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

[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.