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

[Esquilax]

What the hell do you mean "dozens of irrelevant threads"? Every single one is relevant, and if they aren't then why is there so much activity on each one then?

The amount of activity a thread has in no way reflects upon its relevancy.

I wanted to discuss the topic in a ORDERLY fashion instead of one giant ass thread that is jam packed with hundreds of pages.

For one, your constant divergences within the thread put the lie to that claim. For another, everyone else seems to manage an orderly and logical progression of argumentation in single threads; aside from being able to claim victory at the beginning of each new thread for the preceding one, how exactly does a large thread impede your ability to properly arrange your argument? We have a thing called a quote function, which allows us all to recall specific posts we wish to discuss, obviating the need to go trawling through hundreds of pages, after all.

There is only 4 (maybe 5) parts to it, and each part is its own set of work so each sub-topic had its own thread, where each topic could be discussed.

Got damn, is that asking for too much?

That is the conclusion the staff came to. We won't let anyone else make five threads on the same topic, why should we make an exception for you just because you won't stop whining about it?

I felt it was unwarranted, just something to do so you can say you fucked with me.

I don't care what you felt; unlike you, I seem to be able to recognize that you don't know any of us, don't know what the contents of our minds are, and don't have access to the staff thread where this issue was discussed, and the determination made. I do have access to that thread, so I can safely tell you that you're wrong, so quit being so presumptuous.

How the hell was the merge for "ease of reading" when you have a jam packed 100+ page full of shit?

Maybe you shouldn't write so much shit, then?

It's for ease of reading because now the entirety of your argument is in the one place; your second part didn't differ that strongly from the first, you know. Your vile and aggressive conduct certainly hasn't changed in between them.

Awww, aren't you a bright one?? First off, I could CARE LESS whether or not you people are convinced by the arguments..the point of me even joining this wonderful forum is not to get converts (although that would be fine), but to be able to answer objections to my faith, especially regarding something like the Resurrection which is admittedly difficult to prove due to the fact that the arguments that are given is based on historicity, which can be quite subjective.

The point of starting the thread was to sharpen my sword in this particular aspect of Christian apologetics...keeping the sword sharp...now whether or not you are convinced, I could care less, because it is obvious that you people don't give a shit about salvation OR Jesus Christ anyway.

So, you don't care if you convince any of us, but you came here to "sharpen your sword" in christian apologetics, and christian apologetics is specifically the practice of rationally defending christianity from objections... wouldn't the yardstick for how successful your apologetics are as arguments be how convincing they are to other people? I mean, that's how we measure the success of arguments, via their effectiveness at doing what arguments do, which is convincing other people of a position.

So basically, you've come here to practice your apologetics, yet you don't care about the one measure by which you could determine whether you're actually getting better at it or not. That either says a lot about your thinking abilities, or your confidence. Given what I know of your grotesquely inflated ego, probably both.