The words of Jesus

Originally posted by @fmf
One suggestion would be to simply not post copy-pasted material until you are able to attribute it properly.

What do you think is more offensive to the community - forgetting to post a url or non-stop trolling?

Originally posted by @fmf
One suggestion would be to simply not post copy-pasted material until you are able to attribute it properly.

I wasn’t aware you were the hall monitor today. Shouldn’t you be wearing an arm band?

Originally posted by @romans1009
What do you think is more offensive to the community? Forgetting to post a url or non-stop trolling?

Irrelevant. I haven't said anything about your failure to attribute your material being "offensive". "Romans1009" has only been posting here less than a month. I'm filling you in on the etiquette in this community, that's all.

Originally posted by @romans1009
I wasn’t aware you were the hall monitor today. Shouldn’t you be wearing an arm band?

??

Originally posted by @fmf
So, then you do not, in fact, have 'scores of eyewitness accounts' as you claimed [or as somebody whose writing you copy-pasted claimed].

If you’re asking whether I have in my personal possession 2,000-year-old parchments from eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ’s miracles, the answer is, “No, I do not.”

That said, I never claimed I did. Your question would be better directed to the gentleman whose words you quoted, don’t you think?

Originally posted by @fmf
Irrelevant. I haven't said anything about your failure to attribute your material being "offensive". "Romans1009" has only been posting here less than a month. I'm filling you in on the etiquette in this community, that's all.

I believe you said it was “poor form,” and I think saying something is “poor form” implies it is at least mildly offensive.

I like that you did not deny non-stop trolling. That honesty from you is refreshing.

Or was it a strategic decision by your campaign advisers? After all, in a campaign for Head Troll, non-stop trolling would be a plus.

Originally posted by @fmf
??

?!

Originally posted by @romans1009
If you’re asking whether I have in my personal possession 2,000-year-old parchments from eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ’s miracles, the answer is, “No, I do not.”

That said, I never claimed I did. Your question would be better directed to the gentleman whose words you quoted, don’t you think?

For there to actually be, as you claim, 'scores of eyewitness testimonies' you wouldn't have to have 2,000-year-old parchments, but you would have to point to something beyond the Bible which, if you consider how it came into being, can only really be considered as a single source and, for all intents and purposes, a secondary one too which passed through many hands and took decades and even centuries to finalize. Take for example the people rising from the dead in Matthew 27:51-53; how many eyewitnesses to that are you claiming there were?

Originally posted by @romans1009
I believe you said it was “poor form,” and I think saying something is “poor form” implies it is at least mildly offensive.

No, I said nothing about it being "offensive". But I do seem to have ruffled your feathers by pointing out that not citing the source of your copy-paste, is bad forum etiquette.

Originally posted by @fmf
No, I said nothing about it being "offensive". But I do seem to have ruffled your feathers by pointing out that not citing the source of your copy-paste, is bad forum etiquette.

Do you know what the word “imply” means?

As I said, I normally do cite the source. In the Sir Lionel Luckhoo article, I quoted it and figured anyone who was interested in seeing the actual online article could Google “Sir Lionel Luckhoo.” It’s not like Googling “John Smith.”

Originally posted by @romans1009
As I said, I normally do cite the source.

Be that as it may, but I suggest you do it always.

Originally posted by @fmf
For there to actually be, as you claim, 'scores of eyewitness testimonies' you wouldn't have to have 2,000-year-old parchments, but you would have to point to something beyond the Bible which, if you consider how it came into being, can only really be considered as a single source and, for all intents and purposes, a secondary one too which passed through many ...[text shortened]... ng from the dead in Matthew 27:51-53; how many eyewitnesses to that are you claiming there were?

How can you possibly think the Bible is a single source? It was written by 40 men over some 2,500 years (maybe longer.)

And how is the Bible any less credible than a historical text either from or about that time period?

And I’m not sure what you mean by “finalize.” Could you be more specific on that?

Originally posted by @romans1009
And I’m not sure what you mean by “finalize.” Could you be more specific on that?

No. Because I used the term before. Talking to you. And I explained it. I was specific. So I don't need to repeat what I meant.

Originally posted by @fmf
Be that as it may, but I suggest you do it always.

Suggestion duly noted. You’re calling it as you see it, and everyone should do that.

Originally posted by @romans1009
How can you possibly think the Bible is a single source?

Because of what I said.