Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-02-2016, 05:43 AM (This post was last modified: 18-02-2016 05:47 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(17-02-2016 10:37 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(16-02-2016 03:31 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Oh, you are still here. And, as always, our readers have learned nothing, zilch, from your post.

I'll make another attempt to draw you into the discussion, although I won't hold my breath waiting for answers, and I'll be very surprised if you actually know enough, or can be bothered to do some research, to answer me.

"It is not obvious to those who study Paul...that Paul is inconsistent."

Ok, tell us why. I have written many pages outlining his inconsistencies. It is your duty to respond.

"Paul was a brilliant orator and organizer."

Ok, tell us why. I have written many pages outlining why he was not. It is your duty to respond.

"No, I have read what you wrote about James and the scrolls."

Ok, tell us what you think of my arguments, because you have not made one skerrick of commentary about this. It is your duty to respond.

You have written many pages of commentary, yours and others, on the texts under question. However:

1. I will not waste my time providing commentary--as you have--of writers not contemporary to Paul. Yes, in a debate you may present commentary, but presenting 100% commentary and no facts leaves you open to the charge of sophistry.

2. You have consistently stated that you know which of Paul's statements are his and which are pseudo- or deutero-Paul. What is your proof?

3. You have consistently stated each time I provided verses and passages that refuted your ideas/concepts that you know my Bible verses are either 1) not Paul's writing or 2) Paul's writing but Paul wasn't really writing what we plainly read, he was lying. Please provide your proof.

"...each time I provided verses and passages that refuted your ideas/concepts..."

You're off in la la land again...claiming you have addressed the issues I've bought up, whereas you can't even comprehend, let alone argue against, my ideas.

I'm going to rant.

I'm so fucking sick of religious people who lie to themselves and to others. Their lives are built on a framework of outright lies and delusions. They poison innocent kids. They keep all of us back with their stupidity. They huddle together in their fucking churches and lie to each other and then pretend they have discovered some great truth. The big ones feed off the little ones, just like in any toxic business.

Well fuck them and fuck you, Q, as you are a deluded liar.

Ah, that's better.Big Grin
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 3 users Like Mark Fulton's post
19-02-2016, 12:43 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(17-02-2016 02:48 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "most people take Paul's writings as kind and good,"

"Even atheist scholars who deny the resurrection and appearance to Paul admit Paul was a brilliant orator and organizer."

Argumentum Ad Numerum is a logical fallacy: it is the idea where something is true, because great numbers believe it. As in "eat shit, twenty trillion flies cant be wrong!" - Bill Maher.

So, for the 100th time, and to relieve the boredom of our readers, how about you actually enter the discussion about Paul and say something about him? Your reputation is in tatters...here is your chance to do something about it. No more (incorrect) argumentum ad numerums please...they only reflect your own biases.

What do you call the logical fallacy where I point out that your view is so extreme that most atheist religious scholars repudiate your nonsense?

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
19-02-2016, 12:44 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(17-02-2016 02:53 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(17-02-2016 10:40 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I don't follow your false analogy. Most people take Mein Kampf as evil in print and most people take Paul's writings as kind and good, regardless of their stance on biblical Christianity overall.

Also, I never wrote that Paul only spoke truth. But I do stand behind the fact that he only wrote/dictated truth when he was doing his epistles. But this discussion must be moot until you prove how you know (see above) which Pauline statements are really his and not another author's...

"But I do stand behind the fact that he only wrote/dictated truth when he was doing his epistles"

Please provide contemporaneous commentary to prove your outlandish opinion...I'm not interested in what has been written hundreds, even thousands, of years later. And I'm not interested in a discussion of Paul's letters themselves (he he Big Grin)

I'm WANTING to discuss the epistles themselves and 99% of your commentary is ABOUT those epistles. But it's hard to imagine a continuation of the debate when every time I quote the epistles you say Paul was lying and when you quote them you innately know whether Paul was being honest or dishonest. I want to debate the text itself!

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
19-02-2016, 12:47 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(17-02-2016 03:27 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(17-02-2016 10:40 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I don't follow your false analogy. Most people take Mein Kampf as evil in print and most people take Paul's writings as kind and good, regardless of their stance on biblical Christianity overall.

Also, I never wrote that Paul only spoke truth. But I do stand behind the fact that he only wrote/dictated truth when he was doing his epistles. But this discussion must be moot until you prove how you know (see above) which Pauline statements are really his and not another author's...

"I don't follow your false analogy."

Obviously. You didn't read it carefully. Concepts more than a sentence long are difficult for you, aren't they?

I asked you why you believed Paul wrote the truth, and in fact, why you think he wrote the word of God. Him being a good orator or a good organiser is not a good reason. (As proven by my analogy.)

Are you going to answer, or just, as usual, reply with another (already addressed) question?

You asked no such thing. Now that you're asking, I will address it.

I believe Paul wrote the Word of God because 95% of his doctrine is taken from the Old Testament, which itself is proven via fulfilled prophecy to be the revealed Word of God. I know you hate Scientology, Mormonism, etc. and I can hardly blame you for that! But Paul isn't making things up of whole cloth, he is engaging in what Jewish rabbis commonly do and offering insight, but from the Tanakh and not the Talmud. Thus his validity.

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
19-02-2016, 03:29 PM (This post was last modified: 19-02-2016 06:20 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(19-02-2016 12:47 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(17-02-2016 03:27 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "I don't follow your false analogy."

Obviously. You didn't read it carefully. Concepts more than a sentence long are difficult for you, aren't they?

I asked you why you believed Paul wrote the truth, and in fact, why you think he wrote the word of God. Him being a good orator or a good organiser is not a good reason. (As proven by my analogy.)

Are you going to answer, or just, as usual, reply with another (already addressed) question?

You asked no such thing. Now that you're asking, I will address it.

I believe Paul wrote the Word of God because 95% of his doctrine is taken from the Old Testament, which itself is proven via fulfilled prophecy to be the revealed Word of God. I know you hate Scientology, Mormonism, etc. and I can hardly blame you for that! But Paul isn't making things up of whole cloth, he is engaging in what Jewish rabbis commonly do and offering insight, but from the Tanakh and not the Talmud. Thus his validity.

"You asked no such thing."

The following is a cut and paste from my question to you in post 314...

"...please explain how you can make the extraordinary step from

"Paul was a brilliant orator and organizer..." to your implied assumption that

"Paul only speaks the truth and he relays the word of God" ?"

So I have asked you, and as usual, you ignored my question, and now you are calling black white despite the evidence for everyone to read.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
19-02-2016, 03:52 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(19-02-2016 12:47 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(17-02-2016 03:27 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "I don't follow your false analogy."

Obviously. You didn't read it carefully. Concepts more than a sentence long are difficult for you, aren't they?

I asked you why you believed Paul wrote the truth, and in fact, why you think he wrote the word of God. Him being a good orator or a good organiser is not a good reason. (As proven by my analogy.)

Are you going to answer, or just, as usual, reply with another (already addressed) question?

You asked no such thing. Now that you're asking, I will address it.

I believe Paul wrote the Word of God because 95% of his doctrine is taken from the Old Testament, which itself is proven via fulfilled prophecy to be the revealed Word of God. I know you hate Scientology, Mormonism, etc. and I can hardly blame you for that! But Paul isn't making things up of whole cloth, he is engaging in what Jewish rabbis commonly do and offering insight, but from the Tanakh and not the Talmud. Thus his validity.

"Now that you're asking, I will address it."

Hurrah! This will be your first attempt to actually say something about Paul in the last 20 pages....drum roll please....

"I believe Paul wrote the Word of God because 95% of his doctrine is taken from the Old Testament,"

Bollocks! Paul invented his own nonsense. There is no Christ in the OT. Paul undermined the basic tenets of Judaism. He was a heretic, and is considered as such by all true Jews today.

"...which itself is proven via fulfilled prophecy to be the revealed Word of God."

Bollocks! There is no "fulfilled prophecy" in the OT. Show me some.

"I know you hate Scientology, Mormonism, etc."


Irrelevant.

But Paul isn't making things up of whole cloth, he is engaging in what Jewish rabbis commonly do and offering insight, but from the Tanakh and not the Talmud. Thus his validity.

Bollocks! Paul tried to pinch the odd idea from the OT, yet most of what he wrote sprang from the fertile imagination of his own mind and from what he pinched from other cults such as Mithraism. He convinced no true Jew of his ramblings. You are claiming he was interpreting scripture, yet he was inventing his own ideas... ideas that suited his political agenda.

Even if he was a good Jew just interpreting Scripture, that adds no weight to his validity today. Old Testament Scripture is nonsense...a fact any rational person with an objective view knows.

Thanks for at least attempting a cursory answer to one of my questions, but you only get an epic fail for this one.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 3 users Like Mark Fulton's post
19-02-2016, 04:18 PM (This post was last modified: 20-02-2016 04:48 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(19-02-2016 12:44 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(17-02-2016 02:53 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "But I do stand behind the fact that he only wrote/dictated truth when he was doing his epistles"

Please provide contemporaneous commentary to prove your outlandish opinion...I'm not interested in what has been written hundreds, even thousands, of years later. And I'm not interested in a discussion of Paul's letters themselves (he he Big Grin)

I'm WANTING to discuss the epistles themselves and 99% of your commentary is ABOUT those epistles. But it's hard to imagine a continuation of the debate when every time I quote the epistles you say Paul was lying and when you quote them you innately know whether Paul was being honest or dishonest. I want to debate the text itself!

"...every time I quote the epistles you say Paul was lying and when you quote them you innately know whether Paul was being honest or dishonest. I want to debate the text itself!"

I had to read the above a few times to understand what you are trying to say.

We have a problem here. It seems you are unable to fathom the idea that Paul was a liar. It seems you want to discuss Paul's validity by firstly assuming that he wrote the word of God. Yet that is assuming the conclusion to the debate without entering the debate!

I think Paul was a charlatan. He invented shit to suit himself. I have provided pages and pages of evidence to back up my claims.

If you want to prove Paul was honest and real and God's spokesman, the ball is in your court...the forum is waiting to hear your reasons.

The entire extent of your argument to date has only amounted to...

"that Mark Fulton, he hates the bible, he's angry, and ...shock horror...he doesn't think Paul wrote the word of God!"

Sorry Q, I'll permit myself to speak for most of our readers...that doesn't cut it. You are going to have to lift the ante. Grow some balls. Stop whining, stop your ad hominems and your logical fallacies, get real and start answering some questions.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
19-02-2016, 04:26 PM (This post was last modified: 20-02-2016 01:00 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(19-02-2016 12:43 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(17-02-2016 02:48 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "most people take Paul's writings as kind and good,"

"Even atheist scholars who deny the resurrection and appearance to Paul admit Paul was a brilliant orator and organizer."

Argumentum Ad Numerum is a logical fallacy: it is the idea where something is true, because great numbers believe it. As in "eat shit, twenty trillion flies cant be wrong!" - Bill Maher.

So, for the 100th time, and to relieve the boredom of our readers, how about you actually enter the discussion about Paul and say something about him? Your reputation is in tatters...here is your chance to do something about it. No more (incorrect) argumentum ad numerums please...they only reflect your own biases.

What do you call the logical fallacy where I point out that your view is so extreme that most atheist religious scholars repudiate your nonsense?

"What do you call the logical fallacy where I point out that your view is so extreme that most atheist religious scholars repudiate your nonsense?"

Because...

Argumentum Ad Numerum is a logical fallacy: it is the idea where something is true, because great numbers believe it. As in "eat shit, twenty trillion flies cant be wrong!" - Bill Maher.

It is also known as the Argumentum ad populum

(From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names, [1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy (also known as a vox populi),[2] and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect.

Examples

This fallacy is sometimes committed while trying to convince a person that a widely popular thought is true or that they're wrong because all the rest do otherwise.

Billions believe in my religious belief.

Nine out of ten of my constituents oppose the bill, therefore it is a bad idea.

Fifty million Elvis fans can't be wrong.

Everyone's doing it.

In a court of law, the jury vote by majority; therefore they will always make the correct decision.

Many people buy extended warranties, therefore it is wise to buy them.

Millions of people agree with my viewpoint, therefore it must be right.

The majority of this country voted for this President, therefore this president must be the right choice.

My family or tribe holds this as a truth, and everyone who disagrees is simply wrong.

No one else has ever complained about this.

One could claim that smoking is a healthy pastime, since millions of people do it. However, knowing the dangers of smoking, we instead say that smoking is not a healthy pastime despite the fact that millions do it.

At a time in history when most people believed the world was flat, one could have claimed the world is flat because most believed it.

Advocates of heliocentrism, such as Galileo Galilei were strongly suppressed, despite scientific evidence, now recognized as factual, that supported heliocentrism at the expense of geocentrism.

Explanation
The argumentum ad populum is a red herring and genetic fallacy. It appeals on probabilistic terms; given that 75% of a population answer A to a question where the answer is unknown, the argument states that it is reasonable to assume that the answer is indeed A. In cases where the answer can be known but is not known by a questioned entity, the appeal to majority provides a possible answer with a relatively high probability of correctness.

There is the problem of determining just how many are needed to have a majority or consensus. Is merely greater than 50% significant enough and why? Should the percentage be larger, such as 80 or 90 percent, and how does that make a real difference? Is there real consensus if there are one or even two people who have a different claim that is proven to be true?

It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong. The argument that because 75% of people polled think the answer is A implies that the answer is A fails, because, if opinion did determine truth, then there would be no way to deal with the discrepancy between the 75% of the sample population that believe the answer is A and 25% who are of the opinion that the answer is not A. However small a percentage of those polled give an answer other than A, this discrepancy by definition disproves any guarantee of the correctness of the majority. In addition, this would be true even if the answer given by those polled were unanimous, as the sample size may be insufficient, or some fact may be unknown to those polled that, if known, would result in a different distribution of answers.

This fallacy is similar in structure to certain other fallacies that involve a confusion between the justification of a belief and its widespread acceptance by a given group of people. When an argument uses the appeal to the beliefs of a group of supposed experts, it takes on the form of an appeal to authority; if the appeal is to the beliefs of a group of respected elders or the members of one's community over a long period of time, then it takes on the form of an appeal to tradition.

One who commits this fallacy may assume that individuals commonly analyze and edit their beliefs and behaviors. This is often not the case (see conformity).

The argumentum ad populum can be a valid argument in inductive logic; for example, a poll of a sizeable population may find that 90% prefer a certain brand of product over another. A cogent (strong) argument can then be made that the next person to be considered will also prefer that brand, and the poll is valid evidence of that claim. However, it is unsuitable as an argument for deductive reasoning as proof, for instance to say that the poll proves that the preferred brand is superior to the competition in its composition or that everyone prefers that brand to the other.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
19-02-2016, 05:53 PM (This post was last modified: 20-02-2016 01:46 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
(16-02-2016 08:55 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(12-02-2016 03:45 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "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.

Your logic is not inescapable, Dr. Fulton. It is not obvious to those who study Paul, both liberals and conservatives, even many atheist commentators, that Paul is inconsistent. Even atheist scholars who deny the resurrection and appearance to Paul admit Paul was a brilliant orator and organizer.

No, I have read what you wrote about James and the scrolls--any more arguments you want to make from silence regarding contemporary documents?

Q, you wrote

"It is not obvious to those who study Paul, both liberals and conservatives, even many atheist commentators, that Paul is inconsistent."

You are trying to say that Paul is consistent.

Please explain the following mess of Paul's inconsistent rambling...

"All who rely on works of the law are under a curse" (Galatians 3:10).

"Do we not overthrow the Law by this notion of faith? By no means. On the contrary, we uphold the Law" (Romans 3:31).

"No one is justified before God by the law" (Galatians 3:11).

"Thus the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good" (Romans 7:12).

"For [some manuscripts add 'in Christ Jesus'] neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation is everything!" (Galatians 6:15).

"What is the advantage of the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way" (Romans 3:1).

"No human being will be justified in his [God's] sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin" (Romans 3:20).

"Israel, who pursued righteousness based on the law, did not succeed in fulfilling that law" (Romans 9:31).

"All Israel will be saved" (Romans 11:26).

Q, are you obeying "the law"? Not obeying the law? Or are you following one of Paul's
reinterpreted versions of the law? Huh

You better get it right, old boy, cos, according to you, Gawd is watching and judging you. Gasp

My take on this...as if a hypothetical creator of the universe could give a fuck about what you do on Saturdays, whether you eat prawns, or what some soap box preacher rants about Jeebus! Facepalm The Jewish "law," and Paul's contorted interpretation of what it means or doesn't mean, is nothing more than ancient, contrived bullshit. Thumbsup

Get real by placing yourself and your delusions in perspective in the universe. You are almost of no consequence, neither am I, and neither is anyone else, and that's beautiful. Big Grin
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
19-02-2016, 07:50 PM
RE: Mark Fulton vs Q..."Was Paul a Charlatan"
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: