Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Raf

Members
  • Posts

    16,671
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    145

Raf last won the day on February 29

Raf had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Raf

  • Birthday 08/04/1969

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://htto://www.facebook.com/rafaelolmeda
  • Skype
    rafael.olmeda.2000

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Cooper City, Florida

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Raf's Achievements

Mentor

Mentor (12/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • First Post Rare

Recent Badges

644

Reputation

  1. Exactly. But that is just one of many points raised in the article.
  2. Trying to refrain from replying until I have time, but thank you cman for posting that wikipedia link, which neatly sums up most of the "evidence" mythicists need to overcome to be taken seriously. Some of that is easy. Some of it, not so much. The expert consensus is the easiest argument to overcome because in this field, the expert consensus is ludicrously biased in favor of tradition. When I hear about the consensus of experts, I tend to expect overwhelming evidence in favor of that consensus, not overwhelming excuses about why we shouldn't expect to find evidence even though, no, seriously, we should. The notion that we would have to reject other historical figures if we held Jesus to a more rigorous standard is also incorrect. I would submit that such claims would be refuted by asking for an example, one example, of a historical figure whose existence is taken for granted but for whom LESS evidence exists than for Jesus. You won't find one. What you'll find instead is a Jesus that has more in common with Robin Hood and King Arthur than with Nathan Hale and Alexander Hamilton. Amyway more later
  3. Can't reply without violating my own admonition. Let's just say given the alternatives, I'd prefer killing the conversation. That said, Nathan, you and Mark were able to disagree with me without making it about me. It's not impossible.
  4. I was going to come up with a clever comeback but I am not that clever. Well done.
  5. This is actually Bram Stoker's Dracula
  6. ok. Though I reserve the right to make "The Fate of the Apostles" as a separate thread. :)
  7. Oldies, we were kind of dismissive of this post. Are you satisfied with my response? Or would you prefer greater detail? The lack of evidence for the martyrdom of the saints was the straw that broke the camel's back for me in my journey from faith, so it's not a topic I avoid. But in terms of THIS conversation, I think YOU get to decide whether I've adequately addressed it.
  8. Alan, My humblest apologies. There actually ARE threads about me. You know that because you participated in them. And that was fine, because I made that/those thread(s) about me, so it was fair game. This thread is not about me. It's about a particular topic. In addressing that topic any one of us is welcome to accept or reject evidence that's presented. A healthy discussion allows challenges that are presented in good faith, and responses in good faith. [Dismissive posts are not conducive to a healthy conversation and are just being spit on this thread out of frustration at being unable to address the topic. I am treating those posts with the respect they earned. Yours is not one of those posts]. I cannot tell if you are citing scripture to address the topic at hand, in which case it would be fair game, or to express your disappointment at my personal journey, in which case you are off topic. Indirectly, you could make the case that one reason I am no longer Christian is my realization that the claims of the Bible cannot withstand honest inquiry [and those claims that can withstand inquiry are not really a big deal]. And this thread would be an example of one such claim. But that still doesn't make ME the topic and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from continuing on that course. Thanks.
  9. Seriously, did not insult his intelligence. Insulted his post. If it did a Good Job of reflecting his intelligence, that would be insulting the poster.
  10. By the way, when you file a frivolous lawsuit, you are required to pay fees and costs when you lose. So if I were you I would be REAL careful about threatening legal action. You may be able to afford your lawyer but I assure you, you cannot afford mine.
  11. Are you threatening to sue me? Wow. For the record, I insulted your pointless post, not you. But if you'd like to get lawyers involved, I'm listed.
  12. Well, What you said did a very poor job of reflecting your overall intelligence.
  13. Contradiction is not rebuttal. "But I believe it" is not a resoonse to valid points raised. Or invalid points for that matter. I understand that it pisses you off to hold a position that has no supporting evidence, but that's not my fault and it doesn't help your position to call out "yuh huh" when your bulls hit argument is successfully refuted.
×
×
  • Create New...