upon which this Court is founded, can only be considered utterly immoral and worthy of condemnation.

Your Client is guilty of the charge of immoral behavior in deliberately causing bears to maul children. That it was done in a misguided attempt to keep His "word" is entirely irrelevant to determining guilt. Perhaps your Honor might take it into consideration in deciding the sentence?

Weltall

You walk off in a huff and say you won't return, then come back because you have a deep-seated masochistic streak and can't admit that you've lost?
Every other poster would disagree, but don't let that get in the way of your persecution complex.
Cry me a river. You lost and everyone knows it. :boohoo:
Running away from the debate doesn't make you the victor.
Funny... an upper-level biblical studies class meets right before a class of mine every day. I came in early and asked the professor if he'd heard of 'Dr' Scott. Never heard of him.
I imagine he's a pain in the ass because he talks about things he is unqualified to discuss professionally. His qualifications (suspect as they are) do not include ancient languages.
Then as has already been noted, he has as much right to call himself a Doctor as Kent Hovind. I.E. not at all.
In other words, you want to prevent real scholars from critically analyzing his statements.
Can you understand ancient Greek, Arabic, Aramaic and Latin? If not, how do you know he is translating them properly?
Once more, no formal qualifications in the relevent fields.
Real scholars appear to think otherwise.
Once can not justifiably claim to be the leading scholar in a field if no other scholars acknowledge them as such.
It proves that people are idiots, but that doesn't help your case much...
Don't have to, as it has nothing to do with the qualifications of the individual concerned.
You said that last time too. Do you promise to stay away this time?

g-21-lto

The problem with this argument is that there are plenty of times in the Bible where God or a prophet pronounced doom on a certain group of people and God ended up backing out. God specifically told Abraham to kill Isaac, and then said differently at the last minute. The story of Jonah at Nineveh is also good example. God SAID he would destory the city, yet he did not. Am i mistaken on this? Did God put a qualifier on that -- I will destroy the city unless it repents?

Even so, the children who ridiculed the prophet were not given the same chance as Isaac with the "second command from God" or Nineveh with the forgiveness. What kind of consistency is God showing?

Bilbato

I take it you haven't read much about the literature that was written during the abolitionist movement. Take for example "Uncle Tom's Cabin" which was a fictional piece, or "1984". If people can write pieces of fiction as degrading to the human species as that, as horrific as they are, I think it would be safe to assume, since you seem to enjoy assumptions so much, that it is feasibly within the reach of a human to create such a story about this supposed God of yours and the mauling of those 40 some kids.

See, what happens with fiction, is that it tries to portray some sort of insight into reality. The author writes the fictional piece in order to expand his own awareness of reality and possibility of the future and events that occured or could possibly occur.

And if you want, as I am a writer, I will write you a pice about a god that destroys all life on the earth, oh wait, the Christians have done that by degrading man to nothing more then a clump of dirt.

funinspace

Willowtree,

Not to debate this any further...but did you read the dictionary definition of "eminent"?
You are correct that my not knowing of him means diddly. However, this does in no way make you correct either.

If this were true then you would have no trouble finding quotes citing him in print, thereby proving your assertion. And if fact if it were true, you could find quotes far faster than your continued defense of your word choice. I maintain that you are choosing a very poor word, which does not fit.

The funny thing is that by fighting to keep this kind of word usage, you only hurt your arguments. Words are a bridge to convey ideas. If we don't stick to the common meaning for words when we discuss things, it becomes very hard to communicate. I'll give you another example away from the apparently heated discussion of "scholarship".

I know of a regional musician, Jude Bowerman, who is just an awesome R&B guitarist. Now if I said he was a eminent guitarist, I would be scoffed at. First, simply because most people have not heard of him. Secondly people who do consider this thing and talk about it, have not really ever talked/wrote about him either good or bad. This in no way makes him not a great guitarist, he's just doesn't fit the meaning of the word "eminent".

From apologetics: I probably could fairly say C.S Lewis and Oral Roberts are eminent Christian apologists. But could I say that for Jerry Farwell? He is at least famous. But how many other senior apologists would cite his name, quote his arguments, or compliment his skills? So I think he would seriously fail the test to be called "eminent". We could have a local preacher who is just incredible at speaking on apologetics. But he is an unknown, unspoken of, unwritten about. He also is not eminent.

I guess if this doesn't make sense to you, then I guess there's not much of a point, since it appears we must speak two different languages. I mean if we cannot even come to terms on what one word means, what further could be gained? I could go talk to my dog, and you your cat, and it would be no less productive.

greyline

This was already hinted at a couple of times but not addressed in depth - I think it's fairly crucial:

Is everything that a prophet says (let's call him Fred) supposed to be God speaking through him? Or is the prophet allowed to say things that aren't God speaking through him (eg. "Gee, I'm hungry"; "Hey, how about them Yankees?" etc)? My understanding is that when a prophet makes prophecies, that's God speaking. But otherwise... it's just Fred going about his business. After all - except for Jesus - a prophet is not God.

When the prophet cursed the children, was this Fred's unfortunate mistake or was it God's? Two options:

- If Fred was making a prophecy at that moment, this means that God was speaking through him. So it was God cursing the children, not Fred. It was God who made the mistake and then had to follow through by killing the children.

- If Fred was just calling on wild bears in a pique of human anger, then God had nothing to do with it, and God was under no obligation to follow through.

Which is it?

Willowtree has gone for an illogical hybrid - that God had to follow through on the prophet's curse, even though the curse came from Fred, not from God.