Commentary on Q and Mark
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-10-2015, 01:34 AM
Commentary on Q and Mark
I must say Mark, lots of interesting passages from Paul. Certainly leads one to think he was trying really hard to sell something that no one was buying. Snake oil much? Lol
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fodder_From_The_Truth's post
21-10-2015, 05:39 AM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
I expect Q to smarmily deny any evidence and do a lot of unconvincing hand-waving, biased interpretations, and completely miss any point while declaring victory.

He was going around declaring victory in the thread leading up to this, based on Mark not going along with trying to disprove god's existence.

All he's been doing is boasting how great a debater he is, yeah he's definitely a master-bater. Rolleyes

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
21-10-2015, 06:12 AM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
Q doesn't seem to understand what charlatan means.

Paul was selling snake oil, yes. The question is, did he know he was selling snake oil? I think Mark is doing a good job so far of showing that the answer to that question is yes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes julep's post
21-10-2015, 06:18 AM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(21-10-2015 05:39 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  I expect Q to smarmily deny any evidence and do a lot of unconvincing hand-waving, biased interpretations, and completely miss any point while declaring victory.

He was going around declaring victory in the thread leading up to this, based on Mark not going along with trying to disprove god's existence.

All he's been doing is boasting how great a debater he is, yeah he's definitely a master-bater. Rolleyes

Uhm, to be fair to Q, Mark doesn't particularly offer evidence. If we were to have Mark cite the passages and verses, he use to draw most of his wild inferences, it would require a great deal of making things up, as opposed to what can reasonably be deduced from those passages, such Jesus's animosity to Roman and Jews, Paul disputes with the disciples of Jesus being anything more than in regards to Jewish Ritual laws, etc...

The only reason it appears that many folks vouche for Mark's interpretation here, is because they like the sound of it, not because it's the one strongly supported by the evidence.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2015, 06:32 AM (This post was last modified: 21-10-2015 06:38 AM by epronovost.)
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
@Tomasia

You might have missed those verse, he isually puts them in itallic. There is around 5 or 6 verses and passages directly quoted or retranscripted by Mark in each and every single of his posts. Though, I would complain that he seems to use the Bible to make an hisorical argument instead of a religious one. The Bible cannot be use for such a thing since it's a heavily eddited documents for political and cultural reasons. I am eager to see the rest of his argument and see how it will lead us to his conclusion.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2015, 06:43 AM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(21-10-2015 06:32 AM)epronovost Wrote:  @Tomasia

You might have missed those verse, he isually puts them in itallic. There is around 5 or 6 verses and passages directly quoted or retranscripted by Mark in each and every single of his posts. Though, I would complain that he seems to use the Bible to make an hisorical argument instead of a religious one. The Bible cannot be use for such a thing since it's a heavily eddited documents for political and cultural reasons. I am eager to see the rest of his argument and see how it will lead us to his conclusion.

He does sometimes, but typically avoids doing so more so than not. If you push he does. In fact me and Mark Fulton have gone back and forth several times before. There isn't an endless stream of 1st century sources he can use to draw his interpretations. If your familiar with those sources, it's not that hard to see how he stretches credulity in his interpretations. That's been pointed out to him, but he doesn't particularly care.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2015, 08:29 AM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
@Tomasia

Well, if you want my opinion on the subject of Paul, I would say that it's impossible to determine if he was a charlatan or not. Paul was a man who try to convince peope to take a «new religion», nearly completly identical to a more ancient one but with different actors and cultural background, with the promess of a phantom reward and the threat of a phantom punishment. When you try to «sell» something on the promess of a reward that no one can see, feel or demonstrate, you are forced to use the same selling strategy than a charlatan. Did Paul used them? Of course he did. Does that make him a charlatan in the common sense of the term? Only if you can demonstrate that Paul knew he was selling bullshit which is pretty much impossible in my opinion considering that we have no lengthy non biblical sources describing Paul and his work. All that we have of him are several of his letters which might very well represent only a fraction of his work, strongly eddited two centuries after his death and distributed by those very same people. I will admit that I am no biblical expert and maybe Mark can provide convincing proof that Paul was a charlatan (its a good start as of now). I currently think that Paul was honest in his belief in the religion he helped to create. Thus, Paul wasn't a charlatan. He was a fool who wanted to be a wise man.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes epronovost's post
21-10-2015, 09:47 AM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
Here's the thing thou. This is suppose to be a debate between Mark and Q.

If Q found discrepancy's in Mark's quotes, or sources he should say it. If Q had evidence of Paul's divine guidance he should present it.

We've gotten very little from Q. Yes maybe he's busy. Or collecting his thoughts. But so far he's only posted twice. A simple "Give me sometime." would be enough.

I for one have done little to no research on Paul. In any debate I would be in on the matter I would be uncouth. So all I have to go on would be the information presented at this time.

But with that being said. How do we determine that the sources Mark is presenting aren't valid? And saying that they aren't, then why shouldn't the whole thing be thrown out? Wouldn't saying "Well we can't be sure that these are accurate." be enough to say the foundation of this religion is full of holes?

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Commonsensei's post
21-10-2015, 10:33 AM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(21-10-2015 09:47 AM)Commonsensei Wrote:  Here's the thing thou. This is suppose to be a debate between Mark and Q.

If Q found discrepancy's in Mark's quotes, or sources he should say it. If Q had evidence of Paul's divine guidance he should present it.

We've gotten very little from Q. Yes maybe he's busy. Or collecting his thoughts. But so far he's only posted twice. A simple "Give me sometime." would be enough.

I for one have done little to no research on Paul. In any debate I would be in on the matter I would be uncouth. So all I have to go on would be the information presented at this time.

But with that being said. How do we determine that the sources Mark is presenting aren't valid? And saying that they aren't, then why shouldn't the whole thing be thrown out? Wouldn't saying "Well we can't be sure that these are accurate." be enough to say the foundation of this religion is full of holes?

There are things said about Paul that don't make sense, in Acts it says Paul was a student of Gamaliel, but neither Paul or Gamaliel mention this in their writings. Someone like Q would say it's true simply because the bible says it, but Mark acknowledges this and rightly points out that this is an omission that casts doubt on who and what Paul was -and the bible isn't going to shed any truth on it.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
21-10-2015, 10:54 AM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
I loved the gay Jesus pic Mark posted. If the Billy Idol link was in poor taste, that should really piss him off.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: