Posts by Drew Reed6

Casey Jackson17 said:Look, death isn't even the point; it’s all about the resurrection... if the resurrection hadn't happened, Christianity wouldn't even be a thing. Jesus would just be some con artist that nobody even remembers, there wouldn't have been any first Christians, and instead of walking straight into death with a rock-solid faith in God, they would've just scattered in fear like they did when Jesus was caught and sentenced to that shameful death on the cross..
Jesus died so He could rise again, proving that God isn't just above every struggle, problem, or sickness, but actually stands above death itself—showing that anyone who puts their trust in Him can be resurrected too. The resurrection completely flipped the world upside down from Adam's time all the way into eternity. That one event totally wrecked everything we thought we knew about life and its purpose. It brought meaning to places where there was none before Jesus Christ—into sickness, into suffering, into grief, and into the darkest Fridays of our lives. Through the resurrection and believing in Jesus Christ, fear stops being this soul-crushing monster... that's why the apostles were ready to die and let go of their physical bodies for eternal life and fellowship with God. For a true believer, suffering stops being terrifying because you know death isn't the end of the line..
And Jesus says—whoever believes in me will live even if they die..
And the same goes for—whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life; and I will raise them up on the last day..
The whole thing hinges on the resurrection, not on death for death's sake.. but to get to the resurrection, you need faith, even if the resurrection has more proof than half the stuff in history textbooks that people just take for granted... honestly, most of what we think we know, we either believe or don't, but we actually know very little...

I definitely agree that the resurrection is the core element that gave rise to Christianity.

But, at the end of the day, Jesus was the King of the Jews, and that's exactly why He was crucified.

I guess the core issue here is really about what kind of answer we're actually looking for. It’s pretty well known how faith approaches the question of why Jesus had to die.

But if you look closely at the Gospel, you can see that the writers were really trying to bridge the gap between Jesus and the Letters. It feels like for every single detail they included in the Gospel, they went out of their way to find some sort of validation in the Letters. Later on, they even framed everything that happened to Jesus as something that had been foretold in those Letters all along.

On top of that, they tie these events to actual historical figures. For instance, Pontius Pilate was the Roman governor in charge of Judea, and he's definitely a real person from history.

So, if Jesus is also a historical figure, then his death follows a set of reasons that make sense from a historical perspective. He met his fate because he was sentenced to death and crucified. Even the inscription Pontius Pilate put on the cross—which identified him as the Jewish king—points back to that. Essentially, he died because he was the Jewish king.

Gregory Jackson said:I guess one of his main goals was basically setting up a new faith that would stay close to the truth and guide people toward more positive thoughts and actions—though how successful that actually was is probably a whole different conversation—which would eventually lift human consciousness to a higher level. At one point during his mission, Palestine was totally split between those for him and those against him. Or, like, how Jesus put it—the father against the son, the daughter against the mother—and there was this real threat of a massive civil war breaking out, which probably would have just wiped out the few active followers left and shut down the whole movement before it even got going. So, maybe it was necessary for his life on Earth to reach the end of the world, because instead of just leaving behind a living leader who could be physically taken out, he created this legend that's impossible to destroy, and honestly, its impact ends up being way more effective than any living leader could ever be. Things like the resurrection, the earthquake, and the darkening of the Sun during the crucifixion, plus the way he appeared to his disciples later on, all helped build up that mystique and confirmed everything he always claimed—that he is God's son. Once that legend took hold, it just couldn't be stopped, and with the help of the Holy Spirit, the apostles spread this new religion everywhere, which likely wouldn't have happened if they had been caught up in a violent civil war.

I think I might interpret that a bit differently.

The Gospels are texts from the New Testament. And that "new religion" being discussed is Christianity.

But while Jesus was still alive, Christianity didn't really exist yet. It was just the Old Testament, or as the letters say.

The real question is, how did we actually get from a Jewish religion to Christianity?

Nicholas Edwards10 said:Jesus didn't just die; He was taken up... And mark my words, He’s coming back down 😉

The core argument here is that He ascended to heaven—that He had a physical body, endured suffering and torture, was ultimately crucified, and then, after three days, rose again into eternal life.

I think the best way to wrap our heads around this is by looking at the story of how Lazarus was brought back to life.

But we really have to start with the Jewish concept of resurrection. Jews believed, and still believe, in the resurrection of the dead. However, their view is that this will happen all at once one day, when everyone who lived and died for God will be raised for eternal life.

See, there's a distinction to be made here. When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, He brought him back to life, sure, but Lazarus is just going to go back to living his life like anyone else, which means he'll eventually pass away again. In the Jewish tradition, people believe they will essentially sleep in the dust of the earth. Then, one day, God will perform a miracle and all the true believers will rise from that earthly dust to begin their eternal lives.

So, I guess you could say Jesus and His specific resurrection were essentially a "new release" in the faith; it wasn't really part of the Jewish religious framework before Him. Because Jesus died and rose to eternal life ahead of everyone else—who are all still waiting for that final, collective resurrection of all believers.

Taylor Reyes3 said:I’m simply pointing out what Jesus told His disciples, which they recorded for us, the future generations, to teach us how to earn our place in God's kingdom.
Later in the scriptures, Jesus makes it clear that no one comes to the Father except through Him.
The New Testament was written specifically for those of us coming after, while the Old Testament focuses on the era before His birth. That’s why God sent His Son, because back then, nobody was really listening to the prophets.

Honestly, I find it hard to believe that believers weren't listening to the prophets. If you really sit down and think about it, I guess we have to conclude that it’s almost impossible that Jews weren't paying attention to their own prophets.

It feels more likely that we're looking at a Christian interpretation of the Old Testament here.

I've spent some time digging through a couple of different sites, but I honestly haven't been able to find a straight answer to the main question here: Why did Jesus die? And I don't mean the theological explanation—I'm looking for something else.

velvetmaker39 said:First off, hello. I’d say we’re dealing with adults here, though I find myself wondering where exactly these people have been living all this time—where they went to school, or if they’ve ever actually sat down to contemplate the nature of existence at all. It seems everyone here takes everything so incredibly literally, whereas all those sacred texts were written using allegory; you really need to exercise a bit of imagination and, frankly, quite a lot of wisdom to process what’s written on those pages. It’s a mistake to jump into an argument when your understanding of life is so fundamentally grounded in the mundane. Before anything else, one has to consider WHO was actually writing and transmitting this TRUTH. After all, aren't we all witnesses to the fact that people write everything from simple short stories to doctoral dissertations that might not have any bearing on actual reality? If someone wants to understand life and debate its meaning, they should perhaps start by reading George Orwell’s *Animal Farm*; once they grasp what the author was trying to convey there, they won't find it such a monumental task to decipher the so-called Holy Scripture. The question of who decided which writings would be deemed Holy and which would not is absolutely paramount. To simply accept something as truth just because it was imposed upon us by tyrants and butchers—well, you have to admit, that’s pretty foolish (though I suppose some folks here feel right at home with that approach, likely doing the exact same thing today under the guise of FAITH). First, we are presented with the TEN COMMANDMENTS that God gave to Moses, yet somehow, look at that, "Thou shalt not kill" doesn't show up until the fifth spot, does it? Perhaps someone swapped the tablets, or maybe we just haven't considered which side one is supposed to start reading from (since some read left to right and others right to left). There is so much more to be said about what is written in the words of the PROPHET. In the Quran, it says that if you harm one person, you have harmed God. For anyone with half a brain, that’s plenty; yet later it suggests stoning a man. I’d love to know if the enlightened Muhammad actually said something that contradicts his own initial teaching. I find it hard to believe; he was truly an enlightened man. It would be reasonable to be able to accept what you think is right while rejecting the chaff from the wheat, but is it truly rational to believe everything handed down to you by someone who doesn't even possess a peaceful conscience? I’m thinking specifically of Paul, who was a persecutor before he wasn't, and who largely drives the modern interpretation of the Bible. It would be lovely if thinking people applied a little critical thought to their own beliefs first; I’m not saying anyone shouldn't believe, because a believer believes, and others believe too.

I found this post really interesting because it suggests we take everything too literally. He’s implying that these texts are allegories. But, I guess, couldn't we argue the exact opposite?

The texts were written by simple people, or perhaps the traditions were dreamed up by poor, uneducated folks. Generally speaking, they weren't highly schooled. And these texts were directed toward people who were also poorly educated, simple, and impoverished. Why on earth would they write these texts in codes or riddles that even the most educated scholar wouldn't be able to decipher?

That’s why I think the texts should actually be taken literally.

Alex Ramos91 said:🤣 😂

The part in Luke's Gospel that says "He went down with them and came to Nazareth and was obedient to them" refers to when he was just a kid...

That’s pretty much the last thing we hear about his home life before he actually started his public ministry...
Look, this is clearly talking about his childhood. Even though He was perfect, He didn't have any issue submitting to His imperfect parents and showing them respect while growing up. 👍

But once He grew up? It was a totally different story. He made it crystal clear to Mary when she tried to step in and micromanage His work: "Lady, what does that have to do with me?" 😛

Are we talking about a biography here? I mean, he was born, sure, but we don't even know the exact time or place.

There isn't really any data provided leading up to that moment at the Temple when he was twelve, right?

And then there's just this massive gap between age twelve and thirty.

Based on the Gospels, we're looking at events that spanned either one year or three years. We don't even have an exact date for when Jesus was crucified. The timing is mostly just inferred from quotes mentioning it happened during the era of Pontius Pilate and Tiberius.

I guess that's why there are so many different theories about Jesus. Since we only have these specific fragments, it feels like you could reach almost any conclusion depending on how you interpret the gaps.

The Jews believed Jesus was the Messiah. Now, when we say "king," we aren't just talking about some figurehead; we all know that term implies actual political leadership. So, in their eyes, he was the legitimate king of Israel—the kind of ruler specifically chosen by God.

I suppose Christians are just as aware of these facts. They understand the Messiah is meant to be a king, but maybe what they struggle to fully grasp or accept is the whole aspect of politics and the actual governance of the state of Israel.

It really comes down to the fact that the political climate and historical circumstances during the first century forced the Jewish people to start thinking, through the lens of their faith, about how to break free from the Roman government. That’s why those various Messianic movements started popping up back then. I’m referring to all those different figures they looked to as their potential Messiahs. But, fundamentally, there’s God behind the concept of a Messiah. You could have priests pointing someone out as a candidate for a Messianic role, and that person might try to rally the people to revolt against Rome. But let's be real: Rome was a superpower at the time, the absolute strongest nation in the known world with an unbeatable military. Israel was just a small province, and unfortunately, it wasn't located on the outskirts of the empire where it might have had some rebellious neighbors to help out in a war. Instead, Israel sat right in a vital strategic location, with the main highways connecting the empire running straight through the Holy Land. Because of that, many people probably realized right away that fighting such a massive opponent was a losing battle, and Rome certainly wasn't going to let itself lose.

Still, groups like the Zealots did rebel against Rome, mostly because they placed all their trust in their faith and ancient prophecies. They were waiting for the Messiah to arrive and for God to step in and help. Their logic was basically: once the true Messiah sent by God arrives, the Romans will lose the war. In their view, if a Messiah dies, he clearly wasn't the real deal. That’s why I guess Joseph would categorize those other claimants to the Messianic title alongside sorcerers or false prophets—people who tried and failed to lead the nation in a fight against Rome.

Jesus also died on the cross, but unlike the others, his life sparked a global religion. Why did that happen? Why didn't he just end up being another failed Messiah, like Theudus or Judas the Galilean?

It’s honestly pretty hard to answer those questions, especially since we lack such solid historical documentation. I mean, the Bible itself isn't exactly a history textbook. But you could argue that a specific faith began to coalesce around Jesus. Up until the crucifixion, that faith stayed within the framework of Judaism, and Jesus was viewed primarily as the Jewish Messiah.

But after that, things shifted. His followers began believing that Messiah Jesus had been resurrected. From there, the belief in the Second Coming grew. The idea was that he would return on the clouds, seated at the right hand of God, to judge the world and bring justice. At that point, he wouldn't be the king of Israel anymore, but rather the king of God's kingdom in heaven. This was likely the core belief held by Jesus' disciples and the Jerusalem church from the resurrection until the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

The real question is whether this is a totally unique religious concept or if we've seen similar patterns before. A king fights for his crown, falls in battle, and then somehow rises from the dead to bring a new sense of hope. But instead of being a historical ruler of the living, he becomes the ruler of the dead?

If you look at the Middle East, you see something similar with Osiris, who continues to reign as the king of the underworld. Even though theology tries to explain it differently, at its heart, it feels like the same pattern.

So, Jesus is the heavenly ruler in God's kingdom. It seems like the deceased go to that place, where Jesus Christ reigns as the Messiah over a realm that is essentially a world of souls—the world of the dead.

Dennis Moore4 said:If we take the Bible literally and assume Elijah was a real person rather than just some metaphorical figure, then he also ascended into heaven as the scripture states.
Enoch was taken up as well.

Does that make them the Son of Man too???

Some people actually argue that point in their books. I think I read somewhere that they claim Jesus couldn't have done anything without Elijah? If I recall correctly, those were the arguments made by Jewish critics of the Gospels.

In my opinion, most of the friction surrounding questions about Jesus Christ stems from the fact that Christianity grew out of another religion: Judaism. When we look at the Bible, it seems like we could generally conclude that Christians argue Christianity is the beginning, while Judaism is the end of the line.

But if we look at historical evidence—not necessarily the stuff directly tied to the Bible, but more general history and our understanding of life and culture in Palestine during the first century—we have to arrive at the conclusion that, beyond its religious significance, the Bible is essentially an apologetic response to the politics of its era.

History suggests, and it makes sense logically, that the Jews would have had to view Jesus as the Jewish Messiah.

The Gospels trace a genealogy back to King David, which can only really mean one thing: they believed Jesus had a legitimate claim to be the rightful king of the nation of Israel. However, the Gospels portray Jesus refusing that specific role, though these accounts are presented as apologies and might not even be strictly historical facts.

For instance, the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, where the Messiah enters on a donkey, and the cleansing of the Temple are both described in the Old Testament.

What can we infer from this, other than that Jesus likely had to plan his entry and his appearance in the Temple? This definitely carries political weight if he wanted to signal to the people in Jerusalem, the Jewish leaders, the Romans, and the public that he was indeed the Jewish Messiah. Of course, once the Gospels and Acts were written as apologies, theologians took over and developed theological doctrines for interpreting these texts that often strip away the historical context. This turns Jesus into a peaceful prophet who rejects violence. But honestly, an entry into Jerusalem like that and the cleansing of the Temple—the ultimate place of worship for believers—would have almost certainly triggered a violent reaction.

Theologians usually answer this by saying the Jewish people simply didn't understand the Son of God, who is peaceful and follows his own teachings; basically, they claim the Jews just missed the point. My personal hunch, though, is that the Jews actually had to understand Jesus very clearly as the Messiah of Israel, and these two specific events alone suggest to me that the historical Jesus was a different figure altogether.

Harold Richardson said:In the Old Testament, you've got salvation from sin and pleasing God through the sacrifice of pure creatures—like a lamb or whatever 🙂—but in the New Testament, those sacrifices aren't needed anymore because Jesus stepped up and took that burden on Himself. The whole point of His suffering and death was to show just how much humans matter and how much God loves us, by sacrificing the most innocent being imaginable—His own son. Through His sacrifice, Jesus gives people a fresh start...

From my perspective, the New Testament is essentially a continuation of the Old Testament. And, of course, the Old Testament serves as the sacred text of Judaism or Jewish monotheism.

I suppose one might wonder just how accurate that really is. I mean, if we say that Jews have their own distinct faith, then what does the term "Old Testament" even imply? It feels like saying it’s the END OF JUDAISM. That's exactly what we seem to be implying whenever we use the terms Old Testament and New Testament.

To a Jew, there is no such thing as a New Testament. Yet, Christianity firmly maintains that the Old Testament covenant between God and the chosen people has concluded, and that God has now established a New Testament—one where anyone who becomes a Christian becomes part of God's chosen people.

How do we make sense of that?

Benjamin Taylor6 said:The whole saga regarding Jesus and His death on the cross is really just a continuation of some adult fairy tale that started being spun back in the Book of Genesis. In the beginning, a perfect God created angels to serve Him—which, if you think about it for even a second, reveals a massive logical hole in the narrative. If God is truly perfect, ideal, and all-powerful, He doesn't actually *need* anything. Period. He certainly doesn't need a fleet of angels acting as cosmic housekeepers. What exactly were they supposed to be doing? Polishing the celestial floors, scrubbing the heavenly windows, vacuuming up stardust with divine vacuums? When God gets hungry, does He need someone to whip up lunch or dinner, or maybe a little mid-afternoon snack? Does He need His bed made before retiring for the night? Does He need someone to set His alarm clock?
And if God felt like pampering Himself, he’d need someone to trim His beard, clip his nails, or tidy up His hair. Some angels would probably have been tasked with telling jokes to cheer Him up when He was in a mood, or singing songs all day long—since, you know, heavenly record players hadn't been invented yet. When one of the few somewhat clever angels, the one known as Lucifer, realized how exhausting this repetitive singing was (he practically lost his voice constantly shouting "glory of God"), he decided to stage a rebellion. And just like that, one hoarse throat—long before God even created Adam and Eve—sealed the fate of humanity. So, here is the setup: Lucifer rebels, loses the war, and gets tossed into hell. But how on earth was he supposed to escape from there!? Not much time passed before God created Adam and Eve. Lucifer managed to sneak out of paradise by camouflaging himself as a snake. He tricked Eve, who then ate the forbidden fruit right along with Adam. This infuriated God, so He kicked the first couple out of the Garden of Eden and made them mortal. Still, God was supposedly kind enough to promise He would send His son to rescue them from sin—or rather, the eternal death of the soul. But honestly, God could have fixed that without sending His son at all. He did something similar for the Virgin Mary while she was still in the womb of St. Anne, Mary's mother. That way, Mary was born without original sin. And that was all before the birth of the redeemer, Jesus. (Which makes sense, assuming she gave birth to Him twenty years later).
It is easy to conclude that this is nothing more than a common fairy tale that bears no resemblance to reality, though it serves as a very convenient way to present certain ideas to simple-minded people. The catch is, those simple people aren't allowed to think for themselves or ask questions. That is DANGEROUS for any RELIGION. That is why theology exists—to provide explanations for everything. They call it: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH.
Back in the day, theologians had an even more dangerous mechanism for banning those types of inquiries: THE HOLY INQUISITION!!

So, who exactly is the writer of the Bible? You're saying the writer of the Bible should have noticed the logical flaws in this story? Well, the Bible isn't just one book; it's a massive collection of books. It's a series of texts, if you want to get technical about what the word "Bible" actually means. These books were written by many different individuals. On top of that, some books were edited, revised, and tweaked over time... so nobody actually knows how many hands worked on the Bible, and this process spanned centuries. Because of that, I don't think it's accurate to say "the writer of the Bible"...

Roger Barrett2 said:the final act is about 30,000 words long

Look, I’m not trying to gang up with Morgan Rodriguez57 or anything, and I’m definitely not trying to get the mods to go after you, but honestly? I really think the mods should step in when someone keeps posting like this for several posts in a row.

And where on earth did you get the idea about firing mods or bringing in new ones? There is absolutely no talk of that from my end. I have never—not once—suggested that anyone should be replaced. Seriously, just check the history.

Sure, the books I read are dense and full of text, but that’s not the issue. The real problem is when someone writes massive walls of text that lack any kind of sense, structure, or logical flow. And, if I'm being honest, that's exactly what you're doing here.

I really don't want to get into an argument over obvious nonsense because, frankly, it just isn't worth my time, my energy, or my knowledge.

Most of your claims—well, most of them, anyway—are totally baseless and just show that you don't really grasp the material, so I don't see much point in trying to debunk them all. I think the big issue on this forum is that instead of actually learning from one another, people just try to force their own opinions onto everyone else. I try to engage with people like that, and if it works, cool; if it doesn't, I just back off. Which is what I'm doing now with you.

I guess I’m just trying to follow the same analytical approach used by the authors who write those deep-dive books on Bible research. But I'm starting to realize that might seem a bit strange to you guys.

But hey, if those authors are right, and if the Roman Catholic Church actually altered the original faith, then what does that even mean for us?

Roger Barrett2 said:Drew Reed6 puts out five consecutive posts containing maybe five to eight claims about me that I want to challenge. If I were to write one post for every single incorrect claim—so, another five to eight posts myself—and then wait for him to explain them, he’d probably just drop another few posts in the meantime... you see the problem? I guess I just don't have the heart to argue like that, trying to tackle five or eight different points all at once. It honestly feels better to just let someone keep piling their posts on and on.

Regarding history and theology, I really don't get why you're insisting on this divide between the two; I mean, it doesn't actually exist. There are just some people who advocate for it, and then there are theologians who don't truly grasp the nature of history itself, so they try to play historian and end up just reinventing the wheel.

From my interactions with Drew Reed6, I’ve realized the guy just doesn't understand what history actually is—its true nature, the variety of ways you can approach research, what makes a solid historical hypothesis, or even the relationship between the researcher as a subject and the actual event being studied. As a theologian, I know enough to stay unswayed by his specific way of looking at things. I tried to point out a few things to him, specifically regarding how arguments should be structured methodologically, but I can't fix someone's broken compass if they aren't willing to look at it.

Look, it isn't about someone having a different opinion; please, try to understand that. Personally, I love diversity; I find it challenging and rewarding. I love a well-argued post that pushes against my own worldview. But here, we're talking about someone making absurd claims in the name of history, anthropology, or whatever else, which isn't really suitable for a serious discussion. Not to mention the total lack of any critical thinking...

I'd say you were attempting something else entirely, but if you're actually right, then how do you explain the fact that my approach isn't considered valid simply because I'm following established authors? These are people who study history, and many are theologians or professors at major seminaries. So, am I supposed to believe you're this massive expert—and hey, maybe you are—but does that mean all those authors are just complete frauds? I just don't buy that.

Maybe some books aren't perfectly scholarly, but the idea that absolutely everyone is clueless about what they're writing is just hard to believe.

It seems more likely that you might be like other "experts" or specialists who aren't very well-versed in the literature concerning Jesus and Bible studies. Still, as a professional theologian, you could have at least attempted to explain your reasoning.

Steven Clark2 said:The point isn't just that someone doesn't like what you're writing. The issue is that you see it as absolute truth, just like how rowdyhawk10 sees things through an anti-Christian lens. And it’s not even about whether you guys have any "proof" that favors your side—honestly, there's ZERO evidence for it, but that's not the core problem here. The problem is that you feel empowered to call someone a fanatic, psychoanalyze them, or basically insult them, all without anyone stepping in. Why? Because the mods essentially back you up, so calling someone a "fanatic" isn't even treated as an insult anymore—it’s almost like you're being framed as superior to them or to rowdyhawk10. 😂

So, I guess it's no wonder why any sensible person wouldn't bother posting on this forum, which isn't even a religious site to begin with.

By the way, the mods and rowdyhawk10 didn't exactly love my posts either; I've been banned and sidelined at various times, whether it was warranted or not. When I was facing insults, mockery, and being called out, he stayed completely neutral, mostly because he didn't want to jeopardize his standing with the people he was trying to suck up to. I mean, sorry, buddy, but when we're talking about arguments, viewpoints, and actual facts, there really shouldn't be any need for tension, insults, belittling, or sarcasm. That used to be the biggest issue on the Religion board—tons of vitriol and very little actual discussion. And honestly, the moderators (or at least some of them) only made that toxic atmosphere worse.

Just think about it. You express views that the moderator also supports. He lets you say whatever you want, even if it involves mocking or insulting others. But then, if someone else says the exact same thing to you, suddenly they get banned. If they try to protest the injustice, they're labeled as being "offended" by your writing. 😕

Good grief, what is going on with you people??? 😕

Look, I don't really have the time to dive deep into this right now; I'm just dropping in quickly because I want to spend the New Year in peace. 😁 I truly wish that for everyone, including you all. 👍

See, this response of yours is a perfect example of how *not* to debate. Since we aren't even discussing my evidence right now, you shouldn't have brought up the fact that I or we lack proof. Even if you had said it within the correct thread, it would still be wrong, because you can't have a discussion where you and others like you just jump in and claim there's zero evidence.

Basically, if you aren't willing to explain yourself or prove you're right, you probably shouldn't be chiming in at all. And if I actually do explain why my claims are proven, then responses like yours are just pure trolling.

For instance, you twice cited that one work from New York City regarding the trial, claiming—and still insisting—that it's the definitive work on the Judgment of Jesus Christ. However, I don't think anyone objective would agree with you that what you wrote in your post even addresses the Judgment of Jesus Christ. All it talks about is jurisdiction, which isn't even a major factor in Pilate's trial.

Whenever I tried to explain that to you, you never had anything to say in response.

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:but that’s just how communication works on forums. These aren't personal blogs where you can just go on a monologue and shut off the comments whenever you feel like it. That dialogue you’re calling "persecution" is actually the whole point of a forum... if you aren't a fan of that, maybe just start a blog and post your views there, where nobody will bother to challenge them...

I mean, look at what you're doing again. You aren't even making actual posts anymore; you're just numbering them (like you always do) and using them to push the same old theories over and over again... I swear, you wrote this exact same thing in this thread, in other religion threads, and even in the history threads...

As far as the moderators are concerned, I know people with your attitude often end up getting partial bans on these boards because they just flood everything with constant spam...

The mods come after me too.

Roger Barrett2 said:I’m also joining the protest against Drew Reed6 because, honestly, the way he writes really should be sanctioned for the very reasons you pointed out.

Maybe take a second to actually read the rulebook; it clearly states that if a post is getting too long, you're supposed to break it up into smaller parts.

But at this point, it seems pretty obvious that you and Morgan Rodriguez57 are just ganging up on me because you can't stand what I have to say. Even the moderator had to notice it. Some of your own posts basically prove it. You actually stopped after saying you wouldn't deal with me anymore, but he stayed.

I honestly suspect that you two—and maybe even others—might be doing this in an organized way. And now, it feels like you want to push out any moderators who don't align with your radical religious views.

I mean, why would my wordiness bother you so much? You claim to be an intellectual yourself. You study theology. You write pieces that run three thousand words long! I know plenty of intellectuals like you who could breeze through entire books without breaking a sweat. So, the fact that you can't manage to read a few posts... it's just kind of ridiculous. It feels like your real motivation is something else entirely.

Besides, I don't even know if it's worth debating this, since either you or Morgan Rodriguez57 already made it clear that you feel it's vital to let everyone know—who knows, maybe just the believers?—that my writing is meaningless. Which suggests that you aren't actually interested in having a real discussion here; you just want to shut me down. And when you probably tried to get the moderator to come after me and that didn't work, you pivoted to trying to discredit my writing instead.

But even that didn't work for you, since you haven't been able to actually disprove any of my points. Now, it seems like the goal is to install YOUR moderators and kick out the ones currently serving the forum.

So, it isn't really surprising that you're siding with Morgan Rodriguez57. Honestly, it wouldn't shock me if this was all a coordinated effort on your part.

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:you’ve basically just proven you aren't cut out for moderation because that wasn't even an insult, especially if you actually bother to read my full sentence... a moderator should be stepping in for direct insults like "you are this" or "you are that"...

I think you're showing a clear bias toward another user from one post to the next, so I’m asking you once more to please just rescind the warning. If you won't, then I’m asking the site admins to step in and handle it...

It seems pretty obvious to both of us what's actually happening here. You just don't like my writing style, so you've started targeting me. And now that you've been penalized for it, suddenly the moderator is the one at fault.

A moderator’s job is to follow the rules of the forum, not to act like they're the sole interpreter of what those rules mean.

I really need some insight on a situation here.

So, there’s this guy who committed a traffic violation and ended up getting into a heated argument with the police.

The court handed down a fine of 14 $0.00.

And since he just doesn't have the cash to cover it, he's looking at 40 days in jail.

But honestly, I feel like we're supposed to be equal under the law, and it clearly feels like we aren't in cases like this—because if someone actually has the money, they can just pay the $14,000 and walk away without seeing the inside of a cell.

I was wondering if there is any way for someone to avoid jail time for a penalty like this. I mean, at the end of the day, it was just a traffic offense, which isn't exactly a major threat to public safety or anything. Specifically, he was riding a motorcycle without a license. It wasn't even a case where he forgot his physical license; he just hasn't actually taken the driver's exam yet. That doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't know how to drive, nor does it mean he's out there committing other reckless driving offenses.

If we’re going to claim that psychology is an actual science and that Carl Gustav Jung was a legitimate scientist,
then I can't help but wonder why so many people still struggle to wrap their heads around his theories—especially when it comes to the idea that there might actually be some kind of connection between the mind and physical matter.