Commentary on Q and Mark
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-02-2016, 05:03 AM
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.

Good points....but....Paul didn't write Acts....Acts was written by someone who, most likely, had never met Paul.

So it was not Paul who was lying (on this occasion) but the author of Acts.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2016, 06:13 AM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(18-02-2016 05:03 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(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.

Good points....but....Paul didn't write Acts....Acts was written by someone who, most likely, had never met Paul.

So it was not Paul who was lying (on this occasion) but the author of Acts.

So this person was mythologizing his hero and being cavalier with the facts -and this was the first telling of Paul's conversion experience.

The indication of a plot device is right there with his story of seeking authority from a high priest in Damascus, then it goes right into the Damascus road experience.

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
19-02-2016, 05:01 PM (This post was last modified: 20-02-2016 05:09 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(18-02-2016 06:13 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(18-02-2016 05:03 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Good points....but....Paul didn't write Acts....Acts was written by someone who, most likely, had never met Paul.

So it was not Paul who was lying (on this occasion) but the author of Acts.

So this person was mythologizing his hero and being cavalier with the facts -and this was the first telling of Paul's conversion experience.

The indication of a plot device is right there with his story of seeking authority from a high priest in Damascus, then it goes right into the Damascus road experience.

I suspect that at the time Acts was written (probably early second century) there was still memories of the animosity between Paul and the Jewish Nazarenes. The author of Acts had to make out Paul was persecuting Christians by saying that this happened before Paul's conversion. The author then made out that Paul became great friends with the Nazarenes (that never happened.)

The author of Acts was a spin doctor who tried to make out that Jesus and his family and his followers were Christians (i.e. purveyors of Paul's prattle) whereas in fact they were fundamentalist Jews who would've been 100% opposed to Paul.
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
24-02-2016, 09:55 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(24-02-2016 07:44 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Q, you have come to a thinking person's forum as a representative of fundamentalist Christianity. Man up...you are going to get your ego and your sloppy ideas kicked around...because you represent everything people like me fight against. You are the punching bag that represents Christianity... you are

- credulous
- a lazy thinker
- a liar
- smug
- opinionated
- uninformed
- deluded
- narrow minded
- bigoted
- unintellectual
- a victim of corporate greed

You are the George Bush of politics, the Ken Ham of science, a low flying soap box preacher, and the delerious deluded parent with arms outstretched to Jeebus. You are a lazy consumer, the teenage smoker who thinks he is cool, the guy lining up to buy Macdonalds, the dopey punter who looks for all life's answers in a book, the bottom dweller at the end of the line who parrots "accept Jeebus and be saved!" All wrapped up in one.

We try to lift you out of the shit you're swimming in, but it seems they've done too good a job on you.

We've had over 10,000 readers, and you make us atheists sound so good...you are doing a great job at revealing Christianity to be a mess of inconsistent deluded rambling...please keep it up.

Wow. That was so well put it should be framed.

"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
24-02-2016, 10:59 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.

Could be why it takes him so long to reply?


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
25-02-2016, 12:48 AM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(24-02-2016 09:55 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(24-02-2016 07:44 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Q, you have come to a thinking person's forum as a representative of fundamentalist Christianity. Man up...you are going to get your ego and your sloppy ideas kicked around...because you represent everything people like me fight against. You are the punching bag that represents Christianity... you are

- credulous
- a lazy thinker
- a liar
- smug
- opinionated
- uninformed
- deluded
- narrow minded
- bigoted
- unintellectual
- a victim of corporate greed

You are the George Bush of politics, the Ken Ham of science, a low flying soap box preacher, and the delerious deluded parent with arms outstretched to Jeebus. You are a lazy consumer, the teenage smoker who thinks he is cool, the guy lining up to buy Macdonalds, the dopey punter who looks for all life's answers in a book, the bottom dweller at the end of the line who parrots "accept Jeebus and be saved!" All wrapped up in one.

We try to lift you out of the shit you're swimming in, but it seems they've done too good a job on you.

We've had over 10,000 readers, and you make us atheists sound so good...you are doing a great job at revealing Christianity to be a mess of inconsistent deluded rambling...please keep it up.

Wow. That was so well put it should be framed.

Thankyou.

Maybe I was a bit harsh on him...but...he has no real respect for me and has been derogatory on occasions...so he's getting some of his own back.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2016, 10:28 AM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
I love this latest thing:

Q: Mark, you are saying something completely off topic so I shall ignore it...... now let me share something even more off topic.

What a dunce.

"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
25-02-2016, 10:36 AM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(25-02-2016 12:48 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(24-02-2016 09:55 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Wow. That was so well put it should be framed.

Thankyou.

Maybe I was a bit harsh on him...

Nope, you were right on.

Quote:but...he has no real respect for me

or for this forum, or for the facts.

Quote:and has been derogatory on occasions...so he's getting some of his own back.

More than on occasion.

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
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
26-02-2016, 06:47 AM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
I was curious, Q is such a fucking deluded liar, in post 346 he references Isaiah 49:1-7, he literally skipped verses 3-5:

Quote:49:3 And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.
49:4 Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the LORD, and my work with my God.
49:5 And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength.
49:6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.

Isaiah continually speaks of the nation of Israel as a person the "suffering servant", this is such a clear and obvious thing, yet he skips those verses that clearly state who the suffering servant is!

He is a fucking used car salesman, the little bitch whines about how we don't play nice, he's not exactly acting in any way that would engender respect, he simply lies.
I suppose you want to give a person the benefit of a doubt, but when he conveniently leaves stuff out that doesn't support his interpretation con, it's really hard to put him into the honest category, he sure seems like someone that is a deliberate liar.

If this guy is actually sincere and is honestly relaying his understanding, at the very least, he shows massive gaps in his ability to comprehend things that don't fall within his narrow biases.

His entire thinking process is corrupted and can't even look at things from a reasonable perspective.

So is Q like the clueless used car salesman? He really doesn't think anything is wrong with the lemon he's trying to sell people, but he wholeheartedly throws his belief in the lemon he's trying to sell.

Or is Q simply a lying charlatan? He knows these scriptural interpretations he peddles aren't really saying what he wants us to believe, he knows they're wrong and hopes we won't dig into what he spouts and show him for the charlatan he is.

I've pretty much had it with Q clown, he has a penchant for making a simple statement and then pack it with logical fallacies, inaccurate interpretations, off-subject evasions, and shifting the burden of proof, etc.

He's like that annoying person that's constantly engaging in one-upsmanship, whatever you say, he's got a better interpretation, he knows more, and we should feel lucky that he's dispersing his knowledge. So why doesn't everyone love me? Sadcryface2Sadcryface2

GFY Q clown!

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
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
26-02-2016, 08:58 AM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(26-02-2016 06:47 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  I was curious, Q is such a fucking deluded liar, in post 346 he references Isaiah 49:1-7, he literally skipped verses 3-5:

Quote:49:3 And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.
49:4 Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the LORD, and my work with my God.
49:5 And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength.
49:6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.

Isaiah continually speaks of the nation of Israel as a person the "suffering servant", this is such a clear and obvious thing, yet he skips those verses that clearly state who the suffering servant is!

He is a fucking used car salesman, the little bitch whines about how we don't play nice, he's not exactly acting in any way that would engender respect, he simply lies.
I suppose you want to give a person the benefit of a doubt, but when he conveniently leaves stuff out that doesn't support his interpretation con, it's really hard to put him into the honest category, he sure seems like someone that is a deliberate liar.

If this guy is actually sincere and is honestly relaying his understanding, at the very least, he shows massive gaps in his ability to comprehend things that don't fall within his narrow biases.

His entire thinking process is corrupted and can't even look at things from a reasonable perspective.

So is Q like the clueless used car salesman? He really doesn't think anything is wrong with the lemon he's trying to sell people, but he wholeheartedly throws his belief in the lemon he's trying to sell.

Or is Q simply a lying charlatan? He knows these scriptural interpretations he peddles aren't really saying what he wants us to believe, he knows they're wrong and hopes we won't dig into what he spouts and show him for the charlatan he is.

I've pretty much had it with Q clown, he has a penchant for making a simple statement and then pack it with logical fallacies, inaccurate interpretations, off-subject evasions, and shifting the burden of proof, etc.

He's like that annoying person that's constantly engaging in one-upsmanship, whatever you say, he's got a better interpretation, he knows more, and we should feel lucky that he's dispersing his knowledge. So why doesn't everyone love me? Sadcryface2Sadcryface2

GFY Q clown!

You forgot another option: he's just stupid.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: