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.

 

I'm looking for Christian rebuttals of the movie the Zeitgeist, anyone???

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 05:59 PM
link   
I have been comming across quite a few zeitgeist fans and Christians debating, and so far haven't heard any strong Christian rebuttals for this movie. In a personal debate that I was obliged to witness, a respected Christian theologian that I know personally and who is also a pretty strong apologist, had no strong points in his defense against this movie.

Also, I'm not looking for pissed off, arrogant, I can't believe some-one made this, one sided, one sentenced rebuttals. I'm talking about pont by point respectable answers with facts and so forth.

If you haven't seen it, it's roughly the 1st part of a 3 part copnspiracy theory movie. It's this 1st part that tries to discredit Christ (Christianity) by showing all the alleged similarities between Christianity and a whole bunch of other Messaiah's, most of which so far in my research is factual besides some of the Mithra stuff, i.e. Mithra was not born of a Virigin, but from a rock.

The Movie is here: zeitgeistmovie.com...
Roughly, 30-40 minutes long, just skip the long boring intro that lasts a few minutes. The film part actually starts at (10:05) so there is a boring 10 minute intro that is irrelevant.

Warning !!!!!!! If you are a Christian and not yet strong enough in your faith, please do not watch this film yet, until you are.

Likewise warning, if you are something other than a Christian, let's not jump to conclusions until we get all the facts straight.




posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Did you try searching?
Here is a fairly recent thread that came up when I search ATS for Zeitgeist.
Zeitgeist Debunked

Does that do the job?



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Dominicus~

Do you know what the definition of zeitgeist is?



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Queenannie,
Yeah, it means spirit of the age, but while the german birthed word has many many levels of meaning, it ca also apply to "world spirit" and so on.

Why do you ask??



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Just wondering. It is an odd word, I think. One that people never use but now that will probably change.

Anyway...I am on dial-up and also my phone line is a million years old. Meaning my internet crawls like a tortoise. Would it be too much to ask you for a brief synopsis of the movie? I haven't seen it and to download it would just mire me down intolerably.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:04 AM
link   
A synopsis, well basically it's about Jesus being compared to a few dozen other "messiah's" all of which had similarities to Jesus himself and therefor all are myths, such as Mithra, Horusm, Attis, Dionysus, Buddha, Krishna, etc. Then showing that there is allot of paganism incorporated in Christianity and that it is mostly astrological in nature.

Philosophically speaking, the conclusion you come to is this:

Either:

A. All spiritual paths Prophets proposed in this movie have existed.
B. All are myths.
C. 1 is true and the rest are myths
D. All except 1 are true.
or E. Some are true and some are myths

My whole thing was, that well repsected theologian friend off mine had weak defense points on this subject, but did point me to a book by Josh McDowell entitled New Evidence...........etc etc which I have on order from ebay and waiting for arrival.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
Dominicus~

Do you know what the definition of zeitgeist is?



actually Zeitgeist can also mean:"going with the times", "following the trend which is around atm".



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
A synopsis, well basically it's about Jesus being compared to a few dozen other "messiah's" all of which had similarities to Jesus himself and therefor all are myths, such as Mithra, Horus, Attis, Dionysus, Buddha, Krishna, etc. Then showing that there is allot of paganism incorporated in Christianity and that it is mostly astrological in nature.


Oh, I see. Thank you!


Well, that's not so improbable, actually. Of course, I guess the ones who are offended are pretty much the same ones who speak out so vehemently against 'The DaVinci Code,' mainly nominal mainstream Christians.

But actually, the things you say the movie presented are not falsehoods or someone's imagination - what we have, in mankind's collective mythos and various ancient texts, etc, IS an obvious repeating pattern.

As far as paganism goes, I really have more and more trouble with that term - it seems to mean, anymore, anything that doesn't fit in with a standard theology and is used more as a judgment than just as a description. I have read, from various sources, that Constantine incorporated many varied beliefs into his chosen state religion - the Roman empire was vast and quite varied - many of the people in the rural areas had their beliefs quite firmly seated in their minds and there truly isn't any way to MAKE people believe what they don't believe. So circumstances required that mostly only names and superficial details were altered toward Christianity. I'll have to find some links about that. I thought it was rather intriguing. Constantine, as a ruler, was actually pretty sharp - and no doubt ruling the Roman Empire was one of the most stressful jobs ever known!


Philosophically speaking, the conclusion you come to is this:

Either:

A. All spiritual paths Prophets proposed in this movie have existed.
B. All are myths.
C. 1 is true and the rest are myths
D. All except 1 are true.
or E. Some are true and some are myths


What do YOU think? At this point, after watching the movie? And I am wondering if you follow any particular religion or are agnostic or atheist. Has your opinion changed because of watching the movie?


My whole thing was, that well respected theologian friend off mine had weak defense points on this subject, but did point me to a book by Josh McDowell entitled New Evidence...........etc etc which I have on order from ebay and waiting for arrival.


What did your friend say?



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 03:54 AM
link   
i think the first part of the movie was presented very well,i've seen (and been apart of)debates like this as well,and i have to tell you that most if not all christians have never been able to stand against a well studied and skilled ex-christian/atheist.

like it tells you in the movie..most christians will not go into debate about the subject of their religion,as it is 100% based on faith,and the book itself tells you it's definition of faith... "it's the object of thing's hoped for,but not seen"

i myself think all religions are man made,and i once was told by an atheist... the most dangerous thing for a christian to do is study the origin of it's religion...and i still think thats fact to this day.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus


Philosophically speaking, the conclusion you come to is this:

Either:

A. All spiritual paths Prophets proposed in this movie have existed.
B. All are myths.
C. 1 is true and the rest are myths
D. All except 1 are true.
or E. Some are true and some are myths



I believe that you are leaving out:
F. The authors of the study are guilty of poor scholarship and many of their claims are not true.

I recommend the other thread that was listed earlier. An interesting site to research is www.preventingtruthdecay.org

Techtoniks also has an interesting rebuttal.

Eric



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by KINGOFPAIN
i have to tell you that most if not all christians have never been able to stand against a well studied and skilled ex-christian/atheist.


No doubt! In a match between attachment vs. detachment (to beliefs), the later begins with an advantage. Then, factoring in the undeniable contradictory nature of Christian theology, when pressed, there aren't many answers that aren't circular. Well, except for the ones that are no-no's, that is.


like it tells you in the movie..most christians will not go into debate about the subject of their religion,as it is 100% based on faith,and the book itself tells you it's definition of faith... "it's the object of thing's hoped for,but not seen"


My comments on ‘faith’ will be following this post.


i myself think all religions are man made


Sure they are! The proof is exclusion and division and the strife that arises thereof.


and i once was told by an atheist... the most dangerous thing for a christian to do is study the origin of it's religion...and i still think thats fact to this day.


It is, although I don't think it will always be that way. In the bible it says many things that made me realize that these times would come - most people erroneously talk about the 'apocalypse' as if it were synonymous with eschatology but that is not at all true. Apocalypse simple means 'revelation' or 'unveiling.' Of course, when the naked truth is boldly streaking through the churches, it WILL be the end of that world...and no doubt it will really shake many people up but the world will recover and in the end, will be far better off in the light than we have been, in the dark!



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 07:51 AM
link   
FAITH:

In the OT, the Hebrew word is ‘emun’ (sounds like 'Amun!') and it means:


established, that is, (figuratively) trusty; also (abstractly) trustworthiness: - faith (-ful), truth


And in the Greek, the word is Pistis; which is the name of the Greek daimona of fidelity.

This sentence is totally misunderstood in Christian theology:


Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report.
Hebrews 11:1-2


Esti de pistis elpizo hupostasis pragma elegchos ou blepo.

Roughly:

is moreover reliable/trustworthy expect assurance deed/matter proof not perceive/see

It has nothing to do with the standard idea of ‘faith’ being ‘belief’ but rather says something more like the following:

Faith is the reliable assurance that we can expect matters/things not presently perceived and/or seen to be proven.

And although that does imply that it is a profitable thing to BELIEVE…it is not the belief that becomes the faith but rather the absolute reliability which is FAITH that inclines one to believe and trust. It is not human FAITH but rather divine trustworthiness/fidelity that warrants the believer’s confidence.

What is currently called ‘faith’ these days was more properly called ‘hope’ when the NT was written. And it is pretty plain that it is not OUR faith but the faith of GOD and Co. that is going to pull the world through, in the end:


For what? If some did not believe, will not their unbelief nullify the faith of God? Let it not be! But let God be true, and every man a liar; as it is written, "That You might be justified in Your sayings, and will overcome when You are judged."
Romans 3:3-4

In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.
Ephesians 3:12


In just about all (if not all) instances of the word ‘pistis’ in the NT, the phrasing is ‘of’ NOT ‘in’ of GOD or Christ.

From Theoi.com:


PISTIS was the spirit (daimona) of trust, honesty and good faith. She was one of the good spirits who escaped Pandora's box and fled back to heaven abandoning mankind. Her Roman name was Fides, and her opposite number Apate (Deception) and the Pseudologoi (Lies).


Perseus
gives examples and meanings of the word, contemporary to the NT writings; the only meaning that is valid is the one which was in use when the words were first written and not what we NOW THINK it means. Examples are ‘binding by an oath’ and ‘to make trustworthy’ and also to ’confirm’ or ’prove.’

Fides:


In Roman mythology, the Fides ("trust") was the goddess of trust.


From California State University:


"FIDES" is often (and wrongly) translated 'faith', but it has nothing to do with the word as used by Christians writing in Latin about the Christian virute (St. Paul Letter to the Corinthians, chapter 13).
(..)
For the Romans, FIDES was an essential element in the character of a man of public affairs, and a necessary constituent element of all social and political transactions (perhaps = 'good faith'). FIDES meant 'reliablilty', a sense of trust between two parties if a relationship between them was to exist.


SO…it is all about fidelity, NOT blindly believing in nonsensical fables that aren’t even supported in the bible! Specifically believing ideas that are not only illogical in the view of non-religious people but literally contradicted, without fail, in the bible.

Following those verses in Romans that I quoted, above, Paul writes this:


Let it not be! But let God be true, and every man a liar; as it is written, ”That You might be justified in Your sayings, and will overcome when You are judged."
But if our unrighteousness commends the righteousness of God, what shall we say?
Is God unrighteous who lays on wrath? (I speak as a man.)
Let it not be! For then how shall God judge the world?
For if in my lie the truth has more abounded to His glory why am I still judged as a sinner?
Romans 3:4-7


Admittedly, Paul’s style of prose is rather convoluted and can be confusing; but I sincerely think it is deliberate. The sentence that I underlined is Paul mocking the idea of man questioning God…because he is saying that EVEN if he, Paul, is lying, still it is will prove GOD reliable in the end. And the first line really does seem to be saying that even if EVERY Christian turns out to be deceived/deluded, it will only prove that GOD doesn’t lie.

And then there is this often-quoted verse:


And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie, so that all those who do not believe the truth, but delight in unrighteousness, might be condemned.
2 Thessalonians 2:11-12


All those who do NOT believe the TRUTH – because they prefer their own unfair idea of being preferred by GOD just because they go by a certain name. Unrighteousness is simply injustice. Only Christians think Christianity is FAIR and JUST but it is NOT. The bible says that GOD is not a respecter of persons and Jesus says:


Not everyone who says to Me, Lord! Lord! shall enter the kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in Heaven.
Many will say to Me in that day, Lord! Lord!
Did we not prophesy in Your name, and through Your name throw out demons, and through Your name do many wonderful works?
And then I will say to them I never knew you! Depart from Me, those working lawlessness!
Matthew 7:21-23


That is an obvious statement saying that going by the name of Christian means NOTHING to Christ, according to that statement. Only doing what GOD says, which is:

LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.

And that is NOT what Christianity is about, at all!

If it were, then none of any this would be a problem at all for those who truly believed GOD was true to His word. But instead, for 2000 years, mankind has held fast to the idea that GOD needs help and without their so-called faith, even they, themselves, would not be 'saved' - which means they could not then go out and spread more delusion in the name of salvation!

Not that I am saying that many Christians don't love others and help those in need - I never judge people, to myself or out loud, but I DO constantly criticize the institution - and those that do are doing it individually and when done as a group, it is still very religious and more about demonstrating piety than doing good deeds just because it is the right thing to do. Which is another thing Jesus said not to do - obvious charity is not about charity but rather about showing off. And I know just as many (actually MORE) people who are NOT going by the title of Christian that do good things for others - and truly, it is better received by most because there is no obligatory testimony to have to endure just to be given a helping hand.

'Go feed the poor' is NOT the same as 'go make proselytes' of hungry, captive audiences! Jesus should have said: 'SHOW and never TELL unless asked!' If the right example is shown, people WILL ask - but no one usually gets the opportunity.

Do not be like the Pharisees, for they have their reward!

What is the reward?
Movies and books that get stuck in their craw!

I don't mean to sound snide, but I'm almost ready to say:
I told you so!



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 

\
I've been trying to get people to read this book, written in 1853. The Two Babylons
It actually adresses the similarities in ALL religions that aren't of God.
The"child" it refers to, is the different 'messiahs' there have been, since Satan at Babylon introduced a usurper, an antichrist, Nimrod.




posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 08:13 AM
link   
‘Jesus’ Fish

They didn’t mention Dagon at all, which is surprising to me.




Dagon, the name means "corn", is an ancient Mesopotamian vegetation god, father of Baal in his father's attributes. He is the god of crop fertility and the inventor of the plough. He passed this knowledge to mankind to let them better till the soil and produce food. Dagon's temples were in Philistine for about 2000 years, although Baal took over in most parts of the Middle East. Dagon is one of the old gods. The Ras Shamra texts describe Dagon as coeval with El, who is the most ancient and senior of all the Semitic gods. Dagon's temple at Ashdod still existed right up until the time of the Hasmoneans [who ruled parts of Palestine in Jesus' days]. Dagon was portrayed half man and half fish.


(from Encyclopedia Mythica)

Fishers of men? Jonah in the belly of the whale?

Jesus told at least two parables about catching fish in nets. And of course, there is the idea of harvest which is inherent in both the OT and NT allegories and teachings:


And as the command spread, the sons of Israel brought plentifully of the firstfruits of corn, wine, and oil, and honey, and of all the increase of the field. And the tithe of all they brought in abundance.
2 Chronicles 31:5


Here is a GOOD one:


Then He said to His disciples, The harvest truly is plenteous, but the laborers are few. Therefore pray to the Lord of the harvest that He will send out laborers into His harvest.
Matthew 9:37-38


The Lord of the harvest?!??!


Who might that be? Dagon? And/or Saturn? Saturn is directly linked to the word and idea of Sabbath – Saturday is named after Saturn, who was the Roman god of agriculture.

------------

Amen:

Wiki

Amun-Re/Amun from Egypt (from Encyclopedia Mythica):


A primordial Egyptian god, whose name means "the hidden one". As the driving force of the invisible breeze he was originally a god of wind and ruler of the air. During the 11th dynasty (2133 - 2000 BCE) he became the powerful sun-god of Thebes, where he was worshipped as Amun-Re. Later he was made the supreme god of the entire realm and king of the gods.

In the Ogdoad of Hermopolis he forms a pair with the mother-goddess Amaunet. From his union with the goddess Mut came forth the moon-god Chons. Amun's symbol is the ram. He is portrayed as a ram, as a man with a ram's head, or with a beard and a feathered crown. Temples dedicated to him are situated as Karnak and Deir-el-Bahari (near Luxor). In Greece he was worshipped as Ammon.


Truly You are a God who hides Yourself, O God of Israel, the Savior.
Isaiah 45:15


And a ram?


And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked. And, behold, a ram behind him was entangled in a thicket by its horns. And Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son.
Genesis 22:13


Right after that, GOD gives Abraham an unsolicited, voluntary OATH that ALL the families of the Earth will one day be blessed because Abraham was willing to sacrifice his ONLY heir…

…this isn’t so much about GOD asking crazy horrible things of us that we would NEVER do on our own, but rather is the exact situation repeated in the NT:

GOD so loved the world that he gave his only begotten (properly: monogenes – which is a kind of offspring that is NOT born in the sense of family lineage as we commonly assume but something much like cloning – a replica instead of a branch in the family tree) for the sake of saving the WORLD and all that live in and on it.

And the reason I mention that is because it ties back to what I said about pistis being descriptive of fidelity – binding by an oath. GOD made an OATH and it is that very thing that Paul is talking about centuries later in the NT; essentially saying that GOD will carry through with that ancient vow, even though we see no evidence of it now.

And my point, with all this, in regard to this movie (which I will be watching because I found a link to a torrent download from that other thread about debunking the movie – thanks!) is this:

What the heck does it matter if there are many more tellings of the same story which the bible tells? What does it matter if even the soul that was Jesus lived over and over again – or another or many or whatever – especially if it was for the sake of getting the message out? The message being that death is an illusion and not something that we should fear! So what if GOD started EARLY and finished late? What is so objectionable about the idea of reincarnation? It would only mean that truly GOD gives us all the chances we need to come to the truth - not to 'accept Christ' but rather to accept new ideas in order to be set free by a truth that makes sense? Edgar Cayce said that time and space are actually just manifestations of patience and mercy. Which sounds good to me. He also said that we are ALL part of GOD: 'each a corpuscle in the body of GOD.' That is an amazing idea - and it is truly just because it is fair to everyone, no matter what.

I am obviously not an atheist, but I am equally not a Christian! I don’t care WHAT the truth turns out to be – if it is TRUTH and it is good for all people (which I believe it is intended to be!) – then who am I to gripe? I TRUST GOD. Period. I don’t try to convince anyone else to do the same – not only because I see what damage it does, instead of help, but also because I don’t need to worry about it! I’m not going to trust a GOD that can’t run things perfectly according to plan – and I don’t even really need to know the plan although it IS interesting, especially the way I see things going!

What I understand, so far, about what this movie is saying, is more or less the same things that I have found out myself – and it is the actual truth of the bible and many, many, many other things written both long ago and in our present time. It is the only way that the bible does make sense, without contradictions!

An ironic twisty ending is the only way to finish a good book, IMO.
[evil laugh]

The dissolution of Christianity may very well be the proof of GOD that Christians have been incessantly searching for, for 2000 years!

And if it turns out that ‘Lucifer’ saved mankind by being the ‘bad guy’ then so be it! If so, then ‘Lucifer’ will have the last laugh!
And I will be laughing, too – smiling out loud!




posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
I've been trying to get people to read this book, written in 1853. The Two Babylons
It actually addresses the similarities in ALL religions that aren't of God.


But the similarities are the very same ones that are now plaguing Christianity - the whole 'resurrected god-man' thing! Because of the similarities! So it really makes no sense, still, to say that ONLY the ONE story is the right one, despite it fitting basically into the same mold.

Why does there have to be so many wrong just for GOD to be true? Why can't GOD be so true that the truth is inherent in the myths and lore of every culture and era?

In fact, that makes a LOT of sense, when you consider the idea of 'the first and the last.'


The"child" it refers to, is the different 'messiahs' there have been, since Satan at Babylon introduced a usurper, an antichrist, Nimrod.



That isn't even in the bible! It is the result of so many needing to PROVE their own belief at the expense of so many others! All of whom are created by the very same GOD! We are all the same - human beings, that is - therefore it can be postulated that we ALL came from the same origin. And if that is true, then what makes any of us more entitled to the truth than anyone else? Why would GOD be so unfair and partisan? It just doesn't make sense and it will never do justice to either GOD or man.

As far as worshiping Nimrod and Semiramis, how is that any different than the modern practice of worshiping the man, Jesus, as GOD - and instead of a wife, we have his mother, in the Catholic religion! I'm not bashing anyone, just pointing out even MORE striking similarities!


I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing by itself is unclean; except to him who esteems anything to be unclean, it is unclean.
But if your brother is grieved with your food, you no longer walk according to love.
Do not with your food destroy him for whom Christ died.
Romans 14:13-15


FOR WHOM CHRIST DIED. Not just for those that believe but even those that struggle with such ethereal intangibilities as GOD being within the temple of the human body...

I read the first chapter of the book you linked to, and I probably will read it all - so thank you for posting it! I find it interesting that it starts off with the subject of the 'cup of wrath,' so to speak...

Jesus drank a cup that was obviously not sweet wine - he asked GOD three times to take the cup from him! It was a mysterious cup, no doubt - from what he said to James and John:


But Jesus answered and said, You do not know what you ask. Are you able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They said to Him, We are able.
Matthew 20:22


He said:
You don't know what you are asking! You have NO idea!

And the other disciples were jealous and indignant. I wonder if they felt the same after James was beheaded? Did they realize why he was first, I wonder?

And yet, in the book of Acts, on the day of Pentecost, the Spirit came in wind and flame and suddenly the lovable but bumbling Peter stood up and spoke with perfect confidence, finding all the right words, from then on! And what did he say?


For these are not drunk as you suppose, for it is the third hour of the day. Acts 2:15


Was this NOT part of the baptism and the cup of which Jesus had spoken? The blood of the saints? Jesus told the disciples to partake of the cup at the last supper, because it was his blood given for the covenant.

WHY is it a reward and blessing in ONE case and in ANOTHER, a unspeakable form of punishment?

THAT makes NO sense. Especially when we remember how Jonah went to Nineveh and prophesied for 3 days, after which the ENTIRE population, livestock included, REPENTED?

Nineveh is the land of Nimrod and Semiramis! And Jonah actually had SUCCESS! Do you realize how rare that is, for a prophet to preach repentance and not only be heard but obeyed?!?!

And yet, it pissed Jonah off! He was mad because GOD decided not to do all the terrible things he had said he would, since they repented so thoroughly!

Read the last chapter of Jonah (it starts right after GOD says he's 'repented,' too):



Jonah 4:
1
But it was a great calamity in Jonah's sight, and it kindled anger in him.
2 And he prayed to Jehovah and said, Please, O Jehovah, was this not my saying when I was still in my land? On account of this I fled before to Tarshish. For I knew that You are a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and One who repents over calamity.
3 And now, O Jehovah, I beseech You, take my life from me. For better is my death than my life.
4 And Jehovah said, Is anger rightly kindled in you?
5 And Jonah went out of the city and sat on the east of the city. And he made himself a booth there and sat under it in the shade, until he might see what would happen in the city.
6 And Jehovah God prepared a plant, and it came up over Jonah, to be shade over his head, in order to deliver him from his misery. And Jonah rejoiced with great joy over the plant.
7 But God prepared a worm as the morning dawned the next day. And it struck the plant, and it withered.
8 And it happened when the sun shone, God ordained a scorching east wind. And the sun beat on the head of Jonah, so that he fainted. And he asked for his life to die. And he said, Better is my death than my life.
9 And God said to Jonah, Is your anger rightly kindled over the plant? And he said, My anger is rightly kindled, even to death.
10 And Jehovah said, You have had pity on the plant, for which you had not labored, nor made it grow, which was a son of a night, and perished the son of a night.
11 And should I not spare Nineveh, that great city, in which are more than a hundred and twenty thousand men who do not know between their right and their left hand, besides much cattle?


This is exactly the same attitude that sets the tone of Christianity in our present time!

When Jesus spoke of the 'sign of Jonah' it was NOT just about being in the fish for 3 days - for those who 'seek for a sign' and who do unrighteousness without mercy, the sign is the WITHERED VINE.

The withered vine of 'sour grapes!' (remember the fable of the fox and the grapes?)

What is that vine? The man-made Christian church!


But He answered and said to them, An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign.
And there shall be no sign given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the huge fish, so the Son of Man shall be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it, because they repented at the proclaiming of Jonah, and behold, One greater than Jonah is here.
Matthew 12:39-41


What a sharp double-edged sword! Remember, during the lifetime of Jesus, the Pharisees (and Sadducees to a lesser degree) were in the SAME position that today is held by the Christian church! The so-called chosen people of GOD! Yet they didn't even recognize the one they had been waiting for!

They judged him of no worth and even went so far as to frame him for a capital crime!

One more thought:

That which has been is that which shall be; and that which has been done is that which shall be done; and there is nothing new under the sun.



The names and places may change, but that is only superficial. Underneath it all, there is the same tale, over and over again. That doesn't make them all false but one; that is highly ILLOGICAL.
And undeniable consistency cannot prove anything but solid truth - which is actually the premise behind the scientific method!




posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   
I watched Zeitgeist and I'm a Christian, and 9/11 truth activist. I would say that it is a propaganda film that is designed to associate the 9/11 truth movement with anti-religious philosophy, therefore demonizing the truth movement in the eyes of Christians, and people of other religions. Thereby helping to crush the 9/11 truth movement as far as evangelicals are concerned. Also it has a section about the Fed, which is true, but again it attempts to associate those in the tax honesty movement with people who are "heretics".

This is Zionist propaganda at it's finest. Sorry but my faith in Christ was unshaken by this film. But at the same time I am more open minded than about 99% of my brothers and sisters in Christ, and I don't believe in a literal translation of the Bible. (Earth is 4-5 billion years old, ect ect) Also darn near every large church group (Catholics, Baptists, Episcopalians ect) are 100% corrupt, and I don't donate money to churches. So the film is right about the corruption and use of funds by churches for not so good things.

That is my opinion about the movie, it has been a couple of months since I saw it, but that is the feeling I got from it.

It is very effective because if you showed it to my Mom she would be like, "I told you 9/11 truthers are under a satanic spell".

All in all it is damaging to the truth movement, and a very slick piece of propaganda.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 02:31 PM
link   
QueenAnnie,
I hear on your arguments here, however right now I am not in a position to refute/rebuttal you on each of the points one by one, as my current situation offers me very little time to do research and to justify or nulify each one.

However,
I my self am a Christian Mystic. I do still believe that Jesus existed, did all the things he claimed, and is unique in the setting of all the other "prophets/messiah's" and here's why:

This will include a brief personal testimony to make my point:

After trying path after path including Buddhism in my College years and even uncovering some of the similarities of all paths, I ended up one day trying the Jesus thing. Pouring over it's scripture I began practicing the precepts and to my best ability dong what it said to do.

Lo and Behold after 14 months of changing my old ways, prayer, meditation, and exhausting my logic/reason, it was asked of me to do a water baptism. So I did.

5 weeks after this event, while meditating, I begain to be indwelled over and over again by a spirit seperate then myself. This lasted aprox. 6 months during which I was enlightened, saw unseen things, had this divine Love for complete strangers, ego death, had this seperate entity/spirit living inside of me, it was very strange, yet ecstatic and took some time getting used to. I actually had to quit my job to get used to this new way of life.

On top of these events, during a meditation, I had my third eye illuminated as Jesus promised in Math 6:22 "if thine eye be single, thy whole body be full of light," again during which I saw things, which I am not allowed to speak of. This third eye event is something that the Quakers have been talking about for years centuries.

Now while in this state, I completely saw right through the power and authority which the Catholic and many other churches over use by using the Bible out of context. I also noticed that many people that go to "church" themselves will not be entering Heaven, a point you made in one of your posts. So my way of walking with God isn't in the church, or any specific "official" way. But more of a personal inner/within type of relationship.
____________
Now, Biblically it is said that:

1. until Jesus came, the Holy Spirit which indwells was not given out to the masses the way it is today (after he came).
2. Jesus promises those who walk the narrow path basically will recieve this Awsome Spirit experience.
3. Jesus spoke of the "Single eye being full of light."

So personally, I have undergone all these things and I also argue that without this spirit indwelling, divine love instilled in your heart, it is virtually impossible to love your nieghbor as yourself, unless we discuss kundalini (which can also be referred to Biblically as the baptism of fire)

But because I have undergone these promises, a philosopher would undergo one of the following arguments (assuming that I am not in anyway lying with the possibility of undergoing a lie detector test):
Either:
A.) Jesus did exist and this man(me) has undergone these things.
B.) Jesus didn't exist/is a myth, but the ceremonies and mystical experieinces are true and possible, in which case the story of Jesus would be perfect to use as a vehicle to allow people to have these experiences.
C.) These ceremonies (baptism) and experiences are universal in every major religion.
D.) These ceremonies (baptism) and experiences are limited to very few or just one path.
E.) Philosophically I may be missing an additional argument here.

Either way, because of my experiences, I do love everyone, accept everyone as they are with Love and unselfishness. Contrary to the argument that Christianity is put in place to control people, in my case it freed me from myself(ego), helped me realize the illuminati (additional people in the Government) are the enemy, and also to realize that power corrupts even in Churches. Religion divides, Love unites, and God is Love.

I will admit however, that after watching Zeigeist the movie, my faith and belief system was shaken a little and made me think twice (since I did not at the time know all of the arguements), however at the end of the day, I have those experiences as my support system, all of which I recieved from following the Biblical precepts.

In initial research a few weeks ago, I found that the Zeitgesit is wrong with many of it's facts such as (There are very few similarities between Jesus and Horus, and very few between Jesus and Mithra) Now I do have a huge list of other's to study, but so far the first 2 came up defeated.

Additionally, the astronomical statistics of the prophets of the old testament predicting the comming of Jesus and fulfilling hundreds of these predictions is an eye opener.

Along with this, we have Zoroaster predicting one comming greater than him and Buddha predicting one comming greater than him (which doesn't necessarily mean it's Jesus they speak of, but I like to speculate it is at times)
_______
My whole thing isn't the seperation, but the possibility of looking into the unification of different spiritual paths. IS there baptism and holy spirit indwelling in other paths???? I have Yogi friends that have described many of the same experiences I have gone through as well, so it makes me wonder.

Anyway, as a Christian mystic, I believe that the best possible interpretations of the Bible and of unification with God can by found by monks, ascetics, and some of the early theologians that were considered mystic. Here is a list of names: en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
In a personal debate that I was obliged to witness, a respected Christian theologian that I know personally and who is also a pretty strong apologist, had no strong points in his defense against this movie.

I'm surprised at this -- unless they ONLY studied the Christian bible. Theologans are supposedly familar with other faiths.

In any case, it's very clearly a load of claptrap.

Preventing Truth Decay (frequently cited) is an excellent and scholarly site. I was hammering away on these same points in another thread (we have many about this movie here) and someone short-cut my rant with a nice link to that Christian site:
www.preventingtruthdecay.org...

Note: in this he cites apologist Glen Miller... Miller gets some things ... not quite right. The "four followers" of Horus are actually his sons, and it's the Ba of Isis hovering over her dead husband when pregnancy ensues. There are other minor points like this scattered throughout, but the response is correct.

[edit on 15-9-2007 by Byrd]



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
This will include a brief personal testimony to make my point:


Thank you for sharing that, dominicus! I have a few things to respond with, but I will have to put that off for a bit. Suffice it to say that I understand exactly what you are saying and KNOW that you are telling the truth about literal experiences that you have had in your life. Only because I have gone through the same process, myself. The circumstances vary, naturally, because our lives are our own, but the order/sequence does not vary!

I have never followed any religion or philosophy, at all, really - I was baptized in a Christian church at the age of 7/8 but as soon as I turned 18 and moved out on my own, I didn't go to church anymore, at all. My mom made me, so to speak - although it wasn't like a tyrannical oppression which in any way tainted my outlook on things; it was more or less just BLAND in every way and while I believed GOD is...I didn't see or feel anything in church that made me think that it was either required or even helpful.

For years my mom would try to get me to go to church, but ironically enough, when she was widowed and getting toward her elderly years, I moved in with her and now she doesn't go to church anymore, either! What is kind of funny (at least to me) is that the preacher lives right across the street from us! He is a fine person and I have nothing against him but looking back, it does seem like an odd turn of events, in the end. And my mom actually suffered depression symptoms when she went to church every week. She is much happier now and I am glad.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
Preventing Truth Decay (frequently cited) is an excellent and scholarly site. I was hammering away on these same points in another thread (we have many about this movie here) and someone short-cut my rant with a nice link to that Christian site:
www.preventingtruthdecay.org...


Thank YOU, Byrd! This is exactly what I was looking for, in order to get a more specific understanding of the movie (since I live in no-where land with dial-up ugh) - I've had the general idea but I see now what the actual details are, upon which they've built their argument....

And it IS a load of claptrap, as you say! And it certainly might cause more confusion than clarity, in the long run.

Yet that has nothing to do with all that I have come to understand...I am thinking I just might to have to make a movie, too...if I thought anyone would watch it, that is....

But I do NOT.




new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join