CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Miscellaneous › Feedback & Suggestions › Slim Shady did the exact same thing, but I still got a warning

Slim Shady did the exact same thing, but I still got a warning

Started by Morgan Rodriguez57 · · 👁 11 views · 54 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Morgan Rodriguez57rowdyhawk10Peter Stewart6Chris Peterson53granitefox16Steven Brooks14feralpilot0Drew Reed6Roger Barrett2Steven Clark2Christian Torres3swiftorca57Michelle Alvarez8Dennis Hall41urbanwalker6Melissa Watson4hollowtrucker77
Drew Reed6 Drew Reed6 Member
34 messages
joined May 2003
#21 ·
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.
Morgan Rodriguez57 Morgan Rodriguez57 Active MemberOP
216 messages
joined Oct 2011
#22 ·
But hey, that’s just how communication works on forums—they aren't personal blogs where you can just go on a monologue and turn off the comments whenever you feel like it. That back-and-forth dialogue you're calling "persecution" is actually the whole point of a forum... if that's not your vibe, maybe just start a blog and share your thoughts there, where nobody will bother to disagree with you...

Look at what you're doing again—you aren't even making actual posts anymore, just numbering them sequentially (as usual) and using them to churn out those same old theories of yours over and over... it's like we're starting from scratch every single time... you literally wrote the exact same thing in this thread, in the religion sub-forums, and even in the history sections...

As far as the moderators are concerned, I know for a fact that users with your specific style often end up getting partial bans on the sub-forums because they just won't stop flooding everything with constant spam...
rowdyhawk10 rowdyhawk10 Active Member
123 messages
joined Oct 2009
#23 ·
feralpilot0 said:It’s just hyperbole and nitpicking. Someone might imply something, or maybe it follows from a point, or perhaps it stems from a certain logic... I suppose you can stretch almost anything to fit, but that shouldn't be grounds for getting banned. Otherwise, you can never actually tell anyone they're misinterpreting a text without them feeling attacked, or everyone would have to walk on eggshells like they're made of glass just to avoid a single misplaced letter being taken the wrong way.



🙂

Roger Barrett2 Roger Barrett2 Member
33 messages
joined May 2010
#24 ·
Morgan Rodriguez57 said:but that’s just how communication works on a forum. These aren't personal blogs where you can just monologue and shut off the comments whenever you feel like it. That dialogue you're calling "persecution" is actually the entire point of a forum... if you aren't a fan of that, go start a blog and post your opinions there, where nobody will bother to challenge them...

Look at what you're doing again. You aren't even making actual posts anymore; you're just numbering them (as usual) and using them to dump the same old theories over and over again... It’s literally the same stuff you wrote in this thread, in other threads about religion, and even in history threads...

As for the moderators, I know people of your type often end up with partial bans on these boards because they constantly flood them with spam...

I'm also joining the protest against Drew Reed6, because the way he writes really should be sanctioned for the exact reasons you mentioned.
Drew Reed6 Drew Reed6 Member
34 messages
joined May 2003
#25 ·
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.
Drew Reed6 Drew Reed6 Member
34 messages
joined May 2003
#26 ·
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 Roger Barrett2 Member
33 messages
joined May 2010
#27 ·
Drew Reed6 As I was saying:
You might want to take a closer look at the bylaws. There’s a specific rule in there stating that if a post gets too long, you should break it up into smaller, more manageable chunks.

It’s pretty obvious that you and Morgan Rodriguez57 are out to get me just because you can't stand my writing. Even the moderator had to step in and notice the pattern. Honestly, looking back at some of your posts, it’s written all over them. You actually stopped engaging after you made it clear you were done dealing with me, but he? He’s still hanging around.

I have a feeling that you two—and potentially others besides—might actually be running this as an organized effort. It looks like your end goal is to push out any moderators who don't subscribe to your radical religious views.

I honestly don't get why my long-windedness is such an issue for you. You’re the one claiming to be an intellectual, right? You spend your time studying theology and cranking out essays that probably hit the 3,000-word mark. From what I’ve seen, people with that kind of academic background can breeze through entire textbooks without breaking a sweat. So, it’s a little ridiculous to me that you’re struggling to get through a few forum posts. It feels like there’s something else going on here—your actual reason for complaining clearly isn't about the length.

Honestly, I don't even see the point in debating this anymore. It feels like it’s either you or Morgan Rodriguez57 deciding that it’s absolutely vital to let everyone know—I assume the "believers" in this group?—that my writing is just some meaningless noise. It seems like your goal isn't actually to have a real discussion on this forum; it’s just to shut me down and prevent me from sharing my thoughts. When your attempt to get the moderators to come after me failed, you pivoted to this instead, trying to satisfy yourselves by just trivializing everything I write.

But even that didn't move the needle for you, since you couldn't actually find a way to debunk my points. It’s pretty obvious what's happening now: you're looking to install your own hand-picked moderators on the forum while kicking out the ones who are currently here.

So, it’s honestly not even surprising that you’re the one stepping up to help Morgan Rodriguez57. I wouldn't be shocked at all if this was just one of those coordinated efforts between you two.

The final act alone is going to run about 30,000 words.

I’m not saying I’m in cahoots with Morgan Rodriguez57, nor am I trying to egg the moderators on to go after you, but honestly? I personally think the mods should step in and shut down this kind of back-and-forth when it starts happening across several posts in a row.

I have absolutely no idea where you got that from—there hasn’t been any talk about downloading mods or installing anything else. And when did I ever suggest swapping anyone out? Never. Seriously, go back and check the thread.

Look, I don't mind a book that’s heavy on the word count. Honestly, I actually enjoy getting lost in a dense text. The real issue isn't the sheer volume of words on the page—it's when someone pours out a massive amount of text that lacks any sense of direction, logic, or basic structure. And frankly, that’s exactly what you’re doing here.

I’m really not interested in getting into debates over obvious nonsense. It just isn't worth my time, my energy, or the effort it takes to explain things that should be common sense.

Most of what you’re saying—well, not everything, but most of it—just misses the mark entirely. It feels like there's a fundamental misunderstanding of the material here, so honestly, I don't see much point in trying to debunk every single point you make. I've noticed a recurring issue with a lot of people on this forum: instead of actually listening or learning from others, they just dig their heels in and try to force their own views. That's not really my style. When I engage with someone, I go in with an open mind, but if we aren't making any actual progress, I tend to just step back. In your case, it feels like we've hit that wall, so I think it's best if I just move on.
Steven Clark2 Steven Clark2 Active Member
85 messages
joined Sep 2020
#28 ·
Drew Reed6 said:The two of us see this clearly. You simply dislike my writing style, so you started targeting me. And now that you’ve been penalized for it, you’re blaming the moderator.

A moderator is obligated to follow the forum rules; they aren't tasked with acting as the sole interpreter of those rules.

The issue isn't merely that someone dislikes what you write. The problem is that you perceive your views as absolute truth—just as rowdyhawk10 does, despite being an anti-Christian. It also isn't about whether you possess any "evidence" that supports your side—because you have ZERO evidence—but that isn't even the core of the matter. The real point is that you feel empowered to label someone a fanatic, perform armchair psychoanalysis, and essentially insult them without anyone intervening. Why? Because apparently, you and the mods are in agreement, so calling someone a "fanatic" isn't treated as an insult at all—it's as if you or rowdyhawk10 hold some higher ground. 😂

And that is precisely why any rational person would hesitate to post on this platform, which isn't even a religious forum to begin with.

For what it's worth, the moderators and rowyhawk10 didn't care for my posts either; I was issued warnings and bans at their whim. When I faced insults, mockery, and direct provocations, he remained completely neutral, seemingly unwilling to jeopardize his standing with the people he seeks to please. I am sorry, my friend, but when we are discussing arguments, stances, and facts, there is absolutely no need for tension, insults, belittlement, or ridicule. This space has seen far too much of that and far too little substantive discussion. The moderators (or at least certain ones among them) have done nothing but foster this toxic atmosphere.

Please, think about it. You express views that the moderator supports. He grants you the freedom to say whatever you wish, including mockery and insults. Yet, when someone else directs that same behavior toward you, they are banned. When they protest such injustice, it is framed as though they simply cannot handle your writing. 😕

Good heavens, what is happening to all of you??? 😕

I don't actually have much time to dwell on this topic; I just stopped by briefly. I want to spend the New Year in peace. 😁 I truly wish the same for everyone, including yourselves. 👍
Steven Clark2 Steven Clark2 Active Member
85 messages
joined Sep 2020
#29 ·
Roger Barrett2 said:The books I read contain quite a lot of text, certainly, but that isn't the issue. The real problem arises when a massive amount of text is written without any sense, structure, or logical flow. And that is precisely what you are doing.

It would appear that is the case. 🤷

I have no desire to debate obvious nonsense, as it simply isn't worth my time, effort, or knowledge.

Precisely, which is why I have given up on writing here. 🙂
Most of your assertions—though certainly not all—are baseless and demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the material, so there is little point in me attempting to refute them.

Occasionally, it does make sense; it allows you to build yourself up and make progress. 🙂 That is my own experience. 🙂

The issue with most people on this forum is that they don't learn from others; they merely insist on their own stubborn views. I try with people like that—if it works, it works; if it doesn't, I withdraw, much like you have done.

Amen. 🙂

Happy New Year to you all. 👍
rowdyhawk10 rowdyhawk10 Active Member
123 messages
joined Oct 2009
#30 ·
Roger Barrett2 said:I guess I’ll join the protest against Drew Reed6. The way he writes really should be sanctioned, for the exact reasons you mentioned.

Drew Reed6’s posts aren't like those heavy, dogmatic theological laments that seem to be written only for the faithful—and even then, I suppose they can be a bit hard for them to follow sometimes. 😬).

Drew Reed6 approaches the entire subject from an anthropological perspective. He bases his arguments on actual events—real history, rather than abstract theory—and builds his stances upon that foundation. He isn't interested in theological debate; he’s looking at this through an anthropological lens. It seems like a handful of people are constantly targeting him for his specific topics, essentially shutting down any attempt at a discussion in that direction. We should probably try to prevent that kind of suppression. Here is why. If someone wants to talk... Based strictly on theological grounds. There is sufficient space on our open forum for him to start a theological thread and share his spiritual experiences with the other members. We moderators will ensure that the discussion remains protected, just as we have done in the past.

But when Drew Reed6 (or someone else) starts a thread focused strictly on... From an anthropological perspective. The topic involves actual historical events, I suppose. I don't quite follow. If Drew Reed6 is automatically considered right, then the forum members will just start "disputing" him based on pure dogma rather than actually applying an anthropological approach. That’s simply unacceptable.

So, what you’re saying is that someone could point out an error made by Drew Reed6 without being dogmatic about it—perhaps by using a similar historical argument instead? For instance, bringing up a specific event from history to challenge his position, rather than just leaning on dogma or citing some council or theological treatise. I suppose I think we finally understand each other on this point. 🙂

Given everything that has been laid out, I find myself inclined to support what Drew Reed6 is saying:
Drew Reed6 said:I suggest you actually read the bylaws regarding post length; if a message is too long, the rule states it should be broken up into smaller segments. However, it seems quite obvious that you and Morgan Rodriguez57 are simply targeting me because you can't stand my writing. Even the moderator had to take notice of it. Some of your own posts even make that clear. You, on the other hand, stopped once you claimed you were done dealing with me, but he hasn't.

I suspect you two—and perhaps others besides—are actually coordinating this. It seems like the goal is to push out any moderators who don't align with your radical religious views. Honestly, I don't see why my posting frequency should bother you. You claim to be an intellectual yourself, someone who studies theology and churns out 3,000-word essays. From what I know, actual intellectuals can breeze through entire books without breaking a sweat. Yet, somehow, you can't manage to read a few posts? It’s honestly laughable. Clearly, your real motive lies elsewhere.

I suppose there isn't much point in even debating this further, especially since you or Morgan Rodriguez57 have already made it clear that it’s vital for everyone—presumably the believers—to know that my writing is supposedly meaningless. It seems your goal isn't actually to engage in a discussion here, but rather to find ways to suppress what I have to say. When your attempt to get the moderators to come after me failed, you seemingly pivoted to trying to satisfy yourselves by simply belittling my work. However, that didn't seem to work either, given that you weren't able to actually refute my arguments. It’s becoming quite obvious now that your plan is to install your own moderators on this forum while pushing out the current ones.

So, it’s really not surprising at all that you’re the one stepping up to help Morgan Rodriguez57. I suppose it wouldn't have shocked me if this was just one of your joint efforts.

Agreeing with that, I just want to add that Drew Reed6 isn't the only one who has noticed the pressure being put on moderators to stop people from forcing those quasi-idealistic views—views that try to illegitimately impose church dogma on ALL FORUM MEMBERS as if it were historical fact—onto the rest of us. And then, apparently, everyone else (in this case, all non-Christians and critics like Drew Reed6) gets labeled as "servants of the devil." We don't tolerate those kinds of outbursts, and we work to prevent them, just as we prevent Islamic fundamentalism or atheist extremism (like saying, "anyone who believes in God is stupid")... or any other kind of maximalism, really. We care about every single member, whether it's Drew Reed6, Morgan Rodriguez57, Roger Barrett2, or No Nickname... but as long as we maintain an atmosphere of BALANCE, the forum won't turn into some ideologically unified monolith. Having a diversity of opposing viewpoints is a WEALTH that we should all be nurturing and building together, rather than tearing down through the persecution of dissenters. Best to everyone, and my sincere wishes for a happy New Year 2010 to all. 🙂
Morgan Rodriguez57 Morgan Rodriguez57 Active MemberOP
216 messages
joined Oct 2011
#31 ·
Look, you don't need to be out here trying to maintain some kind of "balance"—that’s really not your job description... You’re a moderator, which means your actual duty is just making sure people aren't breaking the forum rules or ignoring the guidelines in the PDFs... It’s more than obvious that you’re playing favorites here, favoring one group while letting others slide—even when those first folks are flagrantly violating the rules, much like how Drew Reed6 operates... I've actually mentioned this before, honestly, just so someone doesn't end up being kicked over to a different platform before they even get hit with a partial ban...
Roger Barrett2 Roger Barrett2 Member
33 messages
joined May 2010
#32 ·
rowdyhawk10 said:Drew Reed6’s posts aren't like those dense, dogmatic theological rants you see floating around—the kind that feel like they're written in a secret code intended only for true believers, and honestly, half the time even the people writing them don't seem to grasp what they're saying. 😬).

Drew Reed6 looks at the whole subject through an anthropological lens. He grounds his arguments in actual, tangible events—real history—rather than just floating around in theological abstractions. He isn't interested in debating doctrine; he’s looking at how things actually happened in the world. The problem is that a small group of people keeps dogpiling him whenever he brings up these topics, essentially shutting down any attempt to have a serious discussion from this perspective. We need to step in and stop that kind of harassment. If someone actually wants to talk... Strictly on theological grounds. There’s plenty of room on our open forum for him to start a theological thread and share his spiritual insights with the rest of the community. If he decides to go that route, we moderators will step in to moderate and protect the discussion, just like we’ve done with everything else up to this point.

But honestly, whenever Drew Reed6 (or anyone else for that matter) decides to start a thread focused strictly on... From an anthropological perspective... The topic is actually rooted in real historical events—though I suppose that’s a bit of an understatement. I don't quite follow. If we just assume Drew Reed6 is automatically right by default, then everyone else on this board is going to start arguing against him using nothing but rigid dogma instead of actually looking at things through an anthropological lens. And honestly? That’s just not okay with me.

So, what I’m saying is that if Drew Reed6 makes an error, you can absolutely call him out on it. You don't have to be some self-righteous preacher about it, either. Instead of hitting him over the head with rigid dogma or quoting endless decrees from a church council, just use a historical parallel. Find a specific moment in history that contradicts his logic and lay it out there. It’s much more effective to challenge a standpoint with actual precedent than to just shout "you're wrong" based on some ancient rulebook. I think we're finally on the same page now. 🙂

Given everything that’s been laid out, I find myself siding with what Drew Reed6 is saying:

I’m on board with this, but I want to add one thing: Drew Reed6 isn't the only one who has noticed the pressure being put on the moderators. There’s this constant push to force certain quasi-idealistic views onto everyone here—trying to frame specific church dogmas as if they were undisputed historical facts that every single user must accept. It’s not right. Whenever people try to pull that, anyone who doesn't subscribe to those views—whether they're non-believers or just skeptics like Drew Reed6—gets branded with labels like "servants of the devil." We don't tolerate those kinds of outbursts, and we work hard to shut them down. We handle it the same way we would handle Islamic fundamentalism or extreme atheist rhetoric (you know, the whole "anyone who believes in God is an idiot" crowd). Basically, we step in against any kind of fanaticism. At the end of the day, we care about every single person on this board, whether it's Drew Reed6, Morgan Rodriguez57, Roger Barrett2, or No Nickname. But we’re going to maintain an atmosphere of balance. We refuse to let this place turn into an ideological echo chamber where everyone is forced to think exactly the same way. Having a healthy debate between opposing viewpoints is actually what makes a community work. Wealth. We really ought to be focusing our energy on nurturing and building things up together, rather than tearing everything down just because we run into people who don't see eye to eye with us. It’s much more productive to construct something lasting than to let persecution destroy what we've worked for. Wishing everyone a very happy New Year for 2010. Cheers to you all. 🙂

Drew Reed6 just dropped five posts in a row, throwing out maybe half a dozen claims about me that aren't even remotely accurate. I’d love to dispute them, but here’s the catch: if I try to tackle each one individually, I end up writing five or six separate responses just to cover my bases. By the time I’m halfway through explaining why his first point was wrong, he’s already posted three more things I need to address. It becomes this endless loop where I'm constantly playing catch-up. I honestly don't have the energy to engage in a debate like that—trying to untangle five or eight different errors all at once is just exhausting. At a certain point, you realize it's better to just let the guy keep spiraling. If someone is just going to keep stacking posts on top of posts without any real substance, it’s much easier to just step back and let them run themselves ragged.

When it comes to the intersection of history and theology, I honestly don't get why you’re so hell-bent on insisting there’s this massive divide between the two. To me, that dichotomy just isn't real. It feels like a distinction made up by a handful of people who want to argue for the sake of arguing. In my experience, you run into these theologians who clearly don't grasp the actual nature of how history works. They try to tackle historical study as if they're experts, but instead of doing the heavy lifting, they just end up reinventing the wheel and calling it a breakthrough. It's a bit of a tired routine.

From my interactions with Drew Reed6, I’ve come to realize that he just doesn't grasp the fundamental nature of history—things like how different perspectives shape research, what actually constitutes a solid historical hypothesis, or even the complex relationship between the researcher as a subject and the events being studied. Speaking as a theologian, I’ve learned how to maintain enough distance so I don't get personally swept up in his way of thinking. I did try to point out a few things to him regarding methodology and how to properly structure an argument, but at the end of the day, I can't fix someone's broken compass if they refuse to see it's pointing the wrong way.

Look, this isn't about people having different opinions; please, give me some credit. Personally, I thrive on diversity—I find it challenging and exciting. I genuinely enjoy reading a well-argued post that pushes against my own worldview. But here, we aren't talking about a difference of opinion. We're talking about someone presenting absurd claims under the guise of history, anthropology, or whatever else, making any serious discussion impossible. And don't even get me started on the total lack of critical thinking involved...
Drew Reed6 Drew Reed6 Member
34 messages
joined May 2003
#33 ·
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.
Drew Reed6 Drew Reed6 Member
34 messages
joined May 2003
#34 ·
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.
Drew Reed6 Drew Reed6 Member
34 messages
joined May 2003
#35 ·
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 Roger Barrett2 Member
33 messages
joined May 2010
#36 ·
Drew Reed6 said:I’d say you were just trying to go another route entirely, but if you’re actually right, how do you explain the fact that my approach isn't valid? I'm simply following the authors of these books. These are people who study history, and many of them are theologians or professors at divinity schools. So, by that logic, I’m supposed to believe you’re some massive authority here—and hey, maybe you are—but does that mean all those other writers are just total charlatans? I don't buy that.

Sure, some books might lack rigor, but it's hard to believe that absolutely everyone out there is clueless about what they're writing.

It’s more likely that you’re like many other self-proclaimed specialists who aren't actually that well-versed in the literature regarding Jesus and Bible scholarship. That said, as a professional theologian, you really should have been able to articulate your position more clearly.

I’m not quite sure what you think I was "trying" to do (?), but I know that, among other things, I was attempting to walk you through the basics of the historical hypothesis and how to properly present an argument.

Look, I’m not claiming to be some world-class expert, but it’s not as if I’m walking around completely ignorant. As far as education goes, given the opportunities available, I always try to make the most of it.

What exactly am I supposed to be explaining?
Roger Barrett2 Roger Barrett2 Member
33 messages
joined May 2010
#37 ·
Roger Barrett2 said:n

What exactly is there to explain?

Ah, right—you mean your take on the historical roots of Christianity and whether they hold water?

Look, the window between 70 and 135 AD is where our data gets incredibly thin. Because of that gap, people end up doing a massive amount of guesswork to try and fill in how Christianity actually formed and spread.

Since history is essentially the study of one-time events that we can't rerun in a lab, we rarely get to use terms like "proven" or "we know for a fact." Instead, we deal in probabilities—talking about the high likelihood that something occurred based on what we have.

The logic used by those who dismiss the validity of "religious history"—the idea that the early church or its followers provided an accurate record of their own origins—is usually built on the claim that these records are unreliable due to the lack of first-century documents. But when you look closely, most of those arguments (including many of yours) are just a collection of assumptions without any solid evidence to back them up. Yet, they’re presented as if they're self-evident truths. So much for being critical-minded.

My point is this: if you throw out the actual religious history, you're left with zero standing to make your claims. You're just staring at a handful of scattered puzzle pieces and trying to force them together, with varying degrees of success.
Steven Clark2 Steven Clark2 Active Member
85 messages
joined Sep 2020
#38 ·
Drew Reed6 said:Look, this response you just gave is a perfect example of how not to conduct a debate. We have drifted away from the actual evidence at hand, so you really shouldn't be claiming that I—or any of us—lack proof.

There is absolutely no need to take offense, and it certainly isn't my intention to insult you, but the fact remains that you lack substantive evidence for what you are asserting. 🤷 What you have is merely an interpretation of existing data; Roger Barrett2 explained quite clearly how you operate. Please don't be surprised when someone critiques your methodology—it isn't a personal attack on your character. Personally, I think you're a decent person—or at least, you were. You’ve always carried yourself with dignity, even if I did take a few jabs at you on purpose. That wasn't out of malice, but rather a desire to return the energy you were giving me. 🙂
Even if you had phrased it that way within the correct thread, it would still be improper. It isn't productive to engage in a discussion where you and others like you simply swoop in and declare that there is zero evidence.

Regardless—my stance is that you don't grasp this subject as well as you think you do. And I will reiterate: criticizing your arguments and your methods is not the same as attacking your person. Just don't forget that you’ve labeled me quite a few times simply because we disagreed. There is no need for that. Believe whatever you wish, but let's try to exchange ideas in a civil manner.🙂

So, if you aren't willing to explain yourself and prove you're right, then there's no point in participating. If I explain why my claims are proven and you respond like this, then you're just trolling.

It is a complex topic, and I am under no obligation to prove anything; I am simply expressing my opinion.

For instance, you cited a specific work from New York City regarding the trial twice, claiming it was the definitive work on the trial of Jesus Christ.

No. I stated that it was the work of a legal scholar, a piece that earned accolades at Harvard Law School. I have read it, and I actually own a larger edition of the same text. I am not certain the author addressed every single point, nor do I agree with him 100%, but his work is much closer to the truth of what actually transpired than you and your Bible (Brandon).

However, no objective person would agree with you that what you wrote in your post even pertains to the trial of Jesus Christ. Your post focuses solely on jurisdiction, which is a secondary issue at best regarding Pilate's trial.

Aha, well, that really should have been your approach on threads where you lacked the standing to offer objections or provide the information I was presenting—information you clearly didn't even know existed. Do you realize that 99% of the users on this forum (as with most others) are essentially "starved" or suffering from a total lack of accurate data? To be perfectly honest, I find your reliance on outdated, obsolete sources quite amusing. But I won't dwell on that. I have no desire to insult you; you seem like a decent enough person, but the core ideas you are pushing are fundamentally flawed. I am becoming increasingly convinced that you aren't actually concerned with what the truth is; rather, you are simply preoccupied with defending your positions at any cost. It is an exhausting endeavor, and frankly, even more exhausting for me to attempt to prove anything to you.

When I attempted to explain this to you, you remained completely silent.

Oh, is that so? 😂 Perhaps if I hadn't been present, but in most of the posts I replied to, you failed to demonstrate or prove anything concrete; you simply doubled down on your own narrative. I feel like a fool for wasting my time on you, as you didn't even acknowledge or respect the points I raised. An honest person would act differently. Furthermore, I remain certain that you have no real grasp of this subject, given that you rely on one-sided information, stale sources, and inaccurate or half-truth facts. When you form a stance and then refuse to consider criticism or provide actual answers to it, what is the purpose of the discussion, other than indoctrination and persuasion? 🤷 If our goal is merely to convince one another, there is no point, nor is that my intention. However, as far as having wasted my time—yes, I certainly have, and I don't intend to do so again. A perfect example is when you write eleven or twelve posts in a row; if that were permitted, one would have to ask: what is the purpose of all these romanticized narratives and conspiracy theories surrounding every topic you touch? Pick one subject and stick to it. Do not expect me to read twelve consecutive posts just to reply to every inaccuracy you've included; I have moved past that style of discourse, and I find it quite draining.

That is all. Best regards. 🙂
Steven Clark2 Steven Clark2 Active Member
85 messages
joined Sep 2020
#39 ·
I would truly appreciate it if someone could walk me through this—rowdyhawk10, I am looking specifically at you—and explain how you arrived at this post:

I must admit, I find myself feeling a bit out of my depth here, but I feel compelled to weigh in on this discussion. It seems to me that we are often too quick to judge without truly considering the underlying complexities of the situation. While it is easy to take a firm stance, there is a certain dignity in approaching these matters with more nuance and patience. Perhaps if we all took a moment to reflect before reacting so strongly, we might find a bit more common ground. I realize my perspective might seem overly cautious to some, but I truly believe that empathy is just as important as being right.

I could have easily been handed a red card for scoring a massive 250 points (!!!), based on this reasoning:

The blatant misuse of unverified claims and baseless assertions to manufacture a false sense of truth is truly disheartening. They are attempting to weave insinuation into reality, yet they have failed to provide a single shred of evidence to support their accusations of hate speech. Take, for example, this specific statement: "unidentified 'defenders of Islam' have been threatening his life for quite some time... perhaps they have finally carried out their intentions." It is a dangerous game to play when you lack any factual foundation.

What exactly makes that particular post so problematic? 🤷

I would also appreciate it if someone could explain this post to me:

I must admit, I find myself somewhat out of my depth here, but I feel compelled to weigh in on this discussion. It seems we are all circling around the same fundamental questions, though perhaps from different angles. Looking at the points raised by Steven Clark2, I can't help but feel there is a certain validity to his perspective, even if it feels a bit unpolished. There is an earnestness to his argument that demands respect. However, when I consider what Christian Torres3 mentioned earlier, I begin to see the complexities that we might be overlooking. We cannot simply brush aside the nuances of such a significant topic. It is quite easy to fall into the trap of being overly certain, and I am certainly guilty of that myself from time to time. But if we are to have a meaningful dialogue, we must strive for a level of intellectual honesty that transcends mere opinion. We need to look deeper than the surface level of these debates. I truly believe that if we approach this with a sense of genuine curiosity and mutual respect, we might actually arrive at some semblance of clarity.

The explanation follows:

The deliberate dissemination of unverified claims, coupled with subtle undertones of hate speech, is deeply concerning. Take, for instance, the assertion that a Russian priest was killed by Muslims—a claim that remains entirely unsubstantiated to this very day!

I am asking this specifically because you were the first one, rowdyhawk10, to label the Cross as the ultimate evil. You’ve even hinted at similar sentiments in several other places, making overt statements that are frankly much more severe than the one you are currently condemning so heavily. I find myself truly perplexed—how is it possible for someone to issue such high-level bans for minor infractions, yet walk away completely unpunished when they commit far more egregious offenses? 😕
Christian Torres3 Christian Torres3 Regular
604 messages
joined Sep 2014
#40 ·
Roger Barrett2 said:Look, this isn't about someone just having a different opinion—get that through your head. Personally, I love diversity; it keeps me on my toes. I actually enjoy a solid, well-argued post that challenges my worldview. But here? We're talking about someone throwing out ridiculous claims under the guise of "history" or "anthropology" just to derail a serious discussion. Not to mention the total lack of critical thinking...

Do me a favor and show me an example of his post that you think is so hilarious and baseless. Let's all have a good laugh together and see exactly where he's failing to make a point.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads