MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[Free]

You're the one equivocating on definitions and, I think, misinterpreting what I'm actually saying, for whatever reason.

Bullshit. You pressed me on the issue of bias, I gave you my interpretation of it in bold in relation to the general forum as to be applied here, and you CHOSE to ignore that obvious application in favor of a more nefarious interpretation in an effort to paint me in a negative light.

I demonstrated my point on the prejudicial bias issue HERE.


But HERE I gave you multiple definitions of the type of bias that is widespread on this forum, and even placed the definition I hold to in bold, making it very obvious.

But you chose to ignore that, and instead wrongfully accuse me of equivocating. You seem to fail to understand the many applications of the word bias, and instead are attempting to corner me into saying it only means what YOU understand it to mean, or what YOU are insisting my meaning as being.

I may have an attitude, but you were the one who stoked it by dictating to others what they believe and why. As to dishonesty, there you go yet again; perhaps I actually believe what I'm saying, and aren't simply lying to get you, did you ever even consider that? Don't flatter yourself by thinking you're worthy of some vendetta; if you hadn't started accusing people of bias I would never have stepped in.

Bullshit again. Here you go saying I am trying to direct people in what they believe while you are trying to direct people in what I believe? That's fucking hypocritical at its best.

The entire problem here is your unwavering intention to insist upon me and others who read this that your definition of bias is the only definition to be adhered to. To me, that's no different than putting words in my mouth, and also, absolutely constitutes a lack of trust in you from my position.

[Cyberman]

but by now you've taken this (minor, inoffensive) example of mod action as a threat to your pride,

It's really ridiculous. I've actually made more substantial changes to content whenever I've corrected quote formatting and snipped links. What happened here was the forum equivalent of tidying the toys into one box, or the shit into one pile, and suddenly we're forum gods fucking around with posts?

[His_Majesty]

If your Part Three is anything like your Part Two, Part Three will be merged with this thread. If you don't bring forth new points, you don't get to have a new thread. It's that simple. I will say you'd better tread carefully on this one. You wouldn't want to get banned for spamming.

Look, I am making a CASE for the Resurrection of Jesus. I can care less whether or not anything I say is "new" to you. In fact, in part 2 I presented evidence regarding the Gospel's and the NAMES of the people in the narratives...now, that is ENTIRELY new information that has been only known for the past 10 years or so, and I guarandamntee you didn't know anything about it until I mentioned it (if you even bothered to read the damn thing)...so that is new information.

And then you talk about spamming, one part was about whether or not Jesus existed, and the other part was about the authorship of the Gospels...how the hell is that spamming when both posts are genuinely related to the general topic in question??

So how the hell can that be consider spamming? It can't be, you people just want to have a reason to do some shit, that's all. You see I am having a lively discussion regarding threads that I started, you don't care too much for me, so you had to flex your executive muscles to do some unwarranted crap and I can't even get a good reason why it happen.

You said it was because I didn't bring forth any "new" information, and Esquilax said it was to make the threads more "readable" (whatever the hell that means). So which is it?

It's bullshit.

[abaris]

What happened here was the forum equivalent of tidying the toys into one box, or the shit into one pile...

The second analogy fits the situation at hand better.

[His_Majesty]

It's really ridiculous. I've actually made more substantial changes to content whenever I've corrected quote formatting and snipped links. What happened here was the forum equivalent of tidying the toys into one box, or the shit into one pile, and suddenly we're forum gods fucking around with posts?

Tiding the toys into one box? Bullshit. If that is the case, when you read a book there shouldn't be any chapters & sub-topics...it should just be one long ass book with no chapters or sub-topics whatsoever.

[Esquilax]

Bullshit. You pressed me on the issue of bias, I gave you my interpretation of it in bold in relation to the general forum as to be applied here, and you CHOSE to ignore that obvious application in favor of a more nefarious interpretation in an effort to paint me in a negative light.

I demonstrated my point on the prejudicial bias issue HERE.


But HERE I gave you multiple definitions of the type of bias that is widespread on this forum, and even placed the definition I hold to in bold, making it very obvious.

But you chose to ignore that, and instead wrongfully accuse me of equivocating. You seem to fail to understand the many applications of the word bias, and instead are attempting to corner me into saying it only means what YOU understand it to mean, or what YOU are insisting my meaning as being.

I'm well aware that the word bias can be taken to mean multiple things, but I'm also well aware that the definition you opted to bold makes the initial argument about bias you made entirely nonsensical. If you're using bias just to mean "having an opinion on a given issue," as you claimed, then how on earth could you use that bias as a reason to dismiss the arguments put forward by others in this thread? You can't use "you disagree with me" as a reason to dismiss what they have to say.

I opted to think you were smarter than that, and were simply backtracking. Would you like me to reconsider, and downgrade you from dishonest to just moronic?

Bullshit again. Here you go saying I am trying to direct people in what they believe while you are trying to direct people in what I believe? That's fucking hypocritical at its best.

I'm not trying to direct people as to what you believe, I'm merely pointing out that what you said, and your reasoning for why you said it, not only don't match up, but are entirely discordant with one another.

The entire problem here is your unwavering intention to insist upon me and others who read this that your definition of bias is the only definition to be adhered to. To me, that's no different than putting words in my mouth, and also, absolutely constitutes a lack of trust in you from my position.

Read above: if you want to insist upon your definition of bias that's fine, but it does negate what you initially said.

You said it was because I didn't bring forth any "new" information, and Esquilax said it was to make the threads more "readable" (whatever the hell that means). So which is it?

Both: your thread didn't contain any new information sufficient to distinguish it from your first thread, and so the two were combined so that the entire thing could be read more easily in one place.

[Cyberman]

I couldn't care less what feelings of persecution you may want us to think you have, H_M. This is the only standard that matters on this topic:

2 No Spamming
This not only refers to blatant attempts to advertise but to any post that is not an attempt at discussion. Depending on the severity of the spam, a warning or a ban will be administered. We consider spam to be any of the following:

• Multiple postings of the same topic.
  
• Threads which are posted to advertise products / links unrelated to this forum.
  
• Responses to existing topics which are completely unrelated to the subject.
  
• Hit and run postings of a trollish or otherwise inappropriate nature.
  

But please do keep it up. Our patience is not inexhaustible.

[Esquilax]

It's really ridiculous. I've actually made more substantial changes to content whenever I've corrected quote formatting and snipped links. What happened here was the forum equivalent of tidying the toys into one box, or the shit into one pile, and suddenly we're forum gods fucking around with posts?

Tiding the toys into one box? Bullshit. If that is the case, when you read a book there shouldn't be any chapters & sub-topics...it should just be one long ass book with no chapters or sub-topics whatsoever.

You mean like the kind I write?

And if each chapter came as its own individually bound book that you had to lug everywhere, would that be okay to you too? Or would that seem needless to you?

[His_Majesty]

You could just save us all the time and bother and write your part three here in this thread

I will just let it go, then. Because I refuse to be dicated to.

[Cyberman]

Tiding the toys into one box? Bullshit. If that is the case, when you read a book there shouldn't be any chapters & sub-topics...it should just be one long ass book with no chapters or sub-topics whatsoever.

Try reading one of Terry Pratchett's earlier works sometime. He used to say that life has no chapters, so why should books?

Regardless, this is a discussion forum, not your personal blog. In fact, that's a good idea: why not post your chapters on your own blogspace where you get to set the rules, then come back here and post links?