Commentary on Q and Mark
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-01-2016, 02:35 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(27-01-2016 12:41 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Mr Whack-a-mole pops his head up in the thread again and completely ignores your demand for asking for proof that Paul was beaten by Romans, but he throws out a lot of verses that says that Paul suffered. Facepalm

I'd say if nothing else, Q has definitely provided evidence that Paul was quite the whiner.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like julep's post
28-01-2016, 06:23 AM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
I don't know if it was already pointed out in Mark's postings, but if Roman soldiers had beaten Paul, this would have been enough of an event that they would have to break the flow of the story and explain why, including the consequences to the soldiers that did the deed. This was against the Roman law, you better have good justification with full approval up the entire chain of command to do this.

In Acts, the magistrates were afraid of getting blamed for Paul getting beaten. This implies that not only was it illegal, but there could have been consequences for the magistrates themselves for allowing it to happen.

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
28-01-2016, 09:30 AM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(28-01-2016 06:23 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  I don't know if it was already pointed out in Mark's postings, but if Roman soldiers had beaten Paul, this would have been enough of an event that they would have to break the flow of the story and explain why, including the consequences to the soldiers that did the deed. This was against the Roman law, you better have good justification with full approval up the entire chain of command to do this.

In Acts, the magistrates were afraid of getting blamed for Paul getting beaten. This implies that not only was it illegal, but there could have been consequences for the magistrates themselves for allowing it to happen.

Hey. Since when do bible verses that contradict Q count?

"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
[+] 2 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
30-01-2016, 03:11 AM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(27-01-2016 02:35 PM)julep Wrote:  
(27-01-2016 12:41 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Mr Whack-a-mole pops his head up in the thread again and completely ignores your demand for asking for proof that Paul was beaten by Romans, but he throws out a lot of verses that says that Paul suffered. Facepalm

I'd say if nothing else, Q has definitely provided evidence that Paul was quite the whiner.

Exactly.

It seems that Q thinks we should be impressed by Paul's whining. Q says he has read all of Paul 30 times. How could he do that, yet not have a "light bulb" moment? By which I mean, how could Q not be revolted by Paul's obvious insecurities, delusions of grandeur and pathetic pleadings?

What is more, there was nothing real or true or useful in any of Paul's ramblings.

Paul must have badgered people to the point of severe irritation. He was worse than today's JW's. He must have been on a good salary, or else he would have disappeared up his own asshole sometime early in his career.

I like what I just wrote. Big Grin Think I'll add it to the debate.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
30-01-2016, 02:34 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(30-01-2016 03:11 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  What is more, there was nothing real or true or useful in any of Paul's Q's ramblings.

Paul Q must have badgered people to the point of severe irritation. He was worse than today's JW's. He must have been on a good salary, or else he would have disappeared up his own asshole sometime early in his career.

Fixed. It still works. How ironic.

"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
[+] 2 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
01-02-2016, 02:54 AM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
Has anyone got any idea why Q takes so long to contribute to the debate?

It usually takes him one to 2 weeks to say something.

What is more, it is obvious when he does reply he has not put much thought into what he writes, although he was, I think, trying to make some sort of point in his last post.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2016, 06:36 AM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(01-02-2016 02:54 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Has anyone got any idea why Q takes so long to contribute to the debate?

It usually takes him one to 2 weeks to say something.

What is more, it is obvious when he does reply he has not put much thought into what he writes, although he was, I think, trying to make some sort of point in his last post.

It is a bit odd considering I thought he had god"s personal cell. It is time for the Super Bowl and you know god has to pick the winner so he is having to pour over the stats.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes The Organic Chemist's post
01-02-2016, 08:05 AM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(01-02-2016 02:54 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Has anyone got any idea why Q takes so long to contribute to the debate?

It usually takes him one to 2 weeks to say something.

What is more, it is obvious when he does reply he has not put much thought into what he writes, although he was, I think, trying to make some sort of point in his last post.

Probably the buzz saw he's ran into is wearing on him. It's hard to be condescending when you know less than the people you're attempting to be condescending to.

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
01-02-2016, 03:55 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(01-02-2016 06:36 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(01-02-2016 02:54 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Has anyone got any idea why Q takes so long to contribute to the debate?

It usually takes him one to 2 weeks to say something.

What is more, it is obvious when he does reply he has not put much thought into what he writes, although he was, I think, trying to make some sort of point in his last post.

It is a bit odd considering I thought he had god"s personal cell. It is time for the Super Bowl and you know god has to pick the winner so he is having to pour over the stats.

Yep.

I would have thought that if he was really as confident as he makes out to be about his own beliefs he would be more keen to tell everyone.

He will probably tell us he is so popular elsewhere he doesn't have the time for us.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
01-02-2016, 05:49 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(01-02-2016 03:55 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(01-02-2016 06:36 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  It is a bit odd considering I thought he had god"s personal cell. It is time for the Super Bowl and you know god has to pick the winner so he is having to pour over the stats.

Yep.

I would have thought that if he was really as confident as he makes out to be about his own beliefs he would be more keen to tell everyone.

He will probably tell us he is so popular elsewhere he doesn't have the time for us.

All of his crap has been utterly demolished here. It's about time to simply ignore him. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: