DOC's Proof of Christianity Through Irrelavent Fact Attrition

[UnrepentantSinner]

That is unless you don't want the readers to read them for some reason.

Actually we hope any lurkers out there who can stomach your BS will read every thread you have started so they can see how full of brown you are, that you unleash most of your vitriol on women like Hokulele, that you don't support assertions you make in your posts, that you don't counter arguments against assertions you make in your posts, that you still haven't mastered even the most basic forum UBB codes and funcitons, that you repeatedly bump dead threads you've started months after you've been smacked down in them ignoring the fact that you were smacked down in them, and that you seem are utterly unable to understand what a primary source is.

Please don't let reality interfere with your persecution fantasy, but those of us who see you for the boob you are love it when more people read your threads and see that to be the case.

 

[shadron]

Sorry, fooled again by posting dates.

 

[six7s]

Bump

Did the earth move for you?

Well since you make statements like these, and this thread is about me and the information in my threads then I have every right to list my threads and let the people judge for themselves. That is unless you don't want the readers to read them for some reason.

Ummm... have you really forgotten that reality differs, significantly, with what you like to believe?

Thanks to the standard Find all threads started by DOC link on your Profile page anyone with even rudimentary interweb skills can easily find a summary detailing the diversity and depths to which your (uniformly absurd) delusions extend

Instead, you could have used your time and bandwidth to answer some simple, yet curiously overlooked, questions

 

[joobz]

And just for the record, that statement joobz made in the first paragraph of this thread about me never answering the "so what" question is blatantly false and Joobz since then has agreed it was false statement.

DOC, you edited your post after my reply AGAIN?!?!?
Such behavior is quite deceitful and maliciously dishonest.

Especially, since you refer to the very apology which proved you to be a dishonest fraud. I'm glad you do this. It simply proves how duplicitous you are.

 

[chris epic]

DOC take a look at this, I'm not trying to attack you...

Inform people that a lot of history we've has been taught has been packaged by secularists.

That's cool and all but I think the bottom line is that this information you're giving us doesn't have a whole lot of baring for anyone that might be trying to figure out whether or not God and the divinity of Jesus Christ are facts. I believe that this is why your "information" is facing so much adversity, I'll try to explain:

For example, how many Americans do you think knew that the Viking Leif Erickson preached the gospel in Greenland

I remember someone responded to this in a previous thread. His evidence on Leif was that he was more or less trying to make his mom happy. "While I'm out there advancing my father's 'kingdom,' I guess I can drop them pagans a line about Jesus." i.e. "My heart and spirit really aren't with Christianity, but I'll do it for you"

or that Columbus said he got the inspiration for his voyage from the Holy Spirit and wrote a book called the "Book of Prophesies".

Again, this really doesn't matter because, as someone explained to you before, Columbus, regardless of his religious convictions, didn't act very Christian in his religio-political/riches and power driven explorations. He participated in genocide, advocated slavery, etc, etc. So its really meaningless to say "Hey, this guy was a Christian, so that validates the existence of God and Jesus," when the Christian guy did unspeakable and un-Christian things.

But one has to wonder why a guy who is mostly just putting information out there is being attacked so much. If someone tells me info that I never knew about in a thread, I'd be more likely to thank them than attack them.

I'm not attacking you, I just want you to get a clue why you're being attacked by others. You think you're doing a service by offering historical data that substantiates or validates Christianity. No body would want to substantiate or validate Christianity unless they were ultimately trying to validate the existence of God and the divinity of Christ. With this as your motive, you fall short. Your historical data fails to substantiate anything.

"So what" or "what’s your point" might sound a little rude, but I think it illustrates your unwillingness to come right out with your agenda: "I am trying to validate the existence of God and the divinity of Jesus Christ with my historical data that has been grossly unrepresented by secular academia." But you won't come right out and say it, and your evidence still fails to support your agenda, and therefore it looks foolish.

Does that make sense?

 

[shadron]

[I am trying to] Inform people that a lot of history we've has been taught has been packaged by secularists.

I can tell that you didn't have the advantage of a fine Catholic school education, DOC. We learned all kinds of things from our Imprimatured books that isn't on the typical historical menu; how it should have been called the protestant reformation, but rather the protestant revolution, and how Queen Mary of the Scots was actually innocent. And how the Irish monks most certainly got here first. Of course, if you're an Anglican, perhaps the Catholic history wouldn't have been the right one, either.

For example, how many Americans do you think knew that the Viking Leif Erickson preached the gospel in Greenland or that Columbus said he got the inspiration for his voyage from the Holy Spirit and wrote a book called the "Book of Prophesies". Or that Jefferson was a frequent Church goer who attended Church services in a government building.

Even in our somewhat biased world of catholicism we didn't learn about that stuff. Maybe it was because they didn't have a lot of relevance (to Catholics) or perhaps they are exaggerations, just as the Irish monks were. Having thrown off one set of biases (as I see it), I won't gladly accept another from you without more than a Christian opinion. Rehnquist obviously doesn't like the establishment clause (or rather what the results of it have been), but note that his famously quoted argument was a dissent; in other words, more justices disagreed with him than not. And Jefferson did write what he wrote, without equivocation.

 

[DOC]

1)the very title of the forum is false because I never said the facts I give are "Proof of Christianity".

2)the statement "it is the quantity of arguments rather than the quality of the arguments that he is going for".

3)the statement "The validity of any of these claims (the facts I present) are not important to him."

4)"ACLU Lawyer" Leo Pfeffer and Justice Hugo "KKK" Black invented the phrase separation of church and state "out of thin air" in 1947.

5)the statement "any" attempt at refutation is "attacking the messenger".

I am adding several more so please don't respond for 15 minutes.

#6) the statement I said Indians are better off on reservations.

#7) the statement, the "so what" question goes unanswered.

#8) the statement that the list you made is an "exact" representation and summary of "all" of DOC's points. This has to be the weirdest statement of them all.

Isn't libel against the law?

Well joobz is at it again in another thread. I've already pointed out the falsehoods in this thread above but he's made another list in another thread. Here is that list:

DOC doesn't understand why LUCA can't be claimed to definitely be a single cell
DOC doesn't understand horizontal gene transfer
DOC can't define Life
DPC doesn't understand the energy neutral natural of the universe
DOC quote mines to missrepresent history
DOC believes Native Americans are better off because of christian europeans
DOC believes that women are secondary to men (By biblical law) and that women WANT to be secondary to men
DOC believes that nations with higher atheist populations have higher suicide rates (even when the data proves otherwise)
DOC believes that elvis' music was great because he was a christian
DOC believes that even though the greatest charitable givers were atheists (e.g., Warren Buffett, Bill Gates), thier works will be evil because they are atheist.
DOC beleives that the world is getting worse and worse.

if you want sources for any of these claims, I will be happy to provide them. I just do not have time to dig them all out at this point


I will get to the falsehoods, misleading statements, and cherry picked out of context statements in his new list at my leisure. The main reason I'm even doing this is that some people have not read my other threads and this will be a good oppurtunity to reexamine what I believe is important info that is not taught in public schools. Once again this will be at my leisure, so I might not respond quickly to any replies.

 

[Hokulele]

... what I believe is important info that is not taught in public schools...

It is not taught in public schools due to the fact that it is BS.

 

[DOC]

Falsehood #1 in joobz new list

DOC believes that even though the greatest charitable givers were atheists (e.g., Warren Buffett, Bill Gates), thier works will be evil because they are atheist.

Nowhere does Warren Buffet or Bill Gates admit to being atheists. They admit they are agnostic and you know this because we've already talked about this.

And nowhere did I say what you say I believe.

 

[Hokulele]

DOC believes that even though the greatest charitable givers were atheists (e.g., Warren Buffett, Bill Gates), thier works will be evil because they are atheist.

Nowhere does Warren Buffet or Bill Gates admit to being atheists. They admit they are agnostic and you know this because we've already talked about this.

And nowhere did I say what you say I believe.

And this helps your case how exactly?

 

[DOC]

Falsehood #2

"DOC believes that elvis' music was great because he was a christian."

Well I do not believe Elvis was a born again Christian, but he did record a tremendous amount of Gospel music. And nowhere did I say what you say I believe.

 

[Hokulele]

Falsehood #2

"DOC believes that elvis' music was great because he was a christian."

Well I do not believe Elvis was a born again Christian, but he did record a tremendous amount of Gospel music. And nowhere did I say what you say I believe.

Wrong. You did speculate that god gave Elvis his talent due to the fact that Elvis was a christian.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3011902#post3011902

 

[DOC]

Wrong. You did speculate that god gave Elvis his talent due to the fact that Elvis was a christian.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3011902#post3011902

No, you and joobz are wrong. If I said God gave Elvis his talent because he was a Christian then joobz would have been right. I said "maybe". You need to be accurate when criticising someone. Scientists shouldn't cut corners on accuracy. Didn't joobz say he did science research.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Truth #1

DOC has a strange habit of bumping months old threads for no apparent reason other than rehash dead issues or grouse about content in other threads.

 

[DOC]

joobz false statement #3

"DOC believes that women are secondary to men (By biblical law) and that women WANT to be secondary to men"

Nowhere did I say woman are secondary to men. I said the man should be the spiritual head of the house but the man and woman are equal before God. I also said "most" women want the man to be the spiritual head of the household. If you want Bob to be the captain of your sports team you don't later say I want to be secondary to Bob.

Another example of shabby accuracy.

More falsehoods will be coming.

 

[DOC]

Truth #1

DOC has a strange habit of bumping months old threads for no apparent reason other than rehash dead issues or grouse about content in other threads.

And you have a stranger habit of keep entering them.

 

[cyborg]

No, you and joobz are wrong. If I said God gave Elvis his talent because he was a Christian then joobz would have been right. I said "maybe".

No, you said "Maybe that's one of the reasons God gave him such incredible talent."

Not:

"Maybe God gave him such incredible talent."

How stupid do you think we are - or alternatively - how grammatically incompetent are you?

The meaning is quite clear - out of all the reasons god gave Elvis talent maybe one of them was his deferrence to knowing how the real "King" was. Not that god might have given Elvis talent.

Your attempt to back-out of this plain as day statement because it's cornered your position is pathetic.

 

[Henners]

"most" woman want the man to be the spiritual head of the household

Another example of invented statistics.

(If a politician did that, he'd be accused of lying.)

 

[Henners]

How stupid do you think we are

Well, you ARE taking part...

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

And you have a strange habit of keep entering them.

Some of us know how to use forum functions like the subscription list.