It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

zeitgeist debunked and we still dont care

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lightmare
I'm also very suspicious of way they took the New World Order and tried to blame it on the very religion that has been trying to warn us about it for well over two-thousand years. Sorry folks, but I smell a rat.


a big stinking rotting toe nibbler of a rat.

anyone here ever studied Biblical textual analysis? its more sophisticated than quantum physics.

there are more ancient manuscripts confirming and cross-referencing the contents of the bible than any other ancient documents in existance.

and there are external sources of Jesus' existance. go to "historicity of jesus" at wiki, that has a basic rundown of external sources so you can research them more thoroughly at your own discretion.

also, each gospel and letter and epistle, canonical or not, can be treated as separate sources because before canonization, that's what they were. they were independent sources from independent authors from independent locations around the mediterranean. canonization was a process that took 100 years or more, and numerous conferences between independent bishps (NOT catholic bishops, just separate community leaders) from around the mediterranean. what they did was to compare and contrast the message of each source text to see which ones said the same things, and which ones said obscure or unique things. by a process of deduction they chose what we now know as the Bible, because each book or letter or gospel or source could be cross-referenced with each other AND with the books of the jewish scriptures, to be sure that the Book is coherent in conveying God's message to the world.

modern scholars have repeated this process over and again. the majority would agree at least academically that the new testament canon is a very accurate collection of the works of the original communities of Jesus of Nazareth followers. i mean we're dealing with high end scholarship in a couple of paragraphs on an internet message board. come on.

zeitgeist is just pop research tizzied up into multimedia fairyfloss. throw a bit of water on it and it dissolves into a few granules of pink sugar.

at the end of the day, christians who seek the Spirit don't need any external or academic evidence, because the evidence is Living proof. and that's what atheists and non-believers and deconstructors seem to miss out on.

i hope people would consider the bible more wisely and intelligently. and remember that the roots of a tree can only tell you so much. the leaves and flowers are lovely, and the fruit is infinitely satisfying.




posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 08:46 PM
link   
how ironic - zeitgeist part 1 fans speak of contradiction and misinformation in the bible, and cite the zeitgeist as info.

the naysayers speak of contradiction and misinformation in the zeitgeist, and cite the bible as info (and theologians interpretations of it).



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by scientist
how ironic - zeitgeist part 1 fans speak of contradiction and misinformation in the bible, and cite the zeitgeist as info.

the naysayers speak of contradiction and misinformation in the zeitgeist, and cite the bible as info (and theologians interpretations of it).


very true. i guess it comes down to what sources you're willing to believe, and why.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 09:12 PM
link   
i think that the first 1/3 of the zeitgeist was probably a good thing to include, but essentially alienated a majority of possible viewers. It's a shame the christianity part of the movie seems to divert the other 2/3 of the movie.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 10:37 PM
link   
i saw the whole thing. i thought parts two and three were sort of ok for beginners. its still sensationalized pop research. plus the whole thing is unTruthful because it relies on and promotes suspicion and distrust, and even anger for some people. these perceptions lead to darkness.

spiritual discernment and strength is required to stay above that nonsense.

i've heard that jesus astrology stuff before. its old hat. as i said, it throws the baby out and keeps the bath water, then uses the bath water as evidence that the baby never existed. dismissing the bible without genuinely considering what it teaches is ignoreant.


[edit on 18-9-2007 by sollie]



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 07:32 AM
link   
you had me at "zeitgeist debunked"

had me lol'ing......big time

your links are biased as hell...i see more truth in the first part of this movie than i do the friggin bible.....why? cause it seems logical/plausable.....
why do you feel the need to debunk it anyway?

afraid people might actually start thinking?



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amenti
Please, Im just trying to get us to see we should not consider this movie or similar arguments above scrutinization because its beneficial to our paradigm if true. [edit on 18-9-2007 by Amenti]


yeah...you're also calling for the makers of THEIR film to issue a retraction....come off it....

tell ya what, i want a retraction issued on the bible cause of all the drivel it spews...fair right?

i mean, my exact number may be off so feel free to add/subtract 20-25 from it...the point is still there.

the bible is a collection of all these 'ancient texts' correct? i was under the inpression that there is say, 60+/- books or texts that have not even been decyphered yet....is this true?

op, for all you know, you're putting all this faith in the prologue of a book. you're missing like 2/3's of it and you run your life by it..


well, bwuahahahahahahah but have at it



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Boondock78
 


I wonder if ANYONE has an argument about this that deals with the claims themselves and not:
(paraphrasing)
but your links were written by a Christian, that means you can use the bible to prove the bible etc etc.

I guess I should feel pretty good that I am able to read and compare the things claimed to the things written, because everyone seems to think its such a secret and difficult art that it can only be approached by the most knowledgeable atheist.

again none of this holds up I really feel like this is the freaking twilight zone.
everyone accusing me of being blinded by my dogma from the "truth". when
I would guess someof the more unbiased people reading through this can tell many of the people accusing me of this obviously have themselves strapped down a set of dogmatic blinders pretty tightly.

taking out the dec 25th nonsense

every claim about these similarities
are either totally absent from any account of the god in question (this covers most of them)
or its a sly interpretation. example: Dionysus never was said to have turned water into wine but,since he was the God of wine, what the hell thats close.. "print it"
or
the claim was taken from a account of the god dated well after BCE.
or
an irrelevant similarity like
both were men that ate food and slept



[edit on 19-9-2007 by Amenti]



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here's a thread about jesus and horus, i believe bryd at least tried to debunk those claims, and tell what she knows about the subject.



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by amenti
 


I care, I care.

I recall it was in 3 parts. Part one is wacked. Part two was about 9/11 but
forget the point... the demolition spin I think.

Part three was about the Federal Reseve which should be the least of
our worries with a Nazi mentality shadow government calling the shots for
America.

I don't know who the people are who keep on insisting the Federal
Reserve is prime but its been around for quite awhile.

The 9/11 truth may have as many CIA spin groups and the CIA has
Alien/UFO writers. Pinning hope on demolition is no good in light
of the counter official pancaking story. You got to find the hole in
the story that has no answer yet.

Some how the Masonic influence may seem evident in the first part.
There were lot of treads on Masons at one time, perhaps they can
verify if part one sounds familiar.



posted on Nov, 12 2007 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Why did this get turned into a religious debate. *SNIP* the history focus on 2/3 that is the part that matters. We have to live threw this we cant just look back on it, when its now.

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 12/11/2007 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 12:52 AM
link   
www.amazon.com...

youtube.com...

There is the PROOF for the new world order. Get religion out of here because there is more serious things going on!



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Amenti,

I've read your post and about half of the comments written back and forth between other people.

I'm usually not interested in commenting especially in defense of what could be interpretted as "pro-Christianity" claims. I'm not sure if there is a conscience dogma at work or not, that's interesting, but I do feel intimidated to comment in the sense that I think showing support for anything pro-Christian is in support of stupidity, wishful thinking, etc. But because you kept asking for people to read the original sources I did and found that your argument is very compelling.

I read wiki articles on Horus, Dionysis, and Krishna, and plan on reading more quotes from original sources, but thus far I feel that Zeitgeist was very misleading.

The only reason I'm not 100% convinced, is again because of the "Christians are biased" mantra that is being espoused by most intellecutal circles. If I could be convinced that non-theists have just as much at stake by admitting to Christianity as vice versa then I woud be less apt to dismiss certain arguments made by Christians.

But looking at the information you presented versus the information Zeitgeist presented, you've succeeded in getting me to lean your way.

And I just felt the need to say thank you for being intellectually honest. You clearly don't have much support in your views, and like I said before, my gut reaction is that you were probably wrong and Zeitgeist is right because based on most comments from people that consider themselves researched (as is evident on this board) you are in a very small minority. And therefore I would have to think there is some anti-religious conspiracy out there and I Just don't see the incentive for it.

K, well thanks for addressing the issue. I'm sure it's EXTREMELY appreciated by not just me, but by all people that wanted to hear two sides to the Zeitgeist story. I just googled and came across your response.

THANKS.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   
I watched the movie and was compelled by it, but kept an open mind about the whole movie. To bad the Royal Library of Alexandria in Egypt was burned down and all those ancient text were destroyed. We may never know the truth until we die, or even after that. I enjoyed watching the movie, but try hard to never believe everything I watch, hear or read. I can research and google all I want about the movie or anything else and still I'm listening or reading something somebody else wrote or believes. I just go with my heart and to me that's my proof enough, wrong or not.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Hello Amenti. My name is Ashley and I am the author of one of the sites you link to above (www.thedevineevidence.com). I was looking through my site statistics on my control panel and found this thread.

I briefly looked through some of the comments on this thread and it saddens me greatly. Not due to the insults in the comments but due to blindness of truth.

It is truly sad when evidence is freely available to them but ignored. Zeitgeist the movie provided no religious texts to back up their claims. However if one looks through the actual religious texts of the pagan figures in question like I show on my site by quoting Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Egyptian (etc.) religious texts that show without a doubt the claims this movie makes are false, they would easily see this movie's claims are not only false but a downright lie.

Instead we are accused of being biased. Actually, no. The truth is never based on one's personal perceptions but on truth itself. Even if one does not believe the truth, it still exists whether or not they choose to believe it.

Thanks for making this post. Sometimes it is frustrating to converse with the close minded who prefer a lie but you never know the anonymous readers who view this thread and whose questions you answer.

Keep up the good work and keep professing the truth. Not necessarily to convince the devout skeptics for they are spiritually blind to such matters and reason but for those who are honestly seeking answers and don't let their reservations interfere with the quest for the facts.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 02:34 AM
link   
I think we all missing the point with this Zeitgeist stuff.
It doesn't matter if you agree with it or not, if it is a current or not.
You take the bibles and it is the same stuff, a current or not many people believe in this puzzling work.
What matter is that Zeitgeist has been able to reach people that have a lots of difficulty with this world.
It is not normal that we fight each other for so long, it is not human that we despise each other for so long.
Something is very wrong with humanity and the logic as shown that must of it bounced from religious dogma.
You and I may will not always be right, what's important is to explore and communicate with no fear of been wrong or self-.satisfied
If you use your integrity to prove something, then analyze your integrity and find out where dos your veracity come from.
It is all about searching the truth for the substance of the truth and not the message.
kacou



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 10:31 PM
link   
What's interesting is that if this movie is right, religious or not, we should all unite to fight against the tyranny that's ahead of us.

Maybe this movie was made by shadowy government agents trying to create disunity among the people, especially Christians. But why Christians? Because most of the stuff in parts 2 and 3 are mentioned in the Book of Revelations in metaphors and first-century descriptions (the Apostle John would have never known what a RFID chip is so he just gave it the title 666 because 6 is usually the number given to man in the Bible, 1 short of God (7), and 3 usually means perfection/completion like the Trinity - therefore three sixes is the perfect/completion, or the epitome of man where in today's case, corrupt men will have absolute power of over the whole world). Well not only that, the number of Christians in the world are a huge threat to the world's elite if they unite against them. Perhaps they're trying to isolate them and make them look like the enemy.

Any Christian who has studied the book will see the similarities in the book and the movie and would be outraged at our government. Who cares if the religion part is right or not, what matters most is that the lives of our children and grandchildren are at stake and we have to unite.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Sorry, but one thing I would like to mention is that, most of the "Christian" wars were by the Catholic church. I can't recall any wars/persecutions to the extent of the Crusades or the Inquisition by any Protestant groups. In fact, it was because of the brutality/corruption that was so far from the Bible's teachings that the Protestant Reformation occurred. Also, the Catholic church has apologized over and over for their mistakes and has sought reconciliation many times.

To say that religious wars/persecutions led to the worst disasters of mankind is outright false. What about the atheist governments of the Soviet Union, communist China, Cambodia (omgosh don't even get me started on them)? Stalin alone was responsible for the deaths of over 20 million of his countrymen in a period much shorter than the Crusades.

I think people should stop labeling religious people as fanatics when the crazy ones only make up less than 3% of them. Likewise, we should not label atheists in the same manner because not all of them are like Stalin. It's time to grow up and live in the harmonious way our founding fathers intended.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 07:05 AM
link   
I always figured the 1st part about religion was unnecessary and really didn't have anything to do with parts 2 and 3. So what is Jesus is Horus and blah blah, what does it change? If it's true then it's just another name for the same thing but the "faith" remains the same. Even if part 1 is supposed to be some sort of vatican bash it still makes no difference. If Jesus' name suddenly became Fabio you think people would stop believing? And if it is just a way to make solar ages or whatever, well, isn't that still all relating to a creator of some sort? Or at the very least a more powerful and much greater force than man?

Besides, they go through all of that which by itself doesn't make any difference to anyone and don't even tie it in with the rest of the movie.

Seems to me that 2 out of 3 parts were genuine inquiries but the 1st was just another "i hate faith" tirade that neither proves nor disproves a god of any sort but just serves to make the other "i hate faith" people happy for a moment.

Hell, even if the big bang were absolutely proven true it wouldn't mean there is nothing greater than man. What's beyond the big bang? Nothing? Well, what's beyond that nothing? Where did the gas and particles come from to explode? It just keeps going and going.

I just don't get this constant waste of time trying to prove or disprove people's religion. Like proof there is no god would suddenly empty the churches or something? They'd go on full as ever.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 07:16 PM
link   
I really didn't like what they did with the first part of the movie. It really isn't that factual, had bad sources, and almost made me stop watching because it was poorly researched. The second and third part was pretty interesting though.

They should've cut the religious crap out of it. The comparisons between Jesus and other religious figures seems to be totally made up. It's like taking the Bible 100% literally, it's just false.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join