The Hero Pattern (Could Jesus be fake?)...

reply to post by adigregorio


No problem I don't want anyone to feel anxious or anything, but I really do think the codes support it. They aren't magical or anything they're there. Why they are there is anyone's guess it could be for modern day prophecies, since we've lost touch with nature through technology and thus lost touch with the Creator's creation. Scientists know the Big Bang happened, and Christians know WHY it happened. It happened beyond the speed of light( a code matrix about the big bang in a verse about creation.)

The Bible is the historically best selling book in the history of the planet. It makes sense why it would be. It is historically accurate and a book of wisdom. To point out that Jesus is a hero you must tell his story. Thus you must use the Bible to make your point, because it tells His "hero's tail" (In your POV) and I use it to make mine because of this. He didn't fail, the prophecy and time for His heroism is not yet fulfilled.

reply to post by watchtheashes


First, I am assuming this is quoted from an external source. May we please have the link to the source?

Skeptics have often pointed out that no archaeological evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ has been discovered. And they are correct, at least perhaps up until the present...

So they agree with me, no evidence. Well at least no #2.

A recent incredible discovery may put to rest that criticism...Would the Romans have recorded His life or death with an inscription or statue? Certainly not. Actually, Jewish archaeological evidence of the entire period is rather sparse...

Again, they agree with me!

I will answer the question: "Would the Romans have recorded his life or death..."

Sure! They did it all the time when they crucified someone! Let's not forget about the Census either, that was a commandment from Moses!

Furthermore, it is hurting your case for the Bible Jesus, since it says that "Jewish archaeological evidence of the entire period is rather sparse" (Apparently not for Jesus followers.)

...And remember that in A.D. 70 Jerusalem was totally destroyed by Titus. What may still exist is buried under the thriving modern city. Certainly the odds are against an artifact's survival.

Yet the "Dead Sea Scrolls" and many many Canon-Excluded books survived. This defence is looking to be as contradicting as the Bible itself. There is evidence, there isn't evidence. I bet we end with an uplifting saying, and a re-afferming of the "proof" (Again quotes = sarcasm)

The scarcity of archaeological artifacts can be contrasted, however, with the wealth of historical evidence for Christ. Soon the apostles had written letters detailing Christ's life and teachings, to be followed by the writings of Paul all widely copied and circulated, within the lifetime of eyewitnesses.

Weasle words!!!! "Wealth of historical evidence": What evidence? How much evidence? Who's history?

And all of that happening in the lifetime of eyewitnesses, yet we have NO EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS!!!

The Roman historian Josephus mentioned Christ several times while relating noteworthy civic events, including the execution of one named "James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ/Messiah" referring evidently to Jesus' brother James, leader of the early church and author of the New Testament book bearing his name.

I established on the last page that Josephus was NOT an eyewitness, as well as earlier in the thread (I think). And wow, how old was JC's brother!! Since the NT was written after 70AD (Again, READ THE THREAD)


The whole rest of the document is fooey! There is no proof that the Jesus mentioned was the same Jesus as the Bible. Just corralations, and corralation does not equal causation.

IE Coincedences happen, Jesus and Joseph could have been popular names at the time. I was at a cemetary the other day, I saw a headstone with my name on it. Does that mean I am dead and buried there? (No, it means that someone else had my name.)

Faith does not equal proof.

By the way Jesus was not referred to as Jesus by His followers. That is the latinized version of His name from the Hebrew YESHUA. He goes by many names. King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Jesus, Christ, and the like.

Oh and hey man I used to be just like you and needed far more proof than you are asking for, but then I realized debunking Jesus is useless. It profits us nothing, because it doesn't change faith one tiny bit.

reply to post by watchtheashes


Ironically I used to be just like you as well!

Que sera sera I suppose...

I am not asking for 'too much', as it stands there is more "proof" of UFO's than there is of Jesus (What I call proof.)

1. We have MANY eyewitness accounts
2. We have MANY official documents

True none of the 'evidence' proves one way, or the other, but it does present something I like to call 'proof of credibility'.

Jesus (As the Bible portrays him) has neither 1 or 2. Furthermore, Lord Raglan stated in his book that the "Hero" will not have those 2 things. THAT is why I deem those 2 pieces of 'evidence' so important. They are the entire point of the thread **Note the name of the book is "The Hero Pattern"

EDIT--
Minor punctuation

[edit on 5/1/2009 by adigregorio]

Here is yet another bump, readers be warned. If the other "Jesus proof" threads keep coming I will keep bumping this one.

Why will the Pro-JC'ers not respond in here? Why, when they respond, do they have to push this off topic?

Jesus was a 'hero'. His whole story screams fable when compared to this scale, and the other heroes. Is this too much to even consider? Is it too much to consider without getting 'up-in-arms'?

Perhaps some insight as to my beliefs? My belief structure says that, in the end, everyone is right. Think of it like this:

There is me "ADiGregorio", however this person is more than one person. There is the ADiGregorio that I know, then there is the ADiGregorio my mother knows, the one my father knows, so-on.

(For the purpose of this example, Mother is Christian, Father is Athiest)
When mom dies, the person she knows as ADiGregorio will go to hell. When dad dies, the person he knows will cease to exist. (Both ended up being right in the end.)

That is my belief structure as to what happens "after". I hope this helps to show I am not the 'average athiest debunker'.

(PS Mods, there is topic in this post I promise. I am just trying to figure out why my thread doesn't get as much traffic as the 'more harsh' versions of it.)

Here is a summary of the begining of the thread, more to follow if needed:

1: The Hero's mother is a royal virgin;
2: His father is a king, and
3: Often a near relative of his mother, but
4: The circumstances of his conception are unusual, and
5: He is also reputed to be the son of a god.
6: At birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or his maternal grandfather, to kill him, but
7: He his spirited away, and
8: Reared by foster-parents in a far country.
9: We are told nothing of his childhood, but
10: On reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future kingdom.
11: After a victory over the king and/or a giant, dragon, or wild beast,
12: He marries a princess, often the daughter of his predecessor, and
13: Becomes king.
14: For a time he reigns uneventfully, and
15: Prescribes laws, but
16: Later he loses favor with the gods and/or his subjects, and
17: Is driven from the throne and city, after which
18: He meets with a mysterious death,
19: Often at the top of a hill.
20: His children, if any, do not succeed him.
21: His body is not buried, but nevertheless
22: He has one or more holy sepulchres.

(Source: "The Hero: A Study in Myth and Tradition")

Here is how JC Fared against the scale

Originally posted by adigregorio
(1) His mother was a virgin. His father was (2) god (also referred to as Lord (aka king)). He was (4) born of immaculate conception. Again his father is (5) god, or Jehova. King Herod heard of this "savior" and (6) attempted to have him killed. (7) He is spirited away. (9) We are told nothing of his childhood. (10) But when he hits manhood he returns to his future kingdom. (11) After a victory over Satan, he becomes (13) "king of the Jews". (14) For a time he reigns uneventfully, (15) and prescribes laws. However, (16) he loses favor with the Jews, and is (17) driven from his throne as king of the jews. He (18) meets with a mysterious death, (19) on top of a hill. (20) He has no children to succeed him. (21) His body is never buried, and (22) he has holy sepulchres.

So let's see, a grand total of 19 points. Looks to me that the hero still exists and is worshiped to this day.

Originally posted by adigregorio
I do wonder about the three points he missed. Numbers 3 8 and 12. And upon further reflection. When I did my scale, I got #5 because "we are all "god's children". Now wouldn't that make JC's mother also his child? Then that should give her (3) Often a near relative of his mother. Now for number 8, since little to nothing is known of his childhood. What is to say that this reason is because he was "sent away". Of course speculation doesn't earn points but still a thought. Finally number 12. Well I have heard theories that Mary was more than just a follower. Know what I mean, nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more! However I am not sure of her status in society. Even so it is quite possible he gets to have number 12 along with 3, and maybe even 8. That would be 22/22, of course being fair I will just say he is up to 20/22. Unless I hear something different about Mary, or possible foster parents.

Here are some defenses that were used (though never proved) against the pattern:

Originally posted by adigregorio
For everyone else, so far as it stands the current defense to the hero pattern in regards to Jesus is:

Satan, knowing "gods" plan, was the other heroes mentioned (not the Harry Potter/Data/fun ones I supplied).

Originally posted by adigregorio
And am I also correct in assuming that the stance has changed for a defense against the pattern from:

Satan was the aforementioned heroes.

to

The aforementioned heroes were other "fallen angels", or their offspring.

Or a combination of both?

I went through the first 4 pages to help the reader(s) catch up. As of page for these are the current standings of the thread, I will add more to the summary when (if) the thread needs another bump (Or if I am asked to do so.)

Originally posted by THIseNdsnowoldKings
reply to post by adigregorio

 

i tired ti say that to a muslim once, we are all god's children....man did it start an argument. I guess to them, we are all god's slaves.

I guess to all Christians, muslims should have their head on spikes then? Or steal their resources? since we're making sweeping statements.

i'm a muslim convert, albeit no longer a practising one. Jesus is an important part of the holy Qu'ran.

V.2:62 "Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in Allâh and the Last Day and does righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve."

Holy Qu'ran

(Surah 29:46):
"Be courteous when you argue with the People of the Book, except with those among them who do evil. Say: "We believe in that which is revealed to us and which was revealed to you. Our God and your God is one. To Him we surrender ourselves."

I didn't think anyone was here to simpy assume the way the world is portrayed.

Take care
Wayne

reply to post by reiki


**DISCLAIMER** The following is my opinion:

From what I have heard (second hand) about the Muslim faith I base a loose opinion.

It has some of the most modern outlooks on other relgions. What I think the person you responded to misunderstood is that there are 2 basic variables for religion.

(People) + (Belief Structure) = (Religion)

Just because the (People) variable gets filled with 'bad' does not make the (Belief Structure) 'bad'. It doesn't even make (Religion) 'bad', just that one persons intrepretation of it.

--TOPIC--

This falls in line with many "faults" percieved in religion, including my own. That is why I ask questions, such as this thread. I want to make sure that the faults I percieve are not "faults". (IE, not my ignorance masking my perceptions.)

I have a feeling that last sentence is going to get a comment along the lines:

"If you don't believe in Jesus, you are ignorant"

Dude, the thing you apparently fail to realise is that the Hero Pattern, whilst amusing, doesn't prove the non-existence of Jesus Christ at all.

Secondly, there are plenty of historical figures for whom we have no written eye-witness accounts of their person or existence. Alexander the Great is one. Genghis Khan is another. Yet, THESE figures are not chosen for your bizarre vendetta...

Jesus gets picked on with these alternate-history books and articles because it's related to religion (and therefore somewhat sensational), and the authors ultimately just want a greater readership. None of this stuff EVER makes it into serious academic circles.

Why?

Because it's not serious academia.

Originally posted by Roark
Dude, the thing you apparently fail to realise is that the Hero Pattern, whilst amusing, doesn't prove the non-existence of Jesus Christ at all.

That is correct!! That is why the thread has the (Could Jesus be fake?) part affixed. Of course, we do not have the proof to show that he did exist. (By proof I mean the 1: Eyewitness account and 2: Official document)

Originally posted by Roark
Secondly, there are plenty of historical figures for whom we have no written eye-witness accounts of their person or existence. Alexander the Great is one. Genghis Khan is another.

May I have some sources that back up these claims?

Originally posted by Roark
Yet, THESE figures are not chosen for your bizarre vendetta...

Vendetta? Can you please show me where I have called a vendetta against Jesus? Methinks you are mad because I do not believe in him, just because I question his existance does not mean I have a vendetta against him.

Originally posted by Roark
Jesus gets picked on with these alternate-history books and articles because it's related to religion (and therefore somewhat sensational), and the authors ultimately just want a greater readership. None of this stuff EVER makes it into serious academic circles.

What are you talking about here? Articles? Alternate-history books? You are starting to lose me. Or are you talking about when I refer to the bible? I guess that could be considered an 'alterate-history' book.

EDIT--

Here is some info on: Raglan, FitzRoy Richard Somerset, Baron

Wikipedia page (sorry, was doing a quick search)

[edit on 5/29/2009 by adigregorio]

Originally posted by adigregorio
That is correct!! That is why the thread has the (Could Jesus be fake?) part affixed.

Of course, we do not have the proof to show that he did exist. (By proof I mean the 1: Eyewitness account and 2: Official document)

As I've already stated, eye-witness accounts and "official documents" aren't required by the rest of the academic world to indicate a historical person's existence. I'm interested to know why you think these are necessary, unless it's just to serve your point about Jesus' non-existence.

Originally posted by adigregorio
May I have some sources that back up these claims?

A source for the non-existence of eyewitness accounts for Genghis and Alexander??? I'm not sure what I can give you in that regard, dude!

You could just try and find a written eye-witness account for either of them. That would instantly disprove what I've said.

Originally posted by adigregorio
Vendetta? Can you please show me where I have called a vendetta against Jesus? Methinks you are mad because I do not believe in him, just because I question his existance does not mean I have a vendetta against him.

I'VE called it a vendetta, because you don't seem concerned about any OTHER historical figures who don't have supporting eyewitness accounts written about them.

Originally posted by adigregorio
What are you talking about here? Articles? Alternate-history books? You are starting to lose me. Or are you talking about when I refer to the bible? I guess that could be considered an 'alterate-history' book.

Alternate-history just describes a genre of book (or articles or whatever) which claims to have evidence of alternative facts to that of accepted scholastic knowledge. They are generally sensationalist in terms of what they present, and this is exactly how they sell.

Holocaust denial books are one example within the genre. The book "Holy Blood Holy Grail" is another.

Originally posted by Roark

Originally posted by adigregorio
That is correct!! That is why the thread has the (Could Jesus be fake?) part affixed.

Of course, we do not have the proof to show that he did exist. (By proof I mean the 1: Eyewitness account and 2: Official document)

As I've already stated, eye-witness accounts and "official documents" aren't required by the rest of the academic world to indicate a historical person's existence. I'm interested to know why you think these are necessary, unless it's just to serve your point about Jesus' non-existence.

Again with a claim, you say that those "official documents" are not required by 'the rest of the academic world' Yet you do not provide what is required, I assume by making that statement you do know what is required.

The reason they are 'necessary' is because Lord Raglan stated that a Hero would have neither of those two things. Of course I have stated this several times prior to this. Sorry, I assumed you read the entire thread.

Originally posted by Roark

Originally posted by adigregorio
May I have some sources that back up these claims?

A source for the non-existence of eyewitness accounts for Genghis and Alexander??? I'm not sure what I can give you in that regard, dude!


You could just try and find a written eye-witness account for either of them. That would instantly disprove what I've said.

So you first say that there are no eyewitness accounts for those people. Then you say you can't provide a source that has the research to back that claim. Sounds to me like you are grasping at straws, while trying to make me look like a fool. Yes, you could provide a source if you had one.

Originally posted by Roark

Originally posted by adigregorio
Vendetta? Can you please show me where I have called a vendetta against Jesus? Methinks you are mad because I do not believe in him, just because I question his existance does not mean I have a vendetta against him.

I'VE called it a vendetta, because you don't seem concerned about any OTHER historical figures who don't have supporting eyewitness accounts written about them.

Well I would understand your point if the thread was called: The Hero Pattern (Could these people be fake?) But it is not, if you do not like the topic then do not contribute.

Originally posted by Roark

Originally posted by adigregorio
What are you talking about here? Articles? Alternate-history books? You are starting to lose me. Or are you talking about when I refer to the bible? I guess that could be considered an 'alterate-history' book.

Alternate-history just describes a genre of book (or articles or whatever) which claims to have evidence of alternative facts to that of accepted scholastic knowledge. They are generally sensationalist in terms of what they present, and this is exactly how they sell.

Holocaust denial books are one example within the genre. The book "Holy Blood Holy Grail" is another.

Ahh, so by calling my book 'alternate history' you can build a strawman which you can attack. I understand now.

EDIT--

I don't even think you know what this book is about. It is about the study of Myth and Tradition in various cultures. It also goes into WHY those myths and traditions were observed. It has nothing to do with history in a 'timeline' sence of the word (Other than the timeline of the god(s) in questions)

Please, before making foolish claims about something. Be sure you know what that 'something' is.

[edit on 6/7/2009 by adigregorio]

Hi,

I’ve done some very preliminary checking and it seems that there are no surviving contemporaneous eye witness accounts of Alexander. There are a number of accounts (the earliest, I believe, is from roughly 350 years after his death) that are based on eyewitness accounts (such as the Deeds of Alexander) and the royal diaries.

Here are some links:

www.livius.org...
www.eyewitnesstohistory.com...


It appears that there are also no contemporaneous histories of Ghengis Khan. The earliest histories seem to follow his death by a few decades, and include The Secret History of the Mongols.

www.mongolianculture.com...


I believe that it is a reasonable question to ask if you have a ‘vendetta’ against Jesus if there are other people from history that do not have extant contemporaneous accounts available and also fit certain criteria that would fit a hero pattern and yet you choose to ignore them and focus on Jesus.

Also, upon reading your recap; your trying to shoehorn Jesus into #’s 11, 13, 14 and 15 seem spurious at best and if you accept the possible legitimacy of the Gnostic gospels then # 9 is also thrown into doubt.

On the other hand, I may be missing a lot as I couldn’t be bothered to read another thread that seemed to rehash the same ground yet again. If I’m missing something that has already been covered, my apologies.

Eric

Any one person can cast doubt on anything - no matter if it's sitting/setting/standing right in front of them.

Defense attorneys do it all the time.


The only people that usually try to debunk Jesus, God and/or the Bible are the ones who have issues with being held accountable for things they do or say in life.

Stop being babies and start being responsible and accountable adults. All of us will have to be judged one day, by God, and if you choose to ignore or try to debunk that, in the end, you're going to wish you hadn't of been so filled with pride.

Any other historical figures aren't there to hold people accountable for their actions and choices. i.e. Alex the Great, DaVinci, Nostradamus, Mozart, etc.

That is why people always choose to 'pick on' Jesus, and the Bible. They think if they can debunk Jesus, all of the rules and laws go out the window - and they are free to do and act as they please - with little to no consequences. Over the centuries, mankind has increasingly became extremely selfish and spoiled. That is called 'vanity and pride'. But this generation? This generation beats all I've ever seen.

Seems people want to do what they want, with who they want, when they want and for whatever reason they choose. And dare anyone to try to hold them accountable for their decisions.

Perfect example - a friend of mine and her husband went to HomeDepot for two chandeliers - the cashier inadvertently only charged them for one. My friends were aware of the error but chose to keep quiet - and walked out the door just paying for one, but getting two chandeliers.

When I confronted her on this - her "reasoning" was this: "Do you know how much money we've spent in that place?"
Her justification was basically that HomeDepot owed them.

THAT is the kind of mentality that most of the world has today. And the sad part is that no one can convince them otherwise - they honestly believe that they are right in stealing.

reply to post by EricD

Originally posted by EricD
I’ve done some very preliminary checking...

Thank you for the sources for the claims made, a star for you!

Now that we know that those two pieces of 'proof' are missing from those fellows. Perhaps we should then apply the hero pattern to them, how many of the 22 points do they score? I am afraid I know little of their lives. If you wish to compare them to the scale, you are going to have to apply it to them. If you do not wish to do that work, I can attempt it. However, that is bad form in my opinion. Since I did the work for Jesus, and several others, already.

Originally posted by EricD
I believe that it is a reasonable question to ask if you have a ‘vendetta’ against Jesus if there are other people from history that do not have extant contemporaneous accounts available and also fit certain criteria that would fit a hero pattern and yet you choose to ignore them and focus on Jesus.

Again, I refer to the topic of this thread (And the forum topic). To my knowledge Gengis Kahn et al. Were not purely religion based, nor are they conspiracies. And again I say, if the topic is offencive you do not have to read (or respond).

Originally posted by EricD
Also, upon reading your recap; your trying to shoehorn Jesus into #’s 11, 13, 14 and 15 seem spurious at best and if you accept the possible legitimacy of the Gnostic gospels then # 9 is also thrown into doubt.

11: After a victory over the king and/or a giant, dragon, or wild beast

So he did not defeat Satan/Death and gain the keys to hell? He did not go into the wilderness and get tempted by Satan (Defeating him again, by not sinning.)? Do I need to pull out verses?

Furthermore, is Satan not referred to as a Dragon? or Wild Beast? Ever?

13: Becomes king.

This one won't get dropped will it? It was covered several pages ago, I pulled out all the scriptures calling him King. Not to mention he is referred to as Lord. Just because you will not let it drop, please tell me how this is NOT considering Jesus a king:

Matthew 2:2 - "Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the East, and have come to worship him."

Matthew 27:11 - Now Jesus stood before the governor; and the governor asked him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" Jesus said, "You have said so."

Matthew 27:29 - and plaiting a crown of thorns they put it on his head, and put a reed in his right hand. And kneeling before him they mocked him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!"

Matthew 27:37 - And over his head they put the charge against him, which read, "This is Jesus the King of the Jews."

Mark 15:2 - And Pilate asked him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" And he answered him, "You have said so."

Mark 15:9 - And he answered them, "Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?"

Mark 15:12 - And Pilate again said to them, "Then what shall I do with the man whom you call the King of the Jews?"

Mark 15:18 - And they began to salute him, "Hail, King of the Jews!"

Mark 15:26 - And the inscription of the charge against him read, "The King of the Jews."

Luke 23:3 - And Pilate asked him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" And he answered him, "You have said so."

Luke 23:37 - and saying, "If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!"

Luke 23:38 - There was also an inscription over him, "This is the King of the Jews."

John 18:33 - Pilate entered the praetorium again and called Jesus, and said to him, "Are you the King of the Jews?"

John 18:39 - But you have a custom that I should release one man for you at the Passover; will you have me release for you the King of the Jews?"

John 19:3 - they came up to him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!" and struck him with their hands.

John 19:19 - Pilate also wrote a title and put it on the cross; it read, "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews."

John 19:21 - The chief priests of the Jews then said to Pilate, "Do not write, 'The King of the Jews,' but, 'This man said, I am King of the Jews.'"

EDIT--
Here are my responses for the claims against #'s 9, 14, and 15

9: We are told nothing of his childhood, but

The gnostic texts have been mentioned as a defence, alright.

So we are saying that the gnostic texts are taught as doctrine by the church? Ahhh, so then the church is told nothing of his childhood. Other than one account at the temple, which is hardly a 'childhood'. But like I said, the point does say 'nothing', of course the Christian laws say to stone disobediant teenagers, and they don't follow that one to the tee. I am still going to give him 9, sorry. It is up to the reader to decide, if it is that big of a point then I suggest responders add (I believe in 9!) or (I don't believe in 9) before their posts.

14: For a time he reigns uneventfully, and
15: Prescribes laws, but


As I said, he was king of the jews. If he was king, that means he reigned, in his case uneventfully.

I would cut-and-paste all the laws he prescribed, but it would be easier to just say "Read the New Testament", if people honestly think Jesus didn't prescribe laws, then how come it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, then for a rich person to enter heaven? (PS: The answer is one of those 'missing laws')

[edit on 6/8/2009 by adigregorio]

reply to post by nomorecruelty

Originally posted by nomorecruelty
The only people that usually try to debunk Jesus, God and/or the Bible are the ones who have issues with being held accountable for things they do or say in life.

Are you judging me? Shame shame.

Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion? Or is this post going to be all about being mad at me for questioning the way Jesus is portrayed in the bible?

Originally posted by nomorecruelty
Stop being babies and start being responsible and accountable adults. All of us will have to be judged one day, by God, and if you choose to ignore or try to debunk that, in the end, you're going to wish you hadn't of been so filled with pride.

Ahh, guess you are going to just be mad. As for acting like adults, I am not the one name calling. Nor do I find satisfaction in the thought that if someone I disagree with does not change, they will 'get it' in the end. That to me, seems much more immature than questioning ones belief structure.

Originally posted by nomorecruelty
Any other historical figures aren't there to hold people accountable for their actions and choices. i.e. Alex the Great, DaVinci, Nostradamus, Mozart, etc.

That is why people always choose to 'pick on' Jesus, and the Bible...

Ahh, so Jesus IS here to be held accountable?

The rest of your post, as the first was, is off topic. I noticed another conspiracy, but I think I can explain it.

The mods do not seem to delete the off topic posts in this thread, I think that they are of the Christian faith. So they let you come in here, and rant and rave, about anything and everything in a vain attempt to 'save me'.

If you would have read the thread, you would have seen that your attempt to assimilate me into the Christian Collective is indeed futile. That was one of the base reasons for this thread, because (I thought HA!!) I could have a reasonable discussion about a corralation I was seeing. It worked for a while, but alas those awesome debators are gone now.

Stone is dropped, falls to the ground.
Stone is dropped, falls to the ground.
Stone is dropped, falls to the ground.

Therefore gravity is real.

Why do you not apply this rule to history.

I.E. something happens over and over again, therefore it does not exist?

adigregorio don't bother. The christians rule this site and are already well into derailing your thread just as they derail and shut down any thread that puts their cult in a negative light. Their tactic is relentless bombardment until the OP or other posters give up and leave. Kind of like a filibuster against reason.