[duffyd]

Would anyone care to explain who Jesus Christ really was?

I’m not sure why you are asking this here. This is neither a religion site nor a history site, all you will get are opinions.
This site, by its very nature, deals with the science of observation, experiment, models and predictions. What you are looking for won’t be found here.

The scientific method identifies Who He is. Or does it? That's what I am exploring.

[duffyd]

Yes, that's right.
I tell the whole forum that you are not following the rules.

Ignoring you is against the rules?

The evidence I told him to ignore is the "no evidence" claimed by people who don't see the evidence that God exists. That is just the opposite of what you accuse me.

[Bored chemist]

The scientific method identifies Who He is. Or does it? That's what I am exploring

That's a perfectly fine topic for discussion.
But it's not the topic of this thread.
Why are you cluttering this thread with it?

Ignoring you is against the rules?

Refusing to address valid points means you are not debating, you are preaching.
That's the breach of the rules. It has nothing to do with me.

[Bored chemist]

people who don't see the evidence that God exists.

What evidence?

[duffyd]

The scientific method identifies Who He is. Or does it? That's what I am exploring

That's a perfectly fine topic for discussion.
But it's not the topic of this thread.
Why are you cluttering this thread with it?

Ignoring you is against the rules?

Refusing to address valid points means you are not debating, you are preaching.
That's the breach of the rules. It has nothing to do with me.

I debate. Not debating you is perfectly acceptable. Harassing me is against the rules and you violate them repeatedly.

Why are you debating this here?

[duffyd]

The scientific method identifies Who He is. Or does it? That's what I am exploring

That's a perfectly fine topic for discussion.
But it's not the topic of this thread.
Why are you cluttering this thread with it?

Ignoring you is against the rules?

Refusing to address valid points means you are not debating, you are preaching.
That's the breach of the rules. It has nothing to do with me.

Why are you addressing this issue here?
You made numerous unsubstantiated claims and ignored my pertinent questions where others and I discussed these matters on another thread.That is preaching. I learned it from you.

[Bored chemist]

Why are you debating this here?

Because someone raised it here... that will have been... you.

[duffyd]

Refusing to address valid points means you are not debating, you are preaching.

You nailed it. I address valid points. You refuse to define evidence. You are not qualified to debate.

[Bored chemist]

You made numerous unsubstantiated claims and ignored my pertinent questions

What pertinent questions have I ignored?

[duffyd]

Why are you debating this here?

Because someone raised it here... that will have been... you.

You break the rules when you want to.

[duffyd]

You made numerous unsubstantiated claims and ignored my pertinent questions

What pertinent questions have I ignored?

You made them. It is not my job to inform you specifically.

[duffyd]

Stop chasing your tail. Define evidence. Don't be manipulative. Just do what you should have done. No big deal if you are playing by the rules.

[Bored chemist]

You refuse to define evidence.

Nope.
Here's where I defined it (albeit in another topic)

Evidence is a reason to think that what you say is true.

I have clearly not refused to define it.

[Bored chemist]

You made them. It is not my job to inform you specifically.

Yes it is.
Also, if you don't, it looks as if you admit that you made it up.

[duffyd]

You refuse to define evidence.

Nope.
Here's where I defined it (albeit in another topic)

Evidence is a reason to think that what you say is true.

I have clearly not refused to define it.

You play games. Put it in your own words. I told you I am not chasing links. Just define evidence

[Bored chemist]

You refuse to define evidence.

Nope.
Here's where I defined it (albeit in another topic)

Evidence is a reason to think that what you say is true.

I have clearly not refused to define it.

You play games. Put it in your own words. I told you I am not chasing links. Just define evidence

I just did.
Do you realise it looks like you are trolling?

[duffyd]

You made them. It is not my job to inform you specifically.

Yes it is.
Also, if you don't, it looks as if you admit that you made it up.

Don't care how it looks. I am not responsible for all you.
You
"APPEAR" to run away from genuine discussion about GOD and His Son. Why so reluctant?  I read everything you wrote and it is obvious you don't know much about these figures

[Bored chemist]

I read everything you wrote and it is obvious you don't know much about these figures

Nor does anyone else.
That's, kind of, my point.

Why did you ask me to define something in a post where you quoted me defining it?
Was that trolling?

[Petrochemicals]

There is never a spam bot when you need one, you spend all your life trying to stop spam bots, and when you could do with one there is never one around.

[duffyd]

Evidence is a reason to think that what you say is true.

I', addressing these issues as fast as I can. I've been here a few days. I'm learning. You have threatened and stalked me since I got here. "Evidence is a reason to think that what you say is true."
Finally. That was simple but you refused to do it until now. That is pathetic. Pure Power Play.

Pick your thread. "Evidence is a reason to think that what you say is true." I'll meet you there right now.