Weltall

All those languages, really? So, care to present his credentials? You know, where he learned the languages, what makes him the 'world's leading authority' aside from your assertions and most importantly where did he get his doctorate and what was it granted for?
You apparently keep a small circle of aquaintances.
If anyone wants to be taken seriously as a scholar, they have to publish articles in peer-reviewed journals. Otherwise they're just noise. That's secondary though, I want to see you answer my first question: Present his credentials.

WILLOWTREE

Toto:

From a previous post - I withdraw this sentence.

WT

WILLOWTREE

Dr. Gene Scott Ph.D. Stanford [1957]

Philosophies of Education degree FROM the university itself and not any department.

His degree is cross departmental, philosophy and religion. (minor degree: psychology)

Doctoral dissertation: Theology of Reinhold Niebuhr.

Dr. Scott is the only person in Stanford's history to request and pass an oral exam in geography.

This risky manuever allowed him to free up time for other studies.

Any Prof could ask him ANY question. He passed.

Dr. Scott says Stanford taught him HOW to learn and research.

Go to www.drgenescott.com

Dr. Scott is the most plagarized man on the Internet.

WT

Jack the Bodiless

In other words:

Dr. Scott, "the worlds leading authority in greek, hebrew, arabic, aramaic, syriac, ethiopic mss and their translations", has NO qualifications that relate to these languages.

Thank you.

Knurd

You are starting to rant. I really think you can do better than this. Responses like this one actually undermine your position. It just makes you look silly.

Several people have responded to your claims. My last post was crafted as carefully as I could make it - it took me about an hour.

Your response ignores anything others have said, and you simply shoot this off the cuff, and basically restate your position LOUDER.

If that's the kind of "intellectualism" your hero mr. scott's encourages in his church, I'm not impressed. If that's the kind of "scholarship" mr. scott is teaching I'm not convinced.

Amaleq13

Objection! Defense counsel is changing the subject, your honor. If we might have the record read back:

It is clear that establishing that "whatever God says will happen" is entirely irrelevant to the question.

With regard to the actual charge, the Defense appears to vacillate between circularly redefining the concept of "moral" to the point of meaninglessness and tacitly acknowledging his Client's guilt:

Clearly, your Honor, this redefinition renders the entire trial a farce and constitutes a waste of The Court's precious bandwidth. The only rational way this trial can be conducted is by consistently applying the same standards defining "moral behavior" to humans to the Defendent.

However, I believe a careful consideration of the Defense Counsel's other statements will reveal that, within the abovedescribed context, he has essentially acknowledged his Client's guilt.

If it was a mistake, i.e. immoral, for the Prophet to make the curse, it can only be considered even more immoral to fulfill it.

Lest there be any confusion, Defense Counsel makes it quite clear that he considers the act of causing bears to kill children an immoral act:

Thus we see that the Defense offers nothing but a logically flawed redefinition of the term "moral" while, within the context of a definition of "moral" as applied to all humanity, clearly acknowledging that the behavior attributed to the Accused in his own Book can only be considered immoral.

In view of this evidence, your Honor, the Accused can only be found guilty.

funinspace

Thank you for acknowledging this.

Again "world leading authority" is a strong statement. I am asking you to substantiate this claim of yours. If he is a leading authority, I would think he would be mentioned on occasion in scholarly theological circles.

I liked what another said, you must keep very small circles. I've had never heard of him outside of your initial claims. In my couple decades as a Christian; during my years living in SoCal as a Christian in a Bible church; during my reading 15-20 Christian apologetic books as my faith wavered; during my reading the gamut of about 40-50 books from atheist, agnostic, liberal Xian, and inerrantist writers Scotty never came up. Like he seams to not even be on the radar screen.

Yes, you've said this many times. The point is, you also make claims of him eminence, his "world leading authority" in half a dozen languages. And you either refuse or cannot substantiate this. Oh that bad word again "refuse", but I at least gave you the possibility of not being able to back this claim up as well. And just so we are clear, here is a dictionary definition of the word "eminence" that I am asking you to back up:
Yahoo dictionary for "eminent": Towering or standing out above others; prominent: an eminent peak. Of high rank, station, or quality; noteworthy: eminent members of the community. Outstanding, as in character or performance; distinguished: an eminent historian.

If he has so much to offer the word in terms of theological knowledge, one would think he would want to reach out to scholars with his incredible ability to analyze the canon and ancient history with some rather unique views at times. You would think he would make at least one attempt to reach the theological publishing world, even if their minds are closed to new/better ideas. He could then say to himself that he at least tried. I find it rather odd. It appears to indicate unwillingness to do so. Ah, did you notice that last part of the previous sentence "to indicate unwillingness to do so"? That just happens to fit the exact definition of "refuse". You know theres another option as long as he does not publish. He could just be a quirky televangelist, with no eminence to speak of. But I'll let you show us otherwise if it is so.

Ah, and none of your statements above is misleading? Hum, interesting since you've been asked to substantiate these claims of yours time after time and yet all you do is say the same thing over again, sometimes LOUDER, like you have nothing to back it up. But yes, bow down to tossing insults verses simply answering the question at hand. It speaks so well for your cause.

Or you could even get back to answering the questions asked several times on how does one discern one murderous person (like Hitler) as atheist, verses another as a good/Christian person. You can scroll up a couple posts to find it. I tend to think that not answering questions is an answer in itself to most people.

gregor

Some other interesting facts about the world's emminent Dr. Scott:

1. he split the atom (in his head, and don't ask for evidence)

2. he solved the mid-east oil crisis (you don't see lines at the pumps any more, do you?)

3. he can recite the entire New York phone book from memory and automatically translate it into Koine (trust me on this one)

4. he can cure cancer with his mind (except of course, his own prostate cancer).

justsumner

After being naive enough to think that creationists, bible "BUH-leivers" ect. really wish to debate ideaologies, I entered into a few arguments. Despite forcing my opponent to proclaim "Well, you just don't believe, so it's moot to YOU!" I realized that people like willowtree really don't want a debate..they want a stage. And after hearing from several coleagues who were too smart to enter into such idiocy, I too have adopted that stance. I would recomend it to all atheists, scientists and others.

here is the URL (I think my publcist did a pretty good job..nice colors.)

http://members.dialmaine.com/drwdavis/debate.htm

Coragyps

That's what WT does best, Knurd. He spent months doing very little else when he was over at EvC.

Hi, WT!