If you had lurked the forums as is customary before asking questions, you would have gotten many of the answers you sought. Redundant questions are redundant. Now this thread will probably be locked and moved to Trollville, as will any further threads chewing on this same chestnut.

In summary:

Read more of the existing threads.

Stop whining about your old threads.

Please here me out.

I do not feel I was misrepresented for having my post removed. Renaming it though, I feel, was a tactic used to twist my view into the assumption that I was offering a  critique. I never judged Rook; I asked a question.

The reason I was hoping this would not be moved is that I don't want to be misrepresented. As I mentioned, my Father doesn't have an education and is competent in his field. The same could be true of Rook.

Also, it is very, very difficult to search ALL the threads before asking a question. What about 10 years from now when somebody who has never even heard of the RRS comes and asks this question? Why is it so wrong to ask a question before searching the ENTIRE site?

I ask for this to be left open because the point of this board is to "bring" the view that Jesus is a myth to the door step of people who were not familiar with it.

WELL, I never believed that there were THIS many people who believed that Jesus was a myth. I knew the thought was out there; yet, I did not know it had such a vast following.

I am very familiar with Bart Ehrman and others who claim he was just a man; yet, most scholars I have encountered believe at the very least that Jesus was a man who people worshipped because they only thought he was deity.

Therefore, I found this board to be interesting. It also served it's purpose and informed me about the issue. Yet, when I engaged the issue about the main person who is doing the research for the point, my post was moved and renamed.

HERE I AM. One of the people this board was made to inform; yet, my questions and post keep getting removed.

... likely because you asked a question that has been asked and answered dozens of times here, and is available easily online.  College material candidates generally possess a modicum of researching ability.

Several reasons.  My frustration specifically was that you made your post titled in all caps, and then seemed to ignore the sequence of events including communications with you via email, pm, and on the forum.  Instead you recreated the thread three times to get what you wanted, an all caps titled thread, which was open to commenting, started by you.  There are other threads on the issue, not in all caps, already open.  Sorry but we have some rules here, as you go along learn from them, instead of breaking them until you get your way.  Your creation of this thread to whine about it, falls in that same category.  Stop bitching about the rules, and move on, credentials don't mean a thing here, nor does your caps lock post, what would mean something is if you could comment in one of the created threads on Jesus mythicism to take apart one of the arguments set forth by atheists here.  So far you haven't done that, you're just bitching. 

We pay for the bandwidth here, it costs us money to host material, the site becomes slower to operate when we have too many threads.  Most of your threads so far are nothing but a waste of our money.  Get with the program, and stop bitching if we refuse to pay for your shit. 

I will likely be deleting most of the content you've created so far within a few days, it's a drain on resources.

I don't remember anyone doing that, but most theists are closed minded, maybe it was unrelated to what you were posting.

People can make assumptions about you or insult you on any part of our website.  The trollville section is where we send trollish posts, which yours were.  It's not an assumption.  Don't make trollish posts, and your posts wont go there.

Once the thread was locked nobody could respond, stop bitching.

Why are you making assumptions?  WAHHH

I think Hamby renamed it to infer that it was the final time we'd smack someone down on this issue.  You were the one that got smacked down, we were not inferring that you were trying to smackdown Rook.  It was renamed when we removed your all caps title, and to something more appropriate as deemed by the mod god (hamby).

It will likely just be deleted in a few days.

This isn't the thread for that.  Address the specific issues brought up by Rook and the other mythicists in the threads they've already started.  Compile an argument, ask a decent question that isn't answered 100 times on the site already and we'll get along just fine.

Great, we got that. 

Here are a bunch of topics you can look at and address...

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forums/rookhawkins/jesusmythicistcampaign

And for the record, the Jesus Mythicist Campaign forum is not your home to just open any topic you want.  So far all of your posts would have been better suited in the general conversation forum (including this one).  Use the recent posts tracker to find your moved posts instead of looking in the forum you placed them in, I can tell you will probably have posts moved in the future:  http://www.rationalresponders.com/view/super_tracker

Additionally we look much more kindly on people who find an existing relevant topic to post in, rather than create their own topic.  You'll notice you are even awarded more points on our site for doing so.  And lastly, you're being overly needy, the more work you make the mods do to correct your actions, the less likely we'll be interested in having you around.  Blend in a little better, it's not all about you.

I REPEAT: FIND A RELEVANT THREAD TO HAVE THE JESUS MYTH DISCUSSION, ADDRESS SPECIFICS OUTLINED IN THAT THREAD.  THIS ISN'T IT.

All you had to do was type "Rooks credentials" into google search on the left: Google SEARCH this site!

You would've seen these threads on the first page:

On the verge... | The Rational Response Squad

We seem to be in agreement you don't need a college degree or other credentials to be qualified to speak on certain topics. And as an FYI, all of Rooks work ...
www.rationalresponders.com/.../general_conversation_introductions_and_humor/504 -

Sapient,

You said: We seem to be in agreement you don't need a college degree or other credentials to be qualified to speak on certain topics. And as an FYI, all of Rooks work

I just wanted to clarify real quick. I DO believe that you must have "credentials" to be "qualified" on certain topics. A "qualification" demands a credential. Yet, those credentials can vary. For instance, I mentioned my Father, his credentials are about 37 years of a successful financial business, not a degree. Rook's credentials, based off what you told me, are 8 to 10 years of a self-taught track. I just wanted to be clear that I believe you need credentials, I just don't believe they HAVE to be college degrees in the area of history.

Also, would you mind to put my original title in trollville?  I think my original title captured my view point and the new one misrepresents me. The new one makes it sound like I wanted to attack Rook, which I did not. The other assumptions, accusations, and questions (which are odd since they knew I could not respond) by people don't bother me, assumptions are sure to appear when you type a message; yet, I was hoping the misrepresentation of the CHANGED title could be removed. If this is possible, I would appreciate it.

Sapient,

Sorry about the e-mail responses. I checked the email and I can only see one response from you and I did not see that until today. I seriously would have responded. I don't know what happened.

Sorry about the all caps. I didn't think that was a problem. Honestly, i didn't read all the rules when I sign on. I mean, do you read all the rules when you use computer programs or websites?  Did you read all the stipulation for your e-mail, i-tunes, or anything else? Yet, i will now because this is the first time they were held so highly.

Sorry about wasting your money, I didn't realize you were so crunched for the budget on this site. That never crossed my mind that that may be a reason my post was moved.

There is a differenece between "bitching" and offering complaints. Bitching is when your opponent is requesting a different action, complaining is when your friends are requesting different actions. It is just a way to offer out a rude comment. I teach iover 130 teenagers, they use that phrase a lot to put down their peers. I think  it  is a juvenile  insult, but whatever.

Thanks for clearing up the "title". I really thought it was meant to restate my view, but I understand the wording now that you explained it. I understand now.

One more question, if the Jesus Mythicist Campaign is not the right place to discuss Jesus being a myth. What thread would fit?

Theist,

A persons credentials just might be evidence that they have knowledge. For example if you have a phd in biology you probably have some level of knowledge of biology. But lack of credentials does not mean a person does not have knowledge. A persons knowledge can be demonstrated many ways, by published research or by the ability to refer you the correct research.

Your question was a supreficial one. Perhaps if you asked what the standards for judging a person to have knowledge are there would have been more respect. And this is an important question. How do those who understand science and logic teach science and logic to those who do not. Is it possible to reduce scientific and philosophical concepts to a simpler form, so that the average person can understand? Or if that is not possible is there a way to have the ignorant trust the knowledgable.

This is a rather important question in our society. Many people do not understand or trust scientists. Hence the whole Creationism mess.

I for example do not understand the theory of evoluiton in detail. But biologists have demonstrated their knowlege to me by their ability to predict the behavior of biological phenomana, such as transitional fossils to the modern whale and between fish and tetrapods and so on. So I believe them.

Ultimately the question is what is knowledge not whether a person has credentials.