Commentary on Q and Mark
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-02-2016, 11:04 PM (This post was last modified: 26-02-2016 11:21 PM by Mark Fulton.)
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!

I think he's a mix of everything you say.

Plus some more. He's incapable of learning anything new because he thinks he already knows it all. He is no intellectual. His commentary is emotion driven rather than analytical.

And...another of the reasons he is so disliked is he reminds most of us of other Christians we have known.
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
27-02-2016, 06:33 AM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(26-02-2016 11:04 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(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:


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!

I think he's a mix of everything you say.

Plus some more. He's incapable of learning anything new because he thinks he already knows it all. He is no intellectual. His commentary is emotion driven rather than analytical.

And...another of the reasons he is so disliked is he reminds most of us of other Christians we have known.

That's probably why he irritates me so much, I remember his ilk when I was a Christian. These evangelists would come into the church I was a part of employing all of his proselytizing rhetoric.

Then I would find out later they were total frauds and were simply after money and fame, but we were so invested emotionally into the scam, not stopping to think that if you couldn't weed out the frauds by any other means than "holy spirit" guidance, then that's a stinging rebuke of how everyone in Christianity operates.

It's a repudiation of how well listening to the "voice of god" works. It left me with such a revulsion of this con, that it was one of the reasons I walked away from Christianity. I eventually viewed all Christians as a bunch of dupes to be preyed upon at will by the various peddlers of the supernatural.

I stopped viewing myself as a dupe, so I stopped viewing myself as a Christian.

His annoying proselytizing serves as a reminder why I have no use for Christianity, yet he thinks all he needs is to do is recite his magic book and then we'll come back to the sheep pen.

All it does is remind me that I can't possibly go back inside the intellectual prison that I was in now that I can see the prison so clearly.

Part of the Insane Clown Posse that visited my church:




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
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
28-02-2016, 05:18 AM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2016, 05:20 AM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(27-02-2016 06:33 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(26-02-2016 11:04 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I think he's a mix of everything you say.

Plus some more. He's incapable of learning anything new because he thinks he already knows it all. He is no intellectual. His commentary is emotion driven rather than analytical.

And...another of the reasons he is so disliked is he reminds most of us of other Christians we have known.

That's probably why he irritates me so much, I remember his ilk when I was a Christian. These evangelists would come into the church I was a part of employing all of his proselytizing rhetoric.

Then I would find out later they were total frauds and were simply after money and fame, but we were so invested emotionally into the scam, not stopping to think that if you couldn't weed out the frauds by any other means than "holy spirit" guidance, then that's a stinging rebuke of how everyone in Christianity operates.

It's a repudiation of how well listening to the "voice of god" works. It left me with such a revulsion of this con, that it was one of the reasons I walked away from Christianity. I eventually viewed all Christians as a bunch of dupes to be preyed upon at will by the various peddlers of the supernatural.

I stopped viewing myself as a dupe, so I stopped viewing myself as a Christian.

His annoying proselytizing serves as a reminder why I have no use for Christianity, yet he thinks all he needs is to do is recite his magic book and then we'll come back to the sheep pen.

All it does is remind me that I can't possibly go back inside the intellectual prison that I was in now that I can see the prison so clearly.

Part of the Insane Clown Posse that visited my church:




Wow. Thankyou for your realness in sharing this.

They imposed themselves on me when I was a kid. Everything inside me said "no"....but I was only a kid. I'm now a grown man, and I'm trying to do my bit to protect the innocent kids.
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
28-02-2016, 06:07 AM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(27-02-2016 06:33 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  


This is surreal!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-02-2016, 03:52 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
He is dodging and weaving so well that OJ would be impressed.

(29-02-2016 02:02 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Or again, if you prefer--and you will probably duck this point and not even respond, LOOK at verse 5. "And now, saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his servant..." is a metaphor for a nation of people or one single individual? What does Occam's razor tell you? And in verse 5, "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."

So we have either:

Jesus will bring Jacob (Israel) back again to Him, though Israel be not (yet) gathered, yet shall Jesus be glorious and God His strength OR

Israel will bring Jacob (Israel) back again to Israel, though Israel be not (yet) gathered, yet shall Israel be glorious and God HIS (singular, not national) strength.

As usual, when atheists actually bring context verses in for study, they strengthen the evangelical doctrinal case.

Couple of things I thought of while reading this.
1) Occam's Razor actually would work against Q here. Which assumes more: the womb reference is talking about the birth of a nation (which we KNOW happens) or referencing the birthing of a supernatural human-god thingy (which we have no idea if even possible)
I don't think Q understands Occam's Razor.

2) Poor false dichotomy. He left out the idea that Israel (Jacob) would one day be a nation again without any supernatural influence, the Jews come back to YHWY, or even Isaiah was just a writer writing something and had no intention on this even being a prophecy.

3) I wonder what other Hebrew translations translate this to. We already have many other examples where a few words were changed that completely change the context of a passage.

"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
29-02-2016, 04:12 PM (This post was last modified: 29-02-2016 04:23 PM by TheInquisition.)
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(29-02-2016 03:52 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  He is dodging and weaving so well that OJ would be impressed.

(29-02-2016 02:02 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Or again, if you prefer--and you will probably duck this point and not even respond, LOOK at verse 5. "And now, saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his servant..." is a metaphor for a nation of people or one single individual? What does Occam's razor tell you? And in verse 5, "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."

So we have either:

Jesus will bring Jacob (Israel) back again to Him, though Israel be not (yet) gathered, yet shall Jesus be glorious and God His strength OR

Israel will bring Jacob (Israel) back again to Israel, though Israel be not (yet) gathered, yet shall Israel be glorious and God HIS (singular, not national) strength.

As usual, when atheists actually bring context verses in for study, they strengthen the evangelical doctrinal case.

Couple of things I thought of while reading this.
1) Occam's Razor actually would work against Q here. Which assumes more: the womb reference is talking about the birth of a nation (which we KNOW happens) or referencing the birthing of a supernatural human-god thingy (which we have no idea if even possible)
I don't think Q understands Occam's Razor.

2) Poor false dichotomy. He left out the idea that Israel (Jacob) would one day be a nation again without any supernatural influence, the Jews come back to YHWY, or even Isaiah was just a writer writing something and had no intention on this even being a prophecy.

3) I wonder what other Hebrew translations translate this to. We already have many other examples where a few words were changed that completely change the context of a passage.

It seems to be a passage with so many shifty definitions that there is still debate over what it means, of course evangelicals will shove Jesus into any OT passage, especially if they can cherry pick their meanings.

I would be more interested in what Aliza thinks, I know Jews in general understand references in Isaiah to mean the nation of Israel and Christians have practiced the art of reinterpretation of a lot of these scriptures to put Jesus into them for almost 2000 years. It's allowed them to hijack the OT for their religious purposes.

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
29-02-2016, 04:59 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(29-02-2016 04:12 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(29-02-2016 03:52 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  He is dodging and weaving so well that OJ would be impressed.


Couple of things I thought of while reading this.
1) Occam's Razor actually would work against Q here. Which assumes more: the womb reference is talking about the birth of a nation (which we KNOW happens) or referencing the birthing of a supernatural human-god thingy (which we have no idea if even possible)
I don't think Q understands Occam's Razor.

2) Poor false dichotomy. He left out the idea that Israel (Jacob) would one day be a nation again without any supernatural influence, the Jews come back to YHWY, or even Isaiah was just a writer writing something and had no intention on this even being a prophecy.

3) I wonder what other Hebrew translations translate this to. We already have many other examples where a few words were changed that completely change the context of a passage.

It seems to be a passage with so many shifty definitions that there is still debate over what it means, of course evangelicals will shove Jesus into any OT passage, especially if they can cherry pick their meanings.

I would be more interested in what Aliza thinks, I know Jews in general understand references in Isaiah to mean the nation of Israel and Christians have practiced the art of reinterpretation of a lot of these scriptures to put Jesus into them for almost 2000 years. It's allowed them to hijack the OT for their religious purposes.

I agree. I think her $0.02 would be interesting.

"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
01-03-2016, 08:27 AM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(29-02-2016 04:12 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(29-02-2016 03:52 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  He is dodging and weaving so well that OJ would be impressed.


Couple of things I thought of while reading this.
1) Occam's Razor actually would work against Q here. Which assumes more: the womb reference is talking about the birth of a nation (which we KNOW happens) or referencing the birthing of a supernatural human-god thingy (which we have no idea if even possible)
I don't think Q understands Occam's Razor.

2) Poor false dichotomy. He left out the idea that Israel (Jacob) would one day be a nation again without any supernatural influence, the Jews come back to YHWY, or even Isaiah was just a writer writing something and had no intention on this even being a prophecy.

3) I wonder what other Hebrew translations translate this to. We already have many other examples where a few words were changed that completely change the context of a passage.

It seems to be a passage with so many shifty definitions that there is still debate over what it means, of course evangelicals will shove Jesus into any OT passage, especially if they can cherry pick their meanings.

I would be more interested in what Aliza thinks, I know Jews in general understand references in Isaiah to mean the nation of Israel and Christians have practiced the art of reinterpretation of a lot of these scriptures to put Jesus into them for almost 2000 years. It's allowed them to hijack the OT for their religious purposes.

The Inquisition was kind enough to PM me to let me know that there was a question here that needed my attention. Unfortunately, I can't really read through the thread right now to know exactly what's been said. I know it's in bad form to respond to a thread without having read it... but... homework Confused. I understand that Q is taking the position that Isaiah 45 is about Jesus. It's not. Below, I attempt to address that topic.

There is a split of opinion about whether the anointed one being referred to in 45:1 is the Messiah, or the messiah Cyrus. Cyrus was known as a messiah. I’m going to give you what I think is the preferred interpretation, though neither interpretation helps the Christians in any way, except maybe to reinforce that there will be a messiah one day.

G-d has empowered Cyrus with the ability to crush the surrounding nations, not for Cyrus’s personal benefit, but for the benefit of the Jewish nation. Looking back on 44:28, we learn that Cyrus was intended to destroy Babylon and release Israel from exile. Cyrus was also instructed rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple. Cyrus responds by only enabling those who want the Temple built, and not by following orders and building it himself. –And then Cyrus retracts his permission for the temple’s construction anyway.

The “Holy One of Israel” and the “servant Jacob and Israel, the chosen one” are two different parties. The messiah Cyrus is the Holy One of Israel, and the Jewish nation is the servant Jacob/Israel. (IIRC, using two terms to refer to the Jewish nation is kind of a way of clarifying it so there is no doubt that all Jews are a part of this.)

The “Holy One of Israel” has been empowered with something, which suggests that he lacked power at one point in time. The Holy One of Israel was also at one point in time “not with G-d” as it states in 45:4-5.

Of course we can also see that "servant Jacob and Israel, the chosen one" requires help from some outside force. Thus reinforcing the idea that they're human, they make mistakes, and sometimes must deal with the ramifications of those mistakes. Does Jesus make mistakes? Does Jesus get punished when he messes up, or do Christians maintain that he was without sin?

Neither of these people (or peoples) fit into the description that Christians give for Jesus, because one party has egregiously sinned to cause them to get into the bind they're in in the first place, and the other sins by failing to follow G-d’s rules.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aliza's post
02-03-2016, 01:47 AM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
Am i wrong, or did this dishonest and disingenuous piece of shit just suggest that the fact that the romans put the word "king of the jews" on top of his cross proves
that he was king of the jews?
......granted that ever happened.

Doesnt he know that if the romans really thought he was a sort of king, they would rather have taken him to Rome and presented him at a triumph?....and they would have written about it.....in fecking stone.

Does that mean, if i crucify him and write "asshole" on his cross, he indeed was an asshole? (Not Jesus of course, he already has another license plate obviously).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: