Commentary on Q and Mark
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-10-2015, 09:33 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(24-10-2015 08:42 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(24-10-2015 05:33 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Thanks for this. I had strongly suspected what you just said, but I didn't really feel qualified enough to say it.

I've been following your posts since I wandered onto this forum. From what I've seen, you're more on the mark about Judaism than any Christian I've ever met. I find it very impressive, and it shows that you've done your homework. Smile

Thankyou. That really means a lot to me.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
27-10-2015, 10:35 AM (This post was last modified: 27-10-2015 11:54 AM by epronovost.)
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
@Mark Fulton

While you are still doing a good job debating Q for now, I would like to correct a slight inaccuracy in your post about Mary. Anesthetics and C-section were already in use at the time of Jesus's birth. The most common anesthetic was poppy juice, a liquid form of opium that caused sleep, hallucination and a quick dependency. Since we derive morphine from the exact same plant, poppy juice (sometime called poppy milk because of its color and consistency) was an excellent anesthetic despite its secondary effect and it did saved many lives in history. It would be almost impossible for Mary to have access to such kind of treatment since they were reserved for the higher class of society due to lack of competent healers, but its false to deny their existence.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2015, 01:56 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
So the Q guy is basically accepting defeat at the end of his last post.

Religion is bullshit. The winner of the last person to post wins thread.Yes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Leo's post
27-10-2015, 04:36 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(27-10-2015 10:35 AM)epronovost Wrote:  @Mark Fulton

While you are still doing a good job debating Q for now, I would like to correct a slight inaccuracy in your post about Mary. Anesthetics and C-section were already in use at the time of Jesus's birth. The most common anesthetic was poppy juice, a liquid form of opium that caused sleep, hallucination and a quick dependency. Since we derive morphine from the exact same plant, poppy juice (sometime called poppy milk because of its color and consistency) was an excellent anesthetic despite its secondary effect and it did saved many lives in history. It would be almost impossible for Mary to have access to such kind of treatment since they were reserved for the higher class of society due to lack of competent healers, but its false to deny their existence.

Thanks for this.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2015, 04:09 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
I often wonder how theists fit so many unsubstantiated claims up there asses.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fodder_From_The_Truth's post
30-10-2015, 10:33 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(30-10-2015 04:09 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  I often wonder how theists fit so many unsubstantiated claims up there asses.

Because they are so often the biggest assholes? Consider

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
31-10-2015, 06:02 AM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
Q likes to denigrate anyone that questions his nonsense, he's done this several times in the debate. This may be why I personally dislike him, he reminds me of a former friend of mine.

He's smart enough to understand that science does disprove major parts of the bible, but then reverts to interpretation (lying) to salvage the errors in the bible and vast scientific/evolutionary conspiracies to prop up biblical nonsense.

When confronted on the Dat Noah Flood thread with the obvious ice core evidence against a world-wide flood he asserts a "uniformitarian assumption" error on the part of the scientists, he couldn't possibly be wrong.

When challenged to cite one example of a biblical story that he wouldn't defend because of it's horrific morality, he wouldn't do it until pressed, then he makes a vague reference to rape and killing- and then immediately starts defending it and cranking out his excuses.

He can't help himself, but he's a shining example of how you can distort your ability to perceive reality to force the world to conform to your own personal interpretation. He does this with his bizarre theistic evolution nonsense that's neither scientifically viable and disgusts his fundamentalist cohorts who will not accept evolution on any level. He also does this with his religious views, he's created an interpretation of Christianity where the very creators of the bible, the Catholics, are considered a perverse delusion.

The very book that he defends to the nine's, to his last dying breath, was created by the religious sect that he himself considers delusional and even Satanic!

This is your brain on religion:

[Image: 6t4d1.jpg]

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
[+] 5 users Like TheInquisition's post
31-10-2015, 05:51 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(31-10-2015 06:02 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Q likes to denigrate anyone that questions his nonsense, he's done this several times in the debate. This may be why I personally dislike him, he reminds me of a former friend of mine.

He's smart enough to understand that science does disprove major parts of the bible, but then reverts to interpretation (lying) to salvage the errors in the bible and vast scientific/evolutionary conspiracies to prop up biblical nonsense.

When confronted on the Dat Noah Flood thread with the obvious ice core evidence against a world-wide flood he asserts a "uniformitarian assumption" error on the part of the scientists, he couldn't possibly be wrong.

When challenged to cite one example of a biblical story that he wouldn't defend because of it's horrific morality, he wouldn't do it until pressed, then he makes a vague reference to rape and killing- and then immediately starts defending it and cranking out his excuses.

He can't help himself, but he's a shining example of how you can distort your ability to perceive reality to force the world to conform to your own personal interpretation. He does this with his bizarre theistic evolution nonsense that's neither scientifically viable and disgusts his fundamentalist cohorts who will not accept evolution on any level. He also does this with his religious views, he's created an interpretation of Christianity where the very creators of the bible, the Catholics, are considered a perverse delusion.

The very book that he defends to the nine's, to his last dying breath, was created by the religious sect that he himself considers delusional and even Satanic!

This is your brain on religion:

[Image: 6t4d1.jpg]

I can't see any evidence that he knows anything about Paul, the bible, or early Christianity other than what he has read in the bible and what is taught as tradition in church.

His understanding of what Judaism was, and is, sucks.

The fact that he tried to tell me that the 130's CE was in the first century (!) aptly demonstrates that he cannot have done any serious study on the origins of Christianity. He then lied by claiming his error was a "typo."

What is even worse, he doesn't even have a very good knowledge of the bible. He very obviously knows very little about what Paul wrote. It's very hard to engage him in any in depth discussion...because he just doesn't know enough to go there.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Mark Fulton's post
02-11-2015, 03:17 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
Hmmm... Q seems to think that "Rome killed and persecuted" Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, "the author of Acts", and Paul.

He seems to be unaware that Christian tradition itself identifies Luke and "the author of Acts" as the same person, and specifically says that John was not killed by the Romans or anyone else. So we're down to 5 (not 7) co-conspirators (at most) who were killed by the Romans -- except that I'm not aware of any such claim being made about Mark and Luke. I'm not sure the Church even claims to know who Mark and Luke were.

Q claims to be a Bible scholar, but he seems ignorant of some pretty basic stuff.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
02-11-2015, 03:22 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(02-11-2015 03:17 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Hmmm... Q seems to think that "Rome killed and persecuted" Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, "the author of Acts", and Paul.

He seems to be unaware that Christian tradition itself identifies Luke and "the author of Acts" as the same person, and specifically says that John was not killed by the Romans or anyone else. So we're down to 5 (not 7) co-conspirators (at most) who were killed by the Romans -- except that I'm not aware of any such claim being made about Mark and Luke. I'm not sure the Church even claims to know who Mark and Luke were.

Q claims to be a Bible scholar, but he seems ignorant of some pretty basic stuff.

We've already determined he exhibits Dunning-Kruger Effect. 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: