Commentary on Q and Mark
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-02-2016, 04:34 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(12-02-2016 11:42 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Q, in a nutshell: It is this way, because it has to be this way, and it cannot be otherwise; therefore I win.


And yet he wonders why the rest of us find that line of argumentation unconvincing? Facepalm

Exactly.

The discussion, so far, barely rates as a "debate." He hasn't joined in. He has had 3 or 4 (incorrect) ideas that he has repeated again and again, yet hasn't addressed any of my commentary.

Also, his language is sometimes very odd. It's like he is over using a thesaurus in an attempt to sound smart.
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
13-02-2016, 05:18 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
An odd character for sure.

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2016, 10:09 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(13-02-2016 05:18 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  An odd character for sure.

Yep.

Q and Paul are both odd. They both spout shit, and both imagine they are experts, and both think they are their god's best mate, and neither takes any notice of what others say about them. Big Grin
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
14-02-2016, 04:22 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(13-02-2016 04:34 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(12-02-2016 11:42 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Q, in a nutshell: It is this way, because it has to be this way, and it cannot be otherwise; therefore I win.


And yet he wonders why the rest of us find that line of argumentation unconvincing? Facepalm

Exactly.

The discussion, so far, barely rates as a "debate." He hasn't joined in. He has had 3 or 4 (incorrect) ideas that he has repeated again and again, yet hasn't addressed any of my commentary.

Also, his language is sometimes very odd. It's like he is over using a thesaurus in an attempt to sound smart.

And that is ignoring him referring to himself in the 3rd person.

"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
[+] 3 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
17-02-2016, 01:46 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
In post 21 he starts making the demand of only "contemporary" sources for proof. He's trying to disregard any sources other than the bible or "contemporary" sources that were written at that time.
This is highly dishonest of him, he's trying to make it only about using the bible as proof with no other sources, it's a red herring.

You already addressed it with the dead sea scrolls, I would think he would want to address what is in the dead sea scrolls rather than hand-wave and whine about contemporary sources.

Paul was excommunicated! WTF? All we get in the bible is a meeting where Paul denigrates the other apostles, we certainly do not get what is going on between Paul and the apostles that are ready to declare him a heretic.

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
17-02-2016, 01:57 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(17-02-2016 01:46 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  In post 21 he starts making the demand of only "contemporary" sources for proof. He's trying to disregard any sources other than the bible or "contemporary" sources that were written at that time.
This is highly dishonest of him, he's trying to make it only about using the bible as proof with no other sources, it's a red herring.

You already addressed it with the dead sea scrolls, I would think he would want to address what is in the dead sea scrolls rather than hand-wave and whine about contemporary sources.

Paul was excommunicated! WTF? All we get in the bible is a meeting where Paul denigrates the other apostles, we certainly do not get what is going on between Paul and the apostles that are ready to declare him a heretic.

So I wonder if Q will get his panties in a twist about the lack of "contemporaneous" sources for or from Jesus?

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
17-02-2016, 02:27 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(17-02-2016 01:57 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(17-02-2016 01:46 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  In post 21 he starts making the demand of only "contemporary" sources for proof. He's trying to disregard any sources other than the bible or "contemporary" sources that were written at that time.
This is highly dishonest of him, he's trying to make it only about using the bible as proof with no other sources, it's a red herring.

You already addressed it with the dead sea scrolls, I would think he would want to address what is in the dead sea scrolls rather than hand-wave and whine about contemporary sources.

Paul was excommunicated! WTF? All we get in the bible is a meeting where Paul denigrates the other apostles, we certainly do not get what is going on between Paul and the apostles that are ready to declare him a heretic.

So I wonder if Q will get his panties in a twist about the lack of "contemporaneous" sources for or from Jesus?

Ha ha. Good point.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2016, 05:33 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
Q is the charlatan.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2016, 09:59 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
I found this video from Alex Botten:





He points out that Paul lied in Acts 9:1-2 where he claims that he had authorization from the high priest in Jerusalem to go to Damascus to persecute Christians and bring them to Jerusalem. Damascus wasn't part of the Roman Empire, there was no way a high priest in Jerusalem could have any authority to do this.

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
17-02-2016, 11:29 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(17-02-2016 09:59 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  I found this video from Alex Botten:





He points out that Paul lied in Acts 9:1-2 where he claims that he had authorization from the high priest in Jerusalem to go to Damascus to persecute Christians and bring them to Jerusalem. Damascus wasn't part of the Roman Empire, there was no way a high priest in Jerusalem could have any authority to do this.

Pffft. Like that matters. It's not in the bible.

"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: