Is Jesus' Resurrection a Fact-Event?
- Thread starter RubySera_Martin
- Start date
- Status
fizzylogic
New Member
- Messages
- 3
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I'm sorry, Q. I was just stunned, to put it mildly, for a moment. I really am very sorry. I enjoy reading the posts here in CR, and I'm learning a lot from them, as I do elsewhere. I hope you will accept my apology, and that I can continue to read and perhaps contribute to the discussions.
Maybe not on this thread, though!
Fizz
Maybe not on this thread, though!
Fizz
flowperson
Oannes
Fear not Fizz,...we all transgress occasionally. That's the largest part of being human...the learning part. Welcome !
flow....
flow....
fizzylogic said:I'm sorry, Q. I was just stunned, to put it mildly, for a moment. I really am very sorry. I enjoy reading the posts here in CR, and I'm learning a lot from them, as I do elsewhere. I hope you will accept my apology, and that I can continue to read and perhaps contribute to the discussions.
Maybe not on this thread, though!
Fizz
Again, welcome.
lunamoth
Episcopalian
fizzylogic said:I'm sorry, Q. I was just stunned, to put it mildly, for a moment. I really am very sorry. I enjoy reading the posts here in CR, and I'm learning a lot from them, as I do elsewhere. I hope you will accept my apology, and that I can continue to read and perhaps contribute to the discussions.
Maybe not on this thread, though!
Fizz
Hello fizzylogic, welcome to CR.
A fresh start for everyone sounds like an excellent idea to me. Looking forward to reading your posts.
cheers,
lunamoth
leastone
Well-Known Member
Dear Readers and Writers,
I have read through the whole thread in its entirety for the first time this evening, and while there is this whiff of clean start/fresh air, I might take up discussing the topic again, that asks if the resurrection of Jesus Christ was an historical event.
Perhaps I should explain how my thinking on both Jesus' birth and His resurrection developed, since it followed completely different routes with totally different outcomes: the one I accept completely, and the other I have come to reject.
Throughout my life, I had always simply accepted the story of the virgin birth, or rather, perhaps as a man, dared not go there---such a sacred space; such a sacred event---so I did not even consider it, or question it: almost like a neutral acceptance. But then, quite unexpectedly, the very first thread I came upon when entering the Christianity Today forum (early this year) was on this very topic. Reading the posts there by a man called Bella Lantos just pushed me into a place where I had no choice but to reject the "virgin" birth as an "embellishment." (The only post I ever placed on that forum stated my new persuasion, and pondered the dilemma of maintaining integrity as a Christian if you keep on discarding what others still cling to. Mr. Lantos kindly contacted me privately and encouraged me, explaining his own lonely path in search for truth.)
Now, as for the resurrection, that I thought about a lot. Throughout the years, though I accepted it "by faith," there was always a lingering uncertainty, that I dared not admit to myself as doubt. There was room for "fantasy" and like everybody else, I looked at the texts narrating the resurrection, the discrepancies, the interpretations, etc. and could never quite rest with a certainty about it. I longed to understand it better.
I say this now in retrospect, for I did not realize how great my doubt was until the day I received the revelation that made it forever sure in my mind that it took place, as testified of by many witnesses. A number of years ago I was reading a book---and unfortunately cannot recall the name of the author---written by someone who apparently had a similar battle with accepting the resurrection as truth. But his struggle eventually brought him an answer, and when I read it, the proof, or evidence, for an actual resurrection became as clear as daylight.
Please bear in mind that people hearing the first reports of the resurrection did not have the mindset to immediately demand scientific proof of the possibility of such an event, nor did they have dubious "Scriptural" texts to consider to be the "Word," and if the "Word" says so, it must be so. No, they only had the sincere reports of witnesses. (They were not on trail, so don't project 20th Century Fox stuff unto them.)
However, it is not their verbal accounts that is the final evidence.
One would have to ask, "What made a despondent bunch of losers, who had just lost everything by having their leader killed; men who actually went back to where they came from; who returned to their fishing business---what made them again leave everything to go, (without Him enchanting them with his physical presence, power, and charisma), and face persecution and death unflinchingly, uncompromisingly? Something changed them!
Was it his death? No. Was it a sudden, widespread conviction that he died on a cross for everybody's sin that lifted their spirits and had them charge out with the good news? Of course not.
No. It was his resurrection. And, changed lives is the evidence. It is the undeniable evidence---something powerful was at work that drove these men, a conviction so strong that they would die for it, such was the certainty that they had. And it was this resurrected Christ, who identified himself to Saul as Jesus, who radically changed a persecutor into an apostle of the Lord.
Of course, you are free to believe that they were all a bunch of liars, but of such integrity, that they would rather die than lose face..
Respectfully,
Learner.
I have read through the whole thread in its entirety for the first time this evening, and while there is this whiff of clean start/fresh air, I might take up discussing the topic again, that asks if the resurrection of Jesus Christ was an historical event.
Perhaps I should explain how my thinking on both Jesus' birth and His resurrection developed, since it followed completely different routes with totally different outcomes: the one I accept completely, and the other I have come to reject.
Throughout my life, I had always simply accepted the story of the virgin birth, or rather, perhaps as a man, dared not go there---such a sacred space; such a sacred event---so I did not even consider it, or question it: almost like a neutral acceptance. But then, quite unexpectedly, the very first thread I came upon when entering the Christianity Today forum (early this year) was on this very topic. Reading the posts there by a man called Bella Lantos just pushed me into a place where I had no choice but to reject the "virgin" birth as an "embellishment." (The only post I ever placed on that forum stated my new persuasion, and pondered the dilemma of maintaining integrity as a Christian if you keep on discarding what others still cling to. Mr. Lantos kindly contacted me privately and encouraged me, explaining his own lonely path in search for truth.)
Now, as for the resurrection, that I thought about a lot. Throughout the years, though I accepted it "by faith," there was always a lingering uncertainty, that I dared not admit to myself as doubt. There was room for "fantasy" and like everybody else, I looked at the texts narrating the resurrection, the discrepancies, the interpretations, etc. and could never quite rest with a certainty about it. I longed to understand it better.
I say this now in retrospect, for I did not realize how great my doubt was until the day I received the revelation that made it forever sure in my mind that it took place, as testified of by many witnesses. A number of years ago I was reading a book---and unfortunately cannot recall the name of the author---written by someone who apparently had a similar battle with accepting the resurrection as truth. But his struggle eventually brought him an answer, and when I read it, the proof, or evidence, for an actual resurrection became as clear as daylight.
Please bear in mind that people hearing the first reports of the resurrection did not have the mindset to immediately demand scientific proof of the possibility of such an event, nor did they have dubious "Scriptural" texts to consider to be the "Word," and if the "Word" says so, it must be so. No, they only had the sincere reports of witnesses. (They were not on trail, so don't project 20th Century Fox stuff unto them.)
However, it is not their verbal accounts that is the final evidence.
One would have to ask, "What made a despondent bunch of losers, who had just lost everything by having their leader killed; men who actually went back to where they came from; who returned to their fishing business---what made them again leave everything to go, (without Him enchanting them with his physical presence, power, and charisma), and face persecution and death unflinchingly, uncompromisingly? Something changed them!
Was it his death? No. Was it a sudden, widespread conviction that he died on a cross for everybody's sin that lifted their spirits and had them charge out with the good news? Of course not.
No. It was his resurrection. And, changed lives is the evidence. It is the undeniable evidence---something powerful was at work that drove these men, a conviction so strong that they would die for it, such was the certainty that they had. And it was this resurrected Christ, who identified himself to Saul as Jesus, who radically changed a persecutor into an apostle of the Lord.
Of course, you are free to believe that they were all a bunch of liars, but of such integrity, that they would rather die than lose face..
Respectfully,
Learner.
It is not I who can define what leads one to martyrdom, as I don't understand the millions that have gone before us doing just that...in the name of much less than a resurected Jesus....so that to me doesn't classify as evidence...a meaninful story to be sure, but evidence no...leastone said:D... it took place, as testified of by many witnesses....
Of course, you are free to believe that they were all a bunch of liars, but of such integrity, that they would rather die than lose face..
Now not to say I need evidence in any of this, I just have a difference of belief in this matter...and I'm not saying my understanding won't change over time...as you indicated these are two things that just never resonated.
But if we can discuss your proof...many witnesses and bunch of liars. As I understand it we are fairly in agreement that we have Mark, and then Luke and Matthew were copied from Mark and Q (and L&M) but these are all accounts not firmly attributed to anyone present but written decades later by potentially unknown writers. So I don't see where we have many, we have a few, who have written, and rewritten what was written and stories that were told around the campfire for years on end, being embellished and improved as the response warranted. As for the bunch of liars...aren't we all storytellers providing words for affect to prove our point, to take part in the discussion? I don't categorize them as liars...believers, yes...but liars...no they took part in the process, raising awareness...and yes many of them died wicked deaths as their belief indicated they would get their reward....
flowperson
Oannes
As I stated earlier in the thread, resurrection scenarios were standard fare in myths about middle eastern divinities. Not to say that this makes the stories about Jesus' return to life necessarily lies. But as wil stated, these stories were told and retold many, many times before they were written down and eventually cannonized.
Such is the evolution of mythology, which is the most powerful cultural transmitter of basic truths into the future for all societies. So one may state that myths are ultimate truth regarding what we all come to believe about the past when factual evidence is otherwise absent. The Bible is an intricately layered and interwoven set of literary stories that have served western culture for a very long time, and have brought us a sense of order and belief about our origins. But mostly, they are likely figurative and not factual/literal.
And in certain instances, large portions of the original writings were not included. It is estimated by scholars that the book of Mark is missing one third to one half of its original content, which could have had a profound effect upon what finally appeared in the story and its messages to hearers/readers. Since Mark was reputedly secretary to Simon Peter in Rome, this could have had great effects upon the early church and its direction. Fragments of some of this information have been uncovered by scholars and analyzed.
The late Morton Smith's book, Jesus the Magician, comes to mind in this regard. Smith found his fragment of a portion of the "lost" Mark on the back of a codex cover in an ancient monastery library in the middle east. Even this small piece of the "lost" story could have profound effects upon our understanding of what may have happened at Gethsemanie the night that the "authorities" arrested Jesus.
Now, this all boils down to belief. Belief that either the Bible is inerrant, that is, is based upon factual evidence; or, that it is a compendium of well-composed historical myths embodying some portions of "truth". Research by many people over the centuries has shown that the former is not likely to be the case. The alternative is to choose what to believe of what is in the Bible and incorporate that into our individual and collective spiritual world views. In this post modern era, I believe that it is increasingly difficult for thinking people to follow the former path as compared with the latter.
flow....
Such is the evolution of mythology, which is the most powerful cultural transmitter of basic truths into the future for all societies. So one may state that myths are ultimate truth regarding what we all come to believe about the past when factual evidence is otherwise absent. The Bible is an intricately layered and interwoven set of literary stories that have served western culture for a very long time, and have brought us a sense of order and belief about our origins. But mostly, they are likely figurative and not factual/literal.
And in certain instances, large portions of the original writings were not included. It is estimated by scholars that the book of Mark is missing one third to one half of its original content, which could have had a profound effect upon what finally appeared in the story and its messages to hearers/readers. Since Mark was reputedly secretary to Simon Peter in Rome, this could have had great effects upon the early church and its direction. Fragments of some of this information have been uncovered by scholars and analyzed.
The late Morton Smith's book, Jesus the Magician, comes to mind in this regard. Smith found his fragment of a portion of the "lost" Mark on the back of a codex cover in an ancient monastery library in the middle east. Even this small piece of the "lost" story could have profound effects upon our understanding of what may have happened at Gethsemanie the night that the "authorities" arrested Jesus.
Now, this all boils down to belief. Belief that either the Bible is inerrant, that is, is based upon factual evidence; or, that it is a compendium of well-composed historical myths embodying some portions of "truth". Research by many people over the centuries has shown that the former is not likely to be the case. The alternative is to choose what to believe of what is in the Bible and incorporate that into our individual and collective spiritual world views. In this post modern era, I believe that it is increasingly difficult for thinking people to follow the former path as compared with the latter.
flow....
RubySera_Martin
Well-Known Member
Leastone, thank you for sharing so deeply. I can see your heart is in it and that your belief is based on more than someone's authority. I think that is true faith or true religion, as James calls it. I firmly believe that whoever wrote the resurrection and virgin birth and other miracle stories was just as sincere and honest in what they said.
However, as Wil says, the fact that they gave their lives for their faith is not evidence of anything other than that they believed in the cause for which they suffered and died. The same can be said of the hundreds of young Russians who were martyred in the 19th century in the name of socialism. It seems to me that people who go to war and put their lives on the line for their country it might also be called martyrdom.
No matter what it's called we have people volunteering to suffer and die if required for many purposes other than their religion.
However, as Wil says, the fact that they gave their lives for their faith is not evidence of anything other than that they believed in the cause for which they suffered and died. The same can be said of the hundreds of young Russians who were martyred in the 19th century in the name of socialism. It seems to me that people who go to war and put their lives on the line for their country it might also be called martyrdom.
No matter what it's called we have people volunteering to suffer and die if required for many purposes other than their religion.
leastone
Well-Known Member
I understand what y'all are saying to me. Thank you.
I would, however, point to the fact, as confirmed by some here, that Jesus' teachings were not really new, and therefore could not be the prime motivation that made the wannabe martyrs so zealous.
And if it were not the teachings, or the death, what was it?
Just a memory of a person?
And if it were just a massive con job, or very successful (sales) presentation, I am sure that any Madison Avenue image consultancy would have all its efforts based on a careful study of the modus operandi of those first disciples.
Respectfully,
Learner.
P.S. Sure, people die for all kinds of causes, but these are normally temporary, in flux. The Christian cause apparently came to stay, and is still here, along with the ever present persecution (in some countries). There are living witnesses carrying the scars of their torture under persecution, and I believe them---I do not have to wait a hundred years for somebody to write down their stories (correctly), or accept it only if CBS has video footage of it. Besides, Christian persecution rarely, if ever, came as the result of zealots tackling, and waging war against, the establishment. Rather, it was the establishment seeking to destroy it, no matter where it fled, or where it hid.
I would, however, point to the fact, as confirmed by some here, that Jesus' teachings were not really new, and therefore could not be the prime motivation that made the wannabe martyrs so zealous.
And if it were not the teachings, or the death, what was it?
Just a memory of a person?
And if it were just a massive con job, or very successful (sales) presentation, I am sure that any Madison Avenue image consultancy would have all its efforts based on a careful study of the modus operandi of those first disciples.
Respectfully,
Learner.
P.S. Sure, people die for all kinds of causes, but these are normally temporary, in flux. The Christian cause apparently came to stay, and is still here, along with the ever present persecution (in some countries). There are living witnesses carrying the scars of their torture under persecution, and I believe them---I do not have to wait a hundred years for somebody to write down their stories (correctly), or accept it only if CBS has video footage of it. Besides, Christian persecution rarely, if ever, came as the result of zealots tackling, and waging war against, the establishment. Rather, it was the establishment seeking to destroy it, no matter where it fled, or where it hid.
RubySera_Martin
Well-Known Member
Leastone, I have no problem if you wish to hold these beliefs. Like I said, I can see that you have very good reason to hold them. My only request would be that you extend the same rights and privileges to those of us who do not hold them.
You may remember the doctor I mentioned who subjected me to spiritual abuse in his office via evangelization? You explained why he did it and you suggested I had no right to call it abuse. That is not okay for you to say. Those of us who do not accept your beliefs have a right not to be subjected to evangelization.
Manipulating a person to share personal beliefs they do not wish to share is unprofessional. Judging a person for having those beliefs is abuse. The whole thing put together feels like rape just as much as physical rape. A person has a right not to be subjected to such treatment regardless of their beliefs. So please, do not further pressure me or wil or anyone else to agree with your beliefs. After all, fair is fair.
Addition:
Not sure what you are saying. You seem to overlook the fact that for many centuries Christianity WAS the establishment. And as such, it killed many people for disagreeing with them. My ancestors, the Anapaptists, were martyred in large numbers in Europe by the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, and Zwinglian churches from the 16th century on. Some of this persecution was also imposed by the Puritans in New England.
You may remember the doctor I mentioned who subjected me to spiritual abuse in his office via evangelization? You explained why he did it and you suggested I had no right to call it abuse. That is not okay for you to say. Those of us who do not accept your beliefs have a right not to be subjected to evangelization.
Manipulating a person to share personal beliefs they do not wish to share is unprofessional. Judging a person for having those beliefs is abuse. The whole thing put together feels like rape just as much as physical rape. A person has a right not to be subjected to such treatment regardless of their beliefs. So please, do not further pressure me or wil or anyone else to agree with your beliefs. After all, fair is fair.
Addition:
Not sure what you are saying. You seem to overlook the fact that for many centuries Christianity WAS the establishment. And as such, it killed many people for disagreeing with them. My ancestors, the Anapaptists, were martyred in large numbers in Europe by the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, and Zwinglian churches from the 16th century on. Some of this persecution was also imposed by the Puritans in New England.
Caimanson
Mind or spirit?
leastone said:I understand what y'all are saying to me. Thank you.
I would, however, point to the fact, as confirmed by some here, that Jesus' teachings were not really new, and therefore could not be the prime motivation that made the wannabe martyrs so zealous.
And if it were not the teachings, or the death, what was it?
Just a memory of a person?
And if it were just a massive con job, or very successful (sales) presentation, I am sure that any Madison Avenue image consultancy would have all its efforts based on a careful study of the modus operandi of those first disciples.
Hello Learner, your argument reminds me of apolegetics ala Josh Mcdowell, you have a point, but your argument requires one to place a lot of faith in the accuracy of the biblical accounts.
I do like some of the views you shared on the core spiritual identity of christians, however the crucifiction and resurrection never had a resonance with me, I accepted them as creeds, I never had much of a revelational understanding of them.
My gut feeling is that deep down you are not really convinced about the event of the resurrection, I am not saying you shouldn't believe in it, I am just wondering why you try so hard to defend it.
Alvaro
leastone
Well-Known Member
Dear Caimanson,
I was not aware that I was desperately defending the resurrection due to a deep-seated uncertainty about it---so I'll consider that and reflect on that some more.
I thought I was simply expressing my current understanding about the topic of the thread. As you seem to have an appreciation for my core beliefs about our spiritual nature, I must say that I cannot just dismiss the resurrection accounts as incompatible with our growing understanding of the spirit being and its continued existence after "death".
I was certainly not aware that I was "evangelizing." So, having once again been judged as guilty of "spiritual abuse," and openly accused of raping Ruby, I will go to the roof of this house and contemplate the stars (see How to Respond to a Contentious Spirit), in consideration of just walking out and shaking the dust off my African sandals.
I appreciate the great intellect I've encountered on this forum, and in view of the fact that some have already written thousands of posts, I think it would be appropriate for me to rather read (and learn), than to write. I have truly been humbled by my experience here. Thanks to all.
Respectfully,
Learner
I was not aware that I was desperately defending the resurrection due to a deep-seated uncertainty about it---so I'll consider that and reflect on that some more.
I thought I was simply expressing my current understanding about the topic of the thread. As you seem to have an appreciation for my core beliefs about our spiritual nature, I must say that I cannot just dismiss the resurrection accounts as incompatible with our growing understanding of the spirit being and its continued existence after "death".
I was certainly not aware that I was "evangelizing." So, having once again been judged as guilty of "spiritual abuse," and openly accused of raping Ruby, I will go to the roof of this house and contemplate the stars (see How to Respond to a Contentious Spirit), in consideration of just walking out and shaking the dust off my African sandals.
I appreciate the great intellect I've encountered on this forum, and in view of the fact that some have already written thousands of posts, I think it would be appropriate for me to rather read (and learn), than to write. I have truly been humbled by my experience here. Thanks to all.
Respectfully,
Learner
RubySera_Martin
Well-Known Member
Sorry, leastone, I think there is a misunderstanding. I don't remember ever accusing you of such a thing or even feeling I had a reason to do so. My sincere apologies if anything I said put you on that impression. My memory is imperfect, so if you can find proof I am willing to look at it. But otherwise, I don't think I intentionally accused you of such a thing.
Ruby
leastone
Well-Known Member
Dear Everyone in Christ,
Please allow me this indulgence.
While writing my previous post, I ran a hot bath. When I left the computer, as per habit I randomly selected a book from the shelf to read from---to soak in. I opened on this very paragraph (italics mine):
“Respectful listening and dialogue are impossible unless I can give up my self-preoccupation and self-centeredness. If I hear only my own voice, I am not ready for full participation in the life of my community. My vow of obedience is a promise to develop a sensitivity for the voice of the community as potentially the voice of the Holy Spirit. Life in community is consequently most rich when every member is able to listen to the voice of every other member as a possible unique manifestation of the voice of the Lord. A truly obedient community will therefore foster the possibility of respectful dialogue among its members in regard to those matters that belong radically and fundamentally to the essence of the religious life form itself as lived in the concrete situation of a specific community. In respectful dialogue the voice of the Lord may reveal itself.”
The section I read ends with the following:
“Christian obedience thus prevents narrow fixation on my own one-sided views under the pretense that they come directly from the Holy Spirit. The awareness that the holy spirit may speak in others as well as myself makes me listen all the more to fellow religious and cultural participants and keeps me free, flexible and detached in my opinions. While Christian obedience encourages me to grow in initiative, it also protects me from a one-sided fanatical insistence that only my insights should be actualized in reality.”
I simply share this, my experience, to show forth the goodness of the Lord Who is the Spirit. I know I am never not in His presence. What I have to cultivate, though, is an ever-present awareness that I am in His Presence; learn to be present to His presence, and of course, follow His direction.
I present the rest of the segment for those who have the time and interest to read it. The relevance and correspondence to a discussion community is obvious.
Thank you.
Learner.
From The Vowed Life, Religious Life as Life Style and Life Symbol, Adrian Van Kaam, 1968, pp. 126-129.
Please allow me this indulgence.
While writing my previous post, I ran a hot bath. When I left the computer, as per habit I randomly selected a book from the shelf to read from---to soak in. I opened on this very paragraph (italics mine):
“Respectful listening and dialogue are impossible unless I can give up my self-preoccupation and self-centeredness. If I hear only my own voice, I am not ready for full participation in the life of my community. My vow of obedience is a promise to develop a sensitivity for the voice of the community as potentially the voice of the Holy Spirit. Life in community is consequently most rich when every member is able to listen to the voice of every other member as a possible unique manifestation of the voice of the Lord. A truly obedient community will therefore foster the possibility of respectful dialogue among its members in regard to those matters that belong radically and fundamentally to the essence of the religious life form itself as lived in the concrete situation of a specific community. In respectful dialogue the voice of the Lord may reveal itself.”
The section I read ends with the following:
“Christian obedience thus prevents narrow fixation on my own one-sided views under the pretense that they come directly from the Holy Spirit. The awareness that the holy spirit may speak in others as well as myself makes me listen all the more to fellow religious and cultural participants and keeps me free, flexible and detached in my opinions. While Christian obedience encourages me to grow in initiative, it also protects me from a one-sided fanatical insistence that only my insights should be actualized in reality.”
I simply share this, my experience, to show forth the goodness of the Lord Who is the Spirit. I know I am never not in His presence. What I have to cultivate, though, is an ever-present awareness that I am in His Presence; learn to be present to His presence, and of course, follow His direction.
I present the rest of the segment for those who have the time and interest to read it. The relevance and correspondence to a discussion community is obvious.
Thank you.
Learner.
From The Vowed Life, Religious Life as Life Style and Life Symbol, Adrian Van Kaam, 1968, pp. 126-129.
fizzylogic
New Member
- Messages
- 3
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
RubySera_Martin said:
Manipulating a person to share personal beliefs they do not wish to share is unprofessional. Judging a person for having those beliefs is abuse. The whole thing put together feels like rape just as much as physical rape. A person has a right not to be subjected to such treatment regardless of their beliefs. So please, do not further pressure me or wil or anyone else to agree with your beliefs. After all, fair is fair.
flowperson
Oannes
"Can't we all just get along ?".....Rodney King
Seriously Fizzy, it's only your third post and you are actively judging people? You said it first..."fair is fair".
flow....
Seriously Fizzy, it's only your third post and you are actively judging people? You said it first..."fair is fair".
flow....
lunamoth
Episcopalian
Can we please get this thread back on topic?
lunamoth
moderator, belief and spirituality
lunamoth
moderator, belief and spirituality
lunamoth
Episcopalian
OK folks, reviewing the last several posts what I see going on is that we are assuming motivations in other people's posts, taking it personally and making it personal. This gets us bogged down time and time again.
If you feel that someone displays/develops some kind of agenda of harassing a particular member or religion/religious view in an aggressive manner please bring it to the attention of the moderators or use the report button.
A reminder from the COC:
Respectfully,
lunamoth
If you feel that someone displays/develops some kind of agenda of harassing a particular member or religion/religious view in an aggressive manner please bring it to the attention of the moderators or use the report button.
A reminder from the COC:
Respectfully,
lunamoth
RubySera_Martin
Well-Known Member
Hi FlyingFeetSoccer, a.k.a. fizzylogic, I recognize you from the Open Christian Debate forum. I understand that you don't like what I say about you in the opening post here. Fact is, I never expected you to come looking for me. Never ever was I going to disclose who I was talking about but, well, we all know how you've been on here.
Let me point out to all readers that what you posted under your name is copied straight from one of my earlier posts. I would expect a person with your level of education to understand all about plagiarism. Unfortunately, neither education nor religion can make a good person. We have to want it out of the depths of our own hearts.
Luna and flow, I apologize for diverting but I think you will understand. Fiz, if you really need to talk to me, you can use pm on this site. Please be informed, however, that I will tolerate only respectful conversation.
Ruby
Let me point out to all readers that what you posted under your name is copied straight from one of my earlier posts. I would expect a person with your level of education to understand all about plagiarism. Unfortunately, neither education nor religion can make a good person. We have to want it out of the depths of our own hearts.
Luna and flow, I apologize for diverting but I think you will understand. Fiz, if you really need to talk to me, you can use pm on this site. Please be informed, however, that I will tolerate only respectful conversation.
Ruby
- Status