RE: Compositional anaylsis of the Gospel of Mark
December 20, 2012 at 3:23 am
(This post was last modified: December 20, 2012 at 3:37 am by Aractus.)
(December 19, 2012 at 8:52 am)Brian37 Wrote: I hate the title of the thread, to me this vernacular, "Compositional anaylsis". If we all know holy books are mere comic books do not fuel the believer by using such implied academic phrases.Why do you need to come into a thread that clearly doesn't interest you and troll?? Go and read the OP's original intoruction to these forums:
Why do we need a fancy way of saying we are merely doing a book review, especially one that is no better or real than Batman or Superman?
He takes the study of Biblical literature seriously, although he's non-Christian.
With that said, he specifically claimed in his introduction thread "I look forward to mature, stimulating, enlightening and civil conversations with the members here"; and thus far all he's done is preach at everyone and then refuse to partake in mature, stimulating, enlightening and civil conversations!
Quote:Language is a code, and while we can and should have a more elevated way of communication than "See Spot Run", I find it better to talk in laymens terms when it comes to holy books and simply call them what they are. You don't need to get past even the first page of the bible to know it is a myth.And all you're doing as well is preaching. It's not like you're willing to discuss that or even consider other important aspects to Biblical literature besides as a religious textbook.
Now go away and find a thread that interests you instead of trolling threads that don't!
(December 19, 2012 at 5:15 pm)Brian37 Wrote:I take this to mean it is stupid to assume that you care about evidence then.(December 19, 2012 at 4:59 pm)Undeceived Wrote: Can you tell me what you define as 'evidence'?Why such an inane and stupid question?
What an utterly ridiculous response of yours. Do you presume to label everything a Christian does or says "stupid" solely because of their beliefs? PS: Yes I know my question is a "stupid question".
Quote:You want "evidence". Funny how a Hindu and a Jew and an Atheist and Muslim type on computers like we are now and do not invent a computer deity to explain the existence of computers.Interesting that you define computers as evidence that God can't exist. Thanks for the information, I'll have to remember how low your standard of evidence is.
(December 19, 2012 at 6:05 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Otherwise we can simply make shit up because it sounds good, like Holocaust deniers and Ouija board lovers.It's funny that you stigmatise Holocaust deniers, since they use essentially the same argument you. You claim there "isn't enough evidence". Holocaust deniers claim that there "isn't enough evidence" for the number of Jews executed. Your arguments are one and the same!
