Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-02-2016, 10:43 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(09-02-2016 01:47 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(08-02-2016 01:21 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Hi Dr. Fulton,

Are we still debating here in the Boxing Ring? Because you responded to Chas's post as if he was in the ring, when he is not. Shouldn't you rather have upbraided him for his impatience and childlike impertinence?

You asked me an unusual question; you asked my evidence for believing Paul spent time in Roman prisons. I will answer your question as soon as you tell me why you believe Paul spent SOME time in Roman prisons--after all, you have mentioned Paul being in prison multiple times in the ring, even recently. Are you being disingenuous? Do you believe he spent some time in Roman prison or no? What is your source(s) that he did so, as you wrote because he frequently disturbed the peace? (My pun on the Pax Romana can be safely ignored.)

So, without equivocation or yet another epexegetical orgasm of 15 unrelated/semi-related posts, simply tell me whether you think Paul spent any time in prison at all, and why or why not, please? After all, we need to define terms to have an effective debate, right?

Thanks!

"I will answer your question as soon as you tell me why you believe Paul spent SOME time in Roman prisons"

No you won't. You have, as usual, contributed nothing to the discussion. You haven't bothered answering the last 70 or so questions I've asked you, so why would this one be any different?

You are not only ignorant, you are downright lazy. You can't even be bothered answering in reasonable time.

I have answered your question many times already. I'm not going to repeat myself again.

Go on, punk, make my day, ask me why Paul was beaten up by Romans.

Listen, I understand how formal debates work. You have every right to bring in social commentary and scholarly commentary. However, for each and every one of my questions regarding the Bible's stated facts--we have mostly debated facts of history and documents and not miracles--you have only brought in such commentary and no Bible documents.

Put another way, I've asked you why Paul as a Roman conspirator spent time in Roman prisons--1/3 of his epistles were dictated to scribes while he was imprisoned. You have stated (paraphrasing your comments):

* No, Paul wasn't in Roman prisons

* No, Paul was in Roman prisons only briefly

* No, Roman prisons weren't bad places to be interred

I have called you out on two of those points. Please provide your facts, which would include either Bible quotations and/or contemporary sources, proving Paul was only in prison briefly, and not commentary.

I appreciate that you greatly dislike the Bible, however, it is high time in this debate for you to either forfeit or provide evidence.

Thanks!

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
10-02-2016, 01:04 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(06-02-2016 04:34 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(05-02-2016 02:23 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I cannot debate someone with such a base misunderstanding of scriptures. He didn't write, he had scribes visiting him in prison. Are you that unaware that the epistles say things like, "From Paul and Silas..." or "I, Tertius, who wrote down this letter, greet you in the Lord..."?

But you may have solved the issue by telling us "Roman prisons weren't really all that bad," and "Paul wasn't really in prison often," after all, only 4 of 13 epistles were penned from prison, that's only like a third of Paul's ministry, right? And you know better than secular historians on these matters because of, um, time travel? Or just that magical atheist power of make believe?

By the way, since you are a materialist who believes only what he can sense, how can you comment with such perspicuity and insight as to how and where Paul was imprisoned two millennia ago?

Or are you simply using logic, ascendant, triumphant, immutable logic, believing, sir, that logical values are ABSOLUTES?

So it is high time for a fresh question:

Since you seem to know better than religious AND secular historians as to the length of Paul's imprisonments (and can read Paul's mind to tell us exactly where he writes truth and where he writes lies) what is your source(s) for your "proofs" in this debate?


"By the way, since you are a materialist..."

materialist |məˈtɪərɪəlɪst|
noun
1 a person who considers material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values

Oh! So I'm a materialist Huh because I don't believe your crap?Facepalm

Your ad hominems, which have nothing to do with the discussion, are pathetic.

It's not an ad hom to call you aspiritual if it's true. And you must realize I meant shorthand for dialectical materialist...?!

Because you write about Paul, telling us he lied, without any frame of reference involving facts or documents, as if you went back in time to have a conversation with him off the record--and for a materialist, that seems like a stretch! Big Grin

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
10-02-2016, 02:46 PM (This post was last modified: 10-02-2016 09:11 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(10-02-2016 10:34 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(08-02-2016 11:34 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Shouldn't you rather have upbraided him for his impatience and childlike impertinence?

Nope. I'm far more interested in the content of the debate than the rules. If you want to have a hissy fit, go ahead.

It's a "hissy fit" to ask why you responded to someone in the Boxing Ring and both violated the rules and approved someone else who violated the rules? Please answer my question.

Yes. The way you carried on was a hissy fit...and also a weak attempt to distract from the topics at hand.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
10-02-2016, 02:50 PM (This post was last modified: 10-02-2016 02:58 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(10-02-2016 10:43 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(09-02-2016 01:47 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "I will answer your question as soon as you tell me why you believe Paul spent SOME time in Roman prisons"

No you won't. You have, as usual, contributed nothing to the discussion. You haven't bothered answering the last 70 or so questions I've asked you, so why would this one be any different?

You are not only ignorant, you are downright lazy. You can't even be bothered answering in reasonable time.

I have answered your question many times already. I'm not going to repeat myself again.

Go on, punk, make my day, ask me why Paul was beaten up by Romans.

Listen, I understand how formal debates work. You have every right to bring in social commentary and scholarly commentary. However, for each and every one of my questions regarding the Bible's stated facts--we have mostly debated facts of history and documents and not miracles--you have only brought in such commentary and no Bible documents.

Put another way, I've asked you why Paul as a Roman conspirator spent time in Roman prisons--1/3 of his epistles were dictated to scribes while he was imprisoned. You have stated (paraphrasing your comments):

* No, Paul wasn't in Roman prisons

* No, Paul was in Roman prisons only briefly

* No, Roman prisons weren't bad places to be interred

I have called you out on two of those points. Please provide your facts, which would include either Bible quotations and/or contemporary sources, proving Paul was only in prison briefly, and not commentary.

I appreciate that you greatly dislike the Bible, however, it is high time in this debate for you to either forfeit or provide evidence.

Thanks!

Same old questions, which i have already answered.

And you have, as usual, contributed nothing. No counter arguments, no interesting insights into Paul...just noise.

Yawn.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
10-02-2016, 03:23 PM (This post was last modified: 10-02-2016 09:08 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(10-02-2016 01:04 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(06-02-2016 04:34 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "By the way, since you are a materialist..."

materialist |məˈtɪərɪəlɪst|
noun
1 a person who considers material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values

Oh! So I'm a materialist Huh because I don't believe your crap?Facepalm

Your ad hominems, which have nothing to do with the discussion, are pathetic.

It's not an ad hom to call you aspiritual if it's true. And you must realize I meant shorthand for dialectical materialist...?!

Because you write about Paul, telling us he lied, without any frame of reference involving facts or documents, as if you went back in time to have a conversation with him off the record--and for a materialist, that seems like a stretch! Big Grin

"I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry."

"you dislike the bible"

"you are not spiritual"


Here we have the musings of a typical fundamentalist. Unable to grasp the simple reality that their bible and beliefs are nonsense, they are perplexed by those who do. They need to label the atheist as having personal issues to explain away the fact that the other is more informed and clear minded than they will ever be.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 3 users Like Mark Fulton's post
11-02-2016, 01:20 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(10-02-2016 02:46 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(10-02-2016 10:34 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  It's a "hissy fit" to ask why you responded to someone in the Boxing Ring and both violated the rules and approved someone else who violated the rules? Please answer my question.

Yes. The way you carried on was a hissy fit...and also a weak attempt to distract from the topics at hand.

Not logical, since rather than solely comment on your violation of the rules, I pursued a separate line of questioning at the same time. Upon a further violation of the rules I will declare victory, appropriately, as not following the rules is cheating.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
11-02-2016, 01:24 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(10-02-2016 02:50 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(10-02-2016 10:43 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Listen, I understand how formal debates work. You have every right to bring in social commentary and scholarly commentary. However, for each and every one of my questions regarding the Bible's stated facts--we have mostly debated facts of history and documents and not miracles--you have only brought in such commentary and no Bible documents.

Put another way, I've asked you why Paul as a Roman conspirator spent time in Roman prisons--1/3 of his epistles were dictated to scribes while he was imprisoned. You have stated (paraphrasing your comments):

* No, Paul wasn't in Roman prisons

* No, Paul was in Roman prisons only briefly

* No, Roman prisons weren't bad places to be interred

I have called you out on two of those points. Please provide your facts, which would include either Bible quotations and/or contemporary sources, proving Paul was only in prison briefly, and not commentary.

I appreciate that you greatly dislike the Bible, however, it is high time in this debate for you to either forfeit or provide evidence.

Thanks!

Same old questions, which i have already answered.

And you have, as usual, contributed nothing. No counter arguments, no interesting insights into Paul...just noise.

Yawn.

You certainly did answer my question previously. However, posting commentary, that is varying opinion, regarding Paul, written hundreds to thousands of years after his life isn't really answering my questions. And I have been clear regarding my stance since before entering the ring...

...that my questions regarding your position revolve around whether you have contemporaneous counter-documents to the scriptures and/or smoking gun evidence of tampering with the scriptures. Again, a commentary written hundreds of years after the scriptures that the scriptures themselves were redacted at the time of their writing would not hold in court (even mock debate court). Imagine someone today bringing charges that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were redacted and changed despite the evidence to the contrary including signatures.

As promised before the ring opened, you would stick to mere commentary, as well as breaking the rules of formal debate, and spouting pure conjecture and the opinions of Bible haters, rather than provide contemporaneous evidence or counter-documents--because there aren't any. There aren't even apocryphal "scriptures" with things to say against Paul.

I've won this debate. Thank you for your time.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
12-02-2016, 02:06 AM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(11-02-2016 01:24 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(10-02-2016 02:50 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Same old questions, which i have already answered.

And you have, as usual, contributed nothing. No counter arguments, no interesting insights into Paul...just noise.

Yawn.

You certainly did answer my question previously. However, posting commentary, that is varying opinion, regarding Paul, written hundreds to thousands of years after his life isn't really answering my questions. And I have been clear regarding my stance since before entering the ring...

...that my questions regarding your position revolve around whether you have contemporaneous counter-documents to the scriptures and/or smoking gun evidence of tampering with the scriptures. Again, a commentary written hundreds of years after the scriptures that the scriptures themselves were redacted at the time of their writing would not hold in court (even mock debate court). Imagine someone today bringing charges that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were redacted and changed despite the evidence to the contrary including signatures.

As promised before the ring opened, you would stick to mere commentary, as well as breaking the rules of formal debate, and spouting pure conjecture and the opinions of Bible haters, rather than provide contemporaneous evidence or counter-documents--because there aren't any. There aren't even apocryphal "scriptures" with things to say against Paul.

I've won this debate. Thank you for your time.

Classic Dunning- Kruger...

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which relatively unskilled persons suffer illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than it really is. Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their own ineptitude and evaluate their own ability accurately. Their research also suggests corollaries: highly skilled individuals may underestimate their relative competence and may erroneously assume that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 4 users Like Mark Fulton's post
12-02-2016, 12:39 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(12-02-2016 02:06 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(11-02-2016 01:24 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You certainly did answer my question previously. However, posting commentary, that is varying opinion, regarding Paul, written hundreds to thousands of years after his life isn't really answering my questions. And I have been clear regarding my stance since before entering the ring...

...that my questions regarding your position revolve around whether you have contemporaneous counter-documents to the scriptures and/or smoking gun evidence of tampering with the scriptures. Again, a commentary written hundreds of years after the scriptures that the scriptures themselves were redacted at the time of their writing would not hold in court (even mock debate court). Imagine someone today bringing charges that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were redacted and changed despite the evidence to the contrary including signatures.

As promised before the ring opened, you would stick to mere commentary, as well as breaking the rules of formal debate, and spouting pure conjecture and the opinions of Bible haters, rather than provide contemporaneous evidence or counter-documents--because there aren't any. There aren't even apocryphal "scriptures" with things to say against Paul.

I've won this debate. Thank you for your time.

Classic Dunning- Kruger...

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which relatively unskilled persons suffer illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than it really is. Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their own ineptitude and evaluate their own ability accurately. Their research also suggests corollaries: highly skilled individuals may underestimate their relative competence and may erroneously assume that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others.

I don't think you're suffering from Dunning-Kruger, but it would be great if you would respond to my concerns. I must repeat, I've won our debate.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
12-02-2016, 03:45 PM (This post was last modified: 12-02-2016 03:59 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(11-02-2016 01:24 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(10-02-2016 02:50 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Same old questions, which i have already answered.

And you have, as usual, contributed nothing. No counter arguments, no interesting insights into Paul...just noise.

Yawn.

You certainly did answer my question previously. However, posting commentary, that is varying opinion, regarding Paul, written hundreds to thousands of years after his life isn't really answering my questions. And I have been clear regarding my stance since before entering the ring...

...that my questions regarding your position revolve around whether you have contemporaneous counter-documents to the scriptures and/or smoking gun evidence of tampering with the scriptures. Again, a commentary written hundreds of years after the scriptures that the scriptures themselves were redacted at the time of their writing would not hold in court (even mock debate court). Imagine someone today bringing charges that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were redacted and changed despite the evidence to the contrary including signatures.

As promised before the ring opened, you would stick to mere commentary, as well as breaking the rules of formal debate, and spouting pure conjecture and the opinions of Bible haters, rather than provide contemporaneous evidence or counter-documents--because there aren't any. There aren't even apocryphal "scriptures" with things to say against Paul.

I've won this debate. Thank you for your time.

"And I have been clear regarding my stance since before entering the ring.."

Yep. It is obvious you haven't read, thought about or responded to the hundreds of issues I have raised about Paul...because you have already made your mind up.

"spouting pure conjecture and the opinions of Bible haters, rather than provide contemporaneous evidence or counter-documents--because there aren't any."

So you keep saying...ad nauseum. Yet you don't realise that Paul's writings themselves are inconsistent and invalid and full of unsubstantiated nonsense. We don't need any contemporary commentators to tell us this...it is obvious from the letters themselves.

What is more, you haven't read or understood what I wrote about James' letter or the dead sea scrolls, which are contemporary documents.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: