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

[rexbeccarox]

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.

(bold mine)

Why don't you keep telling us what's in our brains?

1. That you "can" care less whether anything you say is new to me (us?), makes what you're doing spamming.

2. You are making a case... "a" meaning "one". One case needs one thread.

3. It's both.

[Esquilax]

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.

Be honest: are you actually a ten year old?

[His_Majesty]

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.

Exactly!! When you read a book, all of the chapters and subtopics are all on ONE topic...but they are all sectioned off to their own respective chapters because they are TOPICS within the TOPIC, and I would think that is a good enough justification to have them separate.

You can have separate debates for each of the parts on their basis...which is why one giant thread for all parts will create what we called in the Army a "clusterfuck".

Second, if what you present is the rule then why wasn't it merged earlier? It should have been merged from the moment part 2 was posted, but you all waited until dozens of pages in before you decided to take action.

That decision was based upon one god deciding that this should be the case, and the other gods hopping on the bandwagon.

---

Be honest: are you actually a ten year old?

I ain't been 10 yrs old since my 11th birthday.

---

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.

(bold mine)

Why don't you keep telling us what's in our brains?

1. That you "can" care less whether anything you say is new to me (us?), makes what you're doing spamming.

2. You are making a case... "a" meaning "one". One case needs one thread.

3. It's both.

Cool.

---

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?

What? You mean there is a platform where I get to play god, too?? Aww man, I am so excited, because for a moment there I thought that it was just an atheistforum priviledge.

---

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.

Ahhh, see, that would be a damn good point, admittedly..the only problem you have with that explanation is the fact that in part 1, which was used SPECIFICALLY for the purpose of providing evidence for Jesus..and in doing so, the Gospels were NOT used as evidence...but in part 2, which was used SPECIFICALLY for the purpose of providing evidence for the authorship (Matt, Mk, Lk, Jn as authors), the Gospels WERE used.

The new information WAS the Gospels, and since the Gospels were not admitted as evidence in Part 1, but they were in Part 2..that should have been enough for them to be distinguished as separate.

---

Believe me -- I don't take anything you write seriously.

Take what Jesus said seriously.

[Cyberman]

Second, if what you present is the rule then why wasn't it merged earlier? It should have been merged from the moment part 2 was posted, but you all waited until dozens of pages in before you decided to take action.

Because we rely on a consensus of Staff voting on higher action before it gets taken. We're not all online at the same time.

That decision was based upon one god deciding that this should be the case, and the other gods hopping on the bandwagon.

BULL-FUCKING-SHIT!

You will present your evidence for that accusation in your very next post to me or else retract it. If you do neither I'm reporting you for forum disruption.

[The Valkyrie]

[Esquilax]

Second, if what you present is the rule then why wasn't it merged earlier? It should have been merged from the moment part 2 was posted, but you all waited until dozens of pages in before you decided to take action.

That decision was based upon one god deciding that this should be the case, and the other gods hopping on the bandwagon.

There's actually a much more reasonable answer: we aren't allowed to use our mod powers on our own, our internal rules require that we vote on a proposed ruling before it's implemented. So the motion to merge your threads was put up for a vote, and given that we're people living all across the world, in a multitude of different time zones, it takes time to get the required number of votes, more if we wish to debate the issue before coming to a conclusion.

For all your squawking about us being gods, the real story is that we actually decided to think about merging your threads before we did it. So sorry that giving your posts due consideration before moving on them offends you so.

[robvalue]

If you have anything of any substance then hurry up and post it. Quit whining, you're embarressing your God.

We all know you got nothing and are just on a massive attention seeking/self reassuring rant.

[Cyberman]

If there is ever going to be a part three, it'd better be fucking worth it after all this buildup.

[robvalue]

I think part 3 might be when we find out which other forum member is behind all this

[Tonus]

If there is ever going to be a part three, it'd better be fucking worth it after all this buildup.

Maybe, maybe not. Remember, he won't be dicated to.