Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[DOC]

another lie.

Joobz your post 10562 doesn't make sense to me I'm asking you to explain it in simple English. Are you capable of doing that?

 

[joobz]

Joobz your post 10562 doesn't make sense to me I'm asking you to explain it in simple English. Are you capable of doing that?

Actually, you didn't ask that. You simply stated the post was unexplained. The explanation was self evident to myself (and many others). But here we go:

You said "It is "never" dishonest to talk about US history."

However, I quoted you talking about american history in a dishonest manner.
Afterall, you quote Jefferson quite frequently and he wrote many things on the Revolution.

 

[DOC]

Notice all the parts that DOC left out?
His lie by omission quoting is open for all to see:

I'm simply replying to the parts I choose to reply to. I've done that probably hundreds of times before, why so emotional now? I think it goes back to what I've often said, and that is when I make an important point it seems like the attack the messenger mode heats up and your post helps support that contention.

And it's hypocritical of you because you've done the same thing before, as have others in here.

 

[I Ratant]

Kinda makes me want to petition TPTB to close this thread. No information is forthcoming and really all we've been doing for the last 20+ pages or so is BSing, Waterman excluded .

What say ye?

.
I say Amen, Brother k, Amen!

 

[paximperium]

I'm simply replying to the parts I choose to reply to. I've done that probably hundreds of times before, why so emotional now? I think it goes back to what I've often said, and that is when I make an important point it seems like the attack the messenger mode heats up and your post helps support that contention.

Still lying DOC?
The parts that you purposefully left out are the parts that actually tear apart all your nonsense. In other words, you left the parts out of the entire post that shows Greenleaf to be outdated and wrong.

You did this on purpose and have been caught doing so.

And it's hypocritical of you because you've done the same thing before, as have others in here.

You are a liar as have been proven 100% as fact.

 

[DOC]

Actually, you didn't ask that. You simply stated the post was unexplained. The explanation was self evident to myself (and many others). But here we go:

You said "It is "never" dishonest to talk about US history."

However, I quoted you talking about american history in a dishonest manner.
Afterall, you quote Jefferson quite frequently and he wrote many things on the Revolution.

Where does Jefferson talk about his experiences in the Revolutionary War in one of my posts.

 

[Simon39759]

No, it is hypocritical of you, because you ignore some part of posts (and entire posts for that matter) and then complain about people not being substantive enough ("the last 20 posts were a waste of time").
It's hypocritical of you to complain about the absence of posts that you, yourself, choose to ignore...

And stop claiming you made an important point, it's just that people are tired of your hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty, you posts are still are dumb as ever.

 

[joobz]

I'm simply replying to the parts I choose to reply to. I've done that probably hundreds of times before, why so emotional now?

Except here, when you do it, you ask questions that were addressed in the parts you omitted.
It is either because,
1.) Have extremely poor reading skills.
2.) Have the attention span of a ferret on meth
or
3.) are dishonest.

 

[DOC]

You are a liar as have been proven 100% as fact.

You got caught because you know you've done it before. Are you denying that?

 

[Simon39759]

And where is option 4: "All of the above"?

 

[paximperium]

Except here, when you do it, you ask questions that were addressed in the parts you omitted.
It is either because,
1.) Have extremely poor reading skills.
2.) Have the attention span of a ferret on meth
or
3.) are dishonest.

I choose all of the above.

 

[Simon39759]

You got caught because you know you've done it before. Are you denying that?

There is a difference between only referring to one part of the post and voluntarily truncating it to make incomplete and then focusing your answer on the absence you yourself artificially created.

The first one is perfectly acceptable, the second one is transparently dishonest.
I can not remember Pax doing the second thing, I have seen you doing it just now...

 

[paximperium]

You got caught because you know you've done it before. Are you denying that?

I have never selectively misquoted someone. You are a liar.

 

[Akhenaten]

Joobz your post 10562 doesn't make sense to me I'm asking you to explain it in simple English. Are you capable of doing that?

You were lying two years ago and you're still doing it. Are you capable of understanding that, Professor?

 

[joobz]

Where does Jefferson talk about his experiences in the Revolutionary War in one of my posts.

Let me get this straight:
Are you claiming that you never read the declaration of Independence?
That you never read Anything by George Washington, Ben Franklin, John Adams, Patrick Henry, John Hancock?

DOC, you in the past have referred to the founding fathers as though they supported your religious views. You can only make such claims if you know about these men and their lives. IF you know and read about their lives, than you know the extent to which the American Revolution influenced them and they the american revolution.

So, now you are in a logical twist.

You must either
1.) Claim to not have read any thing of these mens lives, making all of your appeals to authority nothing more than dishonest hogwash.
or
2.) Admit to having read them and their involvement and admit your claim of the "american revolution" was a dishonest ill-conceived claim.

In either case, your claim ""It is "never" dishonest to talk about US history." is at best false, and at worst another example of your inability to be honest.

 

[Akhenaten]

Where does Jefferson talk about his experiences in the Revolutionary War in one of my posts.

Obviously none of them, given that you claim ignorance of both Jefferson's writings AND the Revolutionary War, stuff that even a heathen savage from Australia is aware of.


How pathetic is that, DOC?

 

[Akhenaten]

You are a liar as have been proven 100% as fact.

You got caught because you know you've done it before. Are you denying that?

 

[Toke]

Here is some easy reading on the US founding fathers, and their motivation for drawing the colony into a war of sessesion.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18442_5-reasons-founding-fathers-were-kind-dicks.html

 

[DOC]

I have never selectively misquoted someone.

I'm not talking about Misquoting someone. I'm talking about taking a portion of a someone's quote and leaving out another portion of that quote. Are you saying you've never done that?

I have done that many times because for one it is easier for the reader to read, and another reason is that the other portions of the quote are not always specifically relevant to the exact point I am making. And If anyone is curious they can always go back to the original post as you have done.

But to call me a liar now for something others in here including yourself have done is ridiculous. It's just the attack the messenger mode on full blast because of the important Greenleaf article brought in here in this post

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5652647#post5652647

 

[joobz]

[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/BFH2.jpg[/qimg]​

Don't feel bad.
DOC, for a long time, accused me of being false regarding his intentions. I, at the time, admitted error and apologized. He would then use it like a shield in debate, lobbing it periodically against me. However, later I caught him contradicting himself, which proved my original statement wasn't false at all, but indeed truthful.

He still never apologized for it...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...75#post2921675