Plagiarism in the NT

[Succubus]

What the fuck are you talking about? Hiding a members posting history is not an option in the user cp.

I never said it did, I just couldn't find a link with their user profile that matches up to the one I have where I can check my personal posting history. Fair enough, I can just use the search, I just happen to dislike using searches on forums because then you've got posts from other people where whoever you're searching for's name is just mentioned mixed up in posts they made themselves. It's just a little annoying (maybe I'm slightly OCD about that kind of thing). I just wish it was streamlined so I could find a link to their posting history as easily as I can click on my own. But beggars can't be choosers on a free service forum.

Edit: Never mind, I was looking in the wrong place. It's placed in a spot I wouldn't have thought to look and doesn't have an eye-catching appearance compared to when I'm logged in and the link to my posts is right at the top of every screen.

What?

[Astonished]

I never said it did, I just couldn't find a link with their user profile that matches up to the one I have where I can check my personal posting history. Fair enough, I can just use the search, I just happen to dislike using searches on forums because then you've got posts from other people where whoever you're searching for's name is just mentioned mixed up in posts they made themselves. It's just a little annoying (maybe I'm slightly OCD about that kind of thing). I just wish it was streamlined so I could find a link to their posting history as easily as I can click on my own. But beggars can't be choosers on a free service forum.

Edit: Never mind, I was looking in the wrong place. It's placed in a spot I wouldn't have thought to look and doesn't have an eye-catching appearance compared to when I'm logged in and the link to my posts is right at the top of every screen.

What?

Fucking hell, just drop it. This has less than nothing to do with anything and you're just making it worse. Don't even waste time trying to comprehend it. We're already off-topic enough.

[Amarok]

I wish skeptics could settle on a side. If the gospels appear to contradict each other, they say that's evidence that they were fabricated.

So much ignorance it's hurts

I need to go read some of Richards work to wash my brain out

[Brian37]

You want to talk about "history of posts"? Holy crap man, if I had a nickle for every time you claimed in one post "I am not trying to sell you a god" only to argue for your pet god in another thread, I'd make Trump look like a vagabond.

When you say you cant do anything about it, we agree, because you have no evidence. If you did you literally could do something about it, and you could get a patent and get a Nobel Prize.

I think the problem such as your post here, is that you don't understand context.  As I told you before, I'll post or comment on what I like when I like.  I don't think that I should be expected to jump off topic, and dance for you, just because I'm a Christian.  Or is that what my problem is, that merits such insult?  I think the problem is in your assumptions of me, and the mental dissonance, when I don't follow your expectations.

Unless you violate the TOS and the admins catch you, sure of course you can post what you like when you like, but don't confuse that as constituting evidence. And again, we've seen this before countless times from many people prior to you over the years.

Theist in one thread, " I am not here to"

Same theist in another thread, "My book says".

I am not asking you to follow my expectations. But if you want to prove to me what you claim, you DO have to meet the expectations of what universal scientific method demands. Don't accuse me of being the inventor of scientific method. I simply see it as currently humanity's best tool to gain factual knowledge on the nature of reality.

[Astonished]

And what kind of god is so stupid as to set the world up in such a way, and design our minds, to rely on empirical data, barring the brain trauma caused by childhood indoctrination? Or so impotent that it can't make the evidence point to its existence? That's not the kind of god worth worshiping or even discussing.

[Brian37]

And what kind of god is so stupid as to set the world up in such a way, and design our minds, to rely on empirical data, barring the brain trauma caused by childhood indoctrination? Or so impotent that it can't make the evidence point to its existence? That's not the kind of god worth worshiping or even discussing.

Not that I would even buy Jefferson's deism, but he is about as close as I would come in tolerating such a concept, "Question with boldness even the existence of a God. For if there be one, surely he would pay more homage to reason than to that of blindfolded fear."

Of course I don't even buy this idea, but it does reflect our modern concept of consent of the governed and the ability to challenge authority. My brain belongs to nobody.

[Astonished]

And what kind of god is so stupid as to set the world up in such a way, and design our minds, to rely on empirical data, barring the brain trauma caused by childhood indoctrination? Or so impotent that it can't make the evidence point to its existence? That's not the kind of god worth worshiping or even discussing.

Not that I would even buy Jefferson's deism, but he is about as close as I would come in tolerating such a concept, "Question with boldness even the existence of a God. For if there be one, surely he would pay more homage to reason than to that of blindfolded fear."

Of course I don't even buy this idea, but it does reflect our modern concept of consent of the governed and the ability to challenge authority. My brain belongs to nobody.

Agreed on deism, but Jefferson also had that hero-worship complex about Jeebus that Droppin' Loads has.

[Brian37]

Not that I would even buy Jefferson's deism, but he is about as close as I would come in tolerating such a concept, "Question with boldness even the existence of a God. For if there be one, surely he would pay more homage to reason than to that of blindfolded fear."

Of course I don't even buy this idea, but it does reflect our modern concept of consent of the governed and the ability to challenge authority. My brain belongs to nobody.

Agreed on deism, but Jefferson also had that hero-worship complex about Jeebus that Droppin' Loads has.

He saw Jesus as a philosopher, not a man with super powers. He saw him as being like Plato or Socrates. I would have to disagree with that too but still. Neither Plato or Socrates sold a authoritarian figure but the Jesus character no matter how kind many try to paint him, is still under himself/God who does have the final rule.

It would not surprise me one bit if Jefferson or Paine for that matter were alive today and could see all the modern technology and science would ditch even deism considering how much they valued the natural world and science. But back then they were also playing politics and even personally, even the most intellectual humans can be held hostage by the fear of being wrong and punished in an afterlife.

Little known French figure Paul Heinrich Dietrich or Baron d'Holbach, was even far more direct and blunt about a god or gods not existing than Jefferson. He really is considered by many atheist historians to be the catalyst to the modern atheist movement. Now don't get me wrong, I would never paint him as a prophet, but extremely intuitive for his time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_d%27Holbach

[Astonished]

Agreed on deism, but Jefferson also had that hero-worship complex about Jeebus that Droppin' Loads has.

He saw Jesus as a philosopher, not a man with super powers. He saw him as being like Plato or Socrates. I would have to disagree with that too but still. Neither Plato or Socrates sold a authoritarian figure but the Jesus character no matter how kind many try to paint him, is still under himself/God who does have the final rule.

It would not surprise me one bit if Jefferson or Paine for that matter were alive today and could see all the modern technology and science would ditch even deism considering how much they valued the natural world and science. But back then they were also playing politics and even personally, even the most intellectual humans can be held hostage by the fear of being wrong and punished in an afterlife.

Little known French figure Paul Heinrich Dietrich or Baron d'Holbach, was even far more direct and blunt about a god or gods not existing than Jefferson. He really is considered by many atheist historians to be the catalyst to the modern atheist movement. Now don't get me wrong, I would never paint him as a prophet, but extremely intuitive for his time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_d%27Holbach

It's hard to take it seriously from a guy who owned slaves (and illegitimately fathered children with at least one of them). Hardly makes sense for him to re-write the story of Jeebus as a moral teacher when his own morals are so fucked-up.

[Brian37]

He saw Jesus as a philosopher, not a man with super powers. He saw him as being like Plato or Socrates. I would have to disagree with that too but still. Neither Plato or Socrates sold a authoritarian figure but the Jesus character no matter how kind many try to paint him, is still under himself/God who does have the final rule.

It would not surprise me one bit if Jefferson or Paine for that matter were alive today and could see all the modern technology and science would ditch even deism considering how much they valued the natural world and science. But back then they were also playing politics and even personally, even the most intellectual humans can be held hostage by the fear of being wrong and punished in an afterlife.

Little known French figure Paul Heinrich Dietrich or Baron d'Holbach, was even far more direct and blunt about a god or gods not existing than Jefferson. He really is considered by many atheist historians to be the catalyst to the modern atheist movement. Now don't get me wrong, I would never paint him as a prophet, but extremely intuitive for his time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_d%27Holbach

It's hard to take it seriously from a guy who owned slaves (and illegitimately fathered children with at least one of them). Hardly makes sense for him to re-write the story of Jeebus as a moral teacher when his own morals are so fucked-up.

Nobody is or should justify his ownership of slaves. But it still remains that it was a far different time back then. And many of the founders back then wanted to end slavery at the signing of the Constitution, but could not gain the full support. Slavery however had ended in the North for the most part by the time he died. 

I would not scrap the constitution because of the bad things the founders were still doing at the time. That same constitution was written in such a way for future generations to use free speech, protest and courts to gain rights. Even with that inability to end it at the signing of the Constitution, I do think they had the foresight knowing it could eventually be used to expand rights. 

No it is not a perfect history one bit. Our country has lots of horrible things in it's history sure. But the concept of checks and balances and the ability to appeal to government is what also brought us progress.

Let me add, the fact that Jefferson fathered kids with Sally and eventually willed her to be free, would indicate at a minimum he was conflicted on the issue. I don't think he was brave enough to go all the way of course and like even politics today, some politicians will do what they hate just to keep their seat to keep up image.

No it does not make it right. It is merely an explanation.