The 25 fulfilled prophecies of Isaiah chapter 53

[paximperium]

But a cell coming directly from non-living chemicals?
It would be absurd. If anyone was claiming such a thing, that is...

Man, it would be even more absurd that someone would claim that entire human being was made from dust from the ground or a woman could be made from a rib.

 

[Tanstaafl]

Don't be silly, no one would believe that!

 

[zooterkin]

I want to say I am not promoting HBHG, it is surpassed in woo only by the one about the ark...

Indiana Jones?

 

[tsig]

Don't be silly, no one would believe that!

Magic fruit and talking snakes? Nah, who would be dumb enough to believe that fairy tale.

 

[DOC]

DOC, it's rather clear here that DOC is using semantics again to pretend accuracy.

His point is that there is no thread that he started with the exact title," The 100 most influential people." Obviously, you, Slingblade and others were referring to "thread" in the sense of context and what was discussed. Not in the sense of titles and OP. If DOC was honest with himself, he would use the context of the thread and admit his error.

You've got the right to your opinion about semantics but least something good came out of Slingblades inaccurate statement in post 421. Because of it Ducky came in out the blue and brought in this thread about the troubling views of atheist Peter Singer. Now more people will know about this influential atheist academic who has been compared to Nazi Martin Borman.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=105421

 

[Hokulele]

When your OP lies in tattered shreds, derail, derail, derail.

DOC, in classic Old Testament prophecy, the history leading up to the issue is described, the issue is described, the required actions to correct the issue are described, then the expected punishment for failure to carry out those actions is described. Please explain how Isaiah fits this format and yet manages to support your point.

(Hint, it doesn't.)

 

[kmortis]

When your OP lies in tattered shreds, derail, derail, derail.

DOC, in classic Old Testament prophecy, the history leading up to the issue is described, the issue is described, the required actions to correct the issue are described, then the expected punishment for failure to carry out those actions is described. Please explain how Isaiah fits this format and yet manages to support your point.

(Hint, it doesn't.)

 

[joobz]

You've got the right to your opinion about semantics but least something good came out of Slingblades inaccurate statement in post 421.

Inaccurate semantically, Completely on target contextually.

Now, Why not discuss the OP?

Where's Jesus' kids? Who'd he have sex with?

 

[DOC]

It shows you're a freaking liar.

I showed 6 posts of you citing that.

Posts are not threads. People complain if I'm not accurate about something but then its no big deal if they aren't accurate when making a derogatory post about me. But I am glad you brought in posts and URLs from some of my past threads like "The Incredible odds of fulfilled bible prophecy" and "The Troubling Beliefs of an "Influential" Atheist".

One of the threads most certainly did have a title reflecting that post. Please try clicking the licks I provide. The first one (ie. the word "it") has the title of "The most influential person in history." That was started by applecorped. You started a thread about "the troublesome words of an influential atheist" and that also is included in the links above.

Yes, the thread was started by applecorped (which I bolded above), thank you for "now" pointing that out.

So you are a liar.

No, I'm a guy in which slingblade strongly implied in post 421 I started a thread I didn't start. I strongly implied there is no such thread started by me (which is true). And I completely forgot the other thread started by someone else. I can barely remember all my own threads I've started much less someone elses.

This is just another example of how people so loosely throw out the word liar regarding me at any shred of possiblility. It's a get the messenger in any way possible mentality.

 

[DOC]

When your OP lies in tattered shreds, derail, derail, derail

I notice you didn't complain about the long derail that was posted in the 3rd post of this thread by someone else. I think I know the reason, it wasn't posted by me.

 

[Hokulele]

I notice you didn't complain about the long derail that was posted in the 3rd post of this thread by someone else. I think I know the reason, it wasn't posted by me.

No, I didn't complain as it wasn't an obvious dodge of outstanding questions relating to the OP. Speaking of dodging questions relating to the OP, how about addressing the majority of my post which you snipped?

*Ahem*

DOC, in classic Old Testament prophecy, the history leading up to the issue is described, the issue is described, the required actions to correct the issue are described, then the expected punishment for failure to carry out those actions is described. Please explain how Isaiah fits this format and yet manages to support your point.

(Hint, it doesn't.)

 

[joobz]

Posts are not threads....

Very true. Posts aren't threads. But if a thread drifts into discussing a topic, is it wrong to describe the thread by the new topic being discussed?

Actually, don't answer that. It's not important.

What's important here is that this biblical scholar clearly questions Luke's historical accuracy. Indeed, I believe he used the term "complete nonsense" in describing Luke's census story.

Time 5:57-7:00

 

[DOC]

No, I didn't complain as it wasn't an obvious dodge of outstanding questions relating to the OP.

So, in your mind its OK for someone to derail Doc's thread as long as you perceive it's not about dodging questions. Do you believe post #3 was inappropriate and a derail?

 

[joobz]

So, in your mind its OK for someone to derail Doc's thread as long as you perceive it's not about dodging questions.

No. it's not ok to derail a thread. It is ok to make jokes, provided they don't distract from the content of the thread.

So, let's rerail the thread...

 

[Hokulele]

So, in your mind its OK for someone to derail Doc's thread as long as you perceive it's not about dodging questions. Do you believe post #3 was inappropriate and a derail?

The very first line of post #3 is completely on topic and you have since avoided addressing that issue kmortis brought up.

The best way to handle inappropriate posts or derails is to ignore them and focus on the OP.

So, care to address any of the serious points people have raised, or would you rather continue your pathetic, whinging martyrdom and hope that people fail to realize that you will not, or cannot, address the issues?

 

[pizzadeliveryninja]

Perhaps we should just claim that the word 'thread' was used as a metaphor and clearly refers to 'posts'. If it works for some...

 

[slingblade]

No, I'm a guy in which slingblade strongly implied in post 421 I started a thread I didn't start.

I most carefully worded what I said so that no one was named or implied as the thread starter. I did so, because I did not remember who started the thread, and didn't care to spend time looking. So, I simply said your posts were "in that thread," and attributed it to no one. However...

Watch me carefully here, DOC. I'm about to show how a particular thing is done. You might find it helpful, to see it by example.

I should have done the checking, because I conflated all the various posts you have made regarding "the most influential people," in various threads started by various people, into one thread. If I had looked first, I'd have seen that I was wrong in that conflation.

There was no one, single thread that holds all your posts about "the most influential people," and so in that, I was mistaken, and I retract.

Now, see how easy that is? And it doesn't even hurt, or make one's brain bleed, or anything! I swear!

However, you have made more than one post about "the most influential people," and you have tied that to religious figures, and I do--still--come away from re-reading those posts with the opinion that you were making a fallacious ad populum type of argument with them.

That, I do not retract.

 

[joobz]

That, I do not retract.

And you do not need to. Interesting is that DOC seems to believe that by you being wrong on a minor, tangential point, that it somehow invalidates all other points you've made. This is obviously wrong when you express it as such, but it's clear that this is what he hopes people will take away.

It is the same logic that allows him to claim that because Luke wrote about real cities and events, that it magically makes the ressurection also true.

It's likely the same reason why he is so reluctant to admit error.

 

[paximperium]

And you do not need to. Interesting is that DOC seems to believe that by you being wrong on a minor, tangential point, that it somehow invalidates all other points you've made. This is obviously wrong when you express it as such, but it's clear that this is what he hopes people will take away.

It is the same logic that allows him to claim that because Luke wrote about real cities and events, that it magically makes the ressurection also true.

It's likely the same reason why he is so reluctant to admit error.

I noticed that as well.

He enjoys the little and inconsequential victories in his debates as if that somehow makes all of the major failures somehow disappear. He also enjoys glossing over major points and attempting to nitpick little points. An example is his post:

None. I apologize, I misread that statement.

DOC never admits any mistakes or ever being wrong no matter how wrong he is or when he is caught in a lie.

That statement was part of the drinking game. If DOC ever admits faulty logic, then we should all down an entire bottle. Since he will never ever admit being wrong, we won't become too drunk.

Joobz will tell you I've admitted to being wrong about something at least 2 times. So you are incorrect again.

In this scenario he attempt to deflect that simple fact that he lies constantly and refuses to admit his falsehoods repeated by the nitpick of claiming that "never" is false because he has admitted error twice. That is true but it does not invalidate his dishonesty which I actually believe he delusional enough to believe somehow disappears.

It is a very sad and rather pathetic way of debating but it probably gives some delusional boost his ego.

 

[Dancing David]

Indiana Jones?

No, that would be cool, the authors of Holy Blood Holy Grail also wrote:

But maybe it wasn't them, they try to find the ark in Ethiopia, i fell asleep.