Lothian
should be banned
Doc I am surprised that you say the above given you earlier saidWell one argument why one might say it is truer and clearer is because the New Testament motivated a person like Thomas Jefferson to take the time to cut out 900 verses of it and paste them in a book and call Jesus' teachings the most moral, pure, and sublime ever taught by man.
Why is 10 times the limit for Jesus's teaching people to whip slaves, but you can bring up TJ's cut and paste job 28 times (yes I have counted). Perhaps your memory is slipping, anyway some random responses from earlier.I've already discussed the passage at least 10 times so I'm not going to repeat my response.
And Jefferson was a slave owner and this whole point is a dodge.
How can something be both "the most moral teaching ever known to man" and use slavery parables to teach that morality?
No, those are actual Jefferson quotes, but besides taking them out of context to support his usual line of theocratic BS, I think DOC is pulling them from that fracking, white supremacist web site... again: (http://christianparty.net/tjchristian.htm)
A Google search of the quotes gave it away as a common source. What do you want to bet he'll claim that he didn't know he's using a racist website as a source... again?
DOC shows his true colors... again.
Thanks, DOC. I couldn't find those quotes anywhere. Here's a website that has some more quotes by Jefferson that you should check out:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm
Here's a couple of quotes from Jefferson I think you should pay attention to:
"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being."
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
"Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind."
You'll note that in the quote you used, "A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen" is referring to "I, too, have made a wee-little book from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of d blank book, in a certain order of time or subject." In other words, he's not specifically talking about the Bible, he's talking about his edited version of the Bible where he cuts all the craziness out and just keeps the parts that he likes.
It would, except that by modern standards, I think a lot of people would agree that the morals in the Bible are questionable. You and Jefferson are welcome to your opinion, but that's all it is. My opinion is that the morals of the Bible are archaic and out-of-date. Both of our opinions are subjective, but I think mine is a bit more realistic and unbiased, where as yours is based on a need for the Bible to be real.
DOC, honest question. Do you know the difference between subjective and objective? Could you describe it for me?
And also, I would still really like to hear if you know what a logical fallacy is. Would you mind answering that? Thanks.
I'll take "false dichotomy" for $200, Alex.
Can someone PM me a bingo card?
ETA - with a side of argument from authority.
How many times do you need to be told that these pathetic appeals to authority which you parrot at every opportunity as though they were actual answers to the questions you've been asked before you finally realise that every single person who has even glanced at this thread sees that you have not one whit of the evidence that you undertook to provide in the OP.
The dishonesty of your approach to the matters discussed in this thread is absolutely breathtaking DOC, and you ought to thank your lucky stars that the humour we've been able to extract from the drivel that you post is sufficient distraction from your disgraceful hypocrisy that you aren't treated with the full measure of scorn which your feeble excuses for posts so richly deserve.
You have no right to anything. You've treated everyone posting in this thread with nothing but contempt, and the only expectation you can reasonably hold is that you will be treated likewise in return.
Your posts are nought but lies and hypocrisy DOC, and they've demonstrated, hundreds and hundreds of times, that such is all that you are capable of.
What an absolutely disgraceful performance.
It also didn't stop him saying that the supernatural parts were nonsense, and cutting them out of his version of the bible. Do you only choose to use those of his arguments which agree with you?
A cynic might point out that he tried to salvage the worthwhile parts from the dross.
As he said, there were diamonds in the dung hill.
Again, I have no clue how you can be happy that Jefferson would call the bible a piece of poop.
...and has been pointed out to you repeatedly, none of what he cut out and pasted included the magical bits.
Are you unable to read or simply dense?
ETA: I notice you mention the razor repeatedly. Do you think the razor has some significance?
There's that old argument from incredulity again.
We don’t know what exactly he was referring to. As you are aware, apart from the support of slavery, Jefferson found little in the bible credible.
But I sure many here are prepared to give your question a shot. You list the individual teachings and we will see if we can find out where they originated and who may have created them.
You do realize that a good number of those "moral and sublime" teachings are in no way unique or original to Jesus, yes?
The forged ones that were written by early Christians to support their beliefs. Rather like the forged ones attributed to Paul that made it into the New Testament.
You mean all the non-supernatural accounts from the gospels? Yeah, it could have been lying fishermen, or lying woodworkers, or lying stone carvers. Whatever.
I thnk he meant "Tacitus", not "Pilate"
but they tell s nothing about whether the NT writers told the truth.
We can add 12 one dozen and two little ducks 22 to the tally.
xx | xx | 3 |xx | 5 | xx | xx | xx | 9 | 10
11 | xx | 13 | 14 | xx | xx | xx | xx | xx | xx
xx | xx | xx | xx | xx | xx | xx | xx | 29 | 30
xx | 32 | 33 | xx | xx | xx | xx | xx | xx | 40
41 | xx | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50
That's exactly right. EXACTLY RIGHT! 100% correct,
It's everyone's free will do come to that decision, and everyone has. Have you read this thread at all?
[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/Word5.jpg[/qimg]
You do know of the "Jefferson Bible", where he threw out all the magic stuff, it is a thin book.
Paul
![]()
![]()
![]()
There you go again. You're seeking to provide evidence that what is in the New Testament is true, and the parts which are most open to doubt are those which are supernatural. So of what benefit is it to bring in someone who quite specifically does not believe those parts?
Why the hell does DOC, who firmly believes that the resurrection of Christ is an established fact, keep dragging Thomas Jefferson's name into this thead? DOC, you must know by now that Jefferson's own edited version of the New Testament ends with the burial of Jesus. He rejected all the supernatural elements you are so desperate to believe in. Yes, Jefferson thought that some of Christ's pronouncements were worth salvaging, but this has nothing to do with providing "evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth". We are now on page 208 and you have provided no evidence whatsoever.
Ok, so, Jefferson thought the morality of Jesus was worth following (for the most part). That is no evidence that the NT is factually accurate.
That doesn't make the NT factual any more than arguing that Superman exists if Jefferson were to have believed that the morality of Superman is worth adopting.
Doc, do you even realize what Jefferson was actually telling Adams?
Here's the very first line of the Wiki page you linked to:
So, we have Jefferson discussing his own version of the bible that removes all the supernatural (resurrection/miracles/etc). Using Jefferson's version of the bible hurts rather than helps your argument. Obviously, Jefferson felt the NT writers had not told the truth and this is why he was editing his own "more truthful" version.
Again, the question becomes:
Are you willfully ignorant or do you honestly not see the holes in your "logic"?
Which part of the NT are you claiming is true? The teachings or the miracles and other supernatural parts? Because if it's the former, I don't think you'll find too much opposition; sure, there's no external evidence, but a record of what one man is supposed to have said is a lot more believable than a catalogue of paranormal events. But what most people here are assuming is that you are talking about the latter. If you are agreeing with Jefferson about those, please state that clearly.
ETA:
I'm sorry, are you really saying that the fact that Jefferson didn't believe in the supernatural parts is proof that they were true? Because that's what you seem to be saying.
I sincerely doubt that; Jefferson was intelligent. And it's "wouldn't have", not "wouldn't of".
So... in the ongoing quest to maintain your delusion, you're content to employ unabashed cherry-picking...
Right.
Got it.
Thanks for the clarification.
Please, try harder to remember which lies you have on the boil, and where; your Geiseler lie has been thoroughly debunked on this forum
So you are alright with everything else that Jefferson said about the Bible as well or are you leaving those things out for a reason? If not, tell us why this statement alone matters and not the host of others.
You've got it backwards, it was the lies he left out...
Let me be the first to say
PFFFFFFFFFT!
All those points have been raised, addressed and eliminated from consideration. Now, the only thing left is ridicule.
And I have 3189 pieces of evidence that you don't know what you're talking about.
Do you think someone who kept slaves is the best person to judge what is morally right?
Never mind the slave owning Jefferson. Which is more moral in your opinion? Equaility between the sexes as taught in Sikhism or the Christian view where the man is more important.
I even found one of yours that is relevant
Another post with no examples or sources.
Last edited:
I can cut and paste.