Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by skyshow
Zeitgeist itself is intellectually dishonest, in my opinion. It is based on forced evidence, false evidence, anecdotal evidence, long since debunked
evidence, poor sourcing, false sourcing, misquotes, and "archaeological evidence" that postdates the life of Jesus. It has also been discussed int
the realm of "academia," scholarship, and secular media (what little attention it has received) and has been found severely wanting....
Replace "Zeitgeist" in your statement with "Christianity" or "The Bible" and the exact same statement you made holds true. The only difference
in your perspective is the faith you have in your belief system.
Unfortunately, much of the supposed 'forced' information in Zeitgeist actually has much more 'factual' evidence to back it up. The Bible and
Christianity that is presented to the masses is a much edited collection of oral histories, 'translated' into language that the Royalty could live
with once the 'common man' was allowed to learn to read.
Much of the 'undying love for Christ' that many modern Christians talk of would have only reached them in the fairly recent past through the words
of their Church Leaders telling them what to believe. They had no access to bibles, and if they did they would not have had the ability to read them
anyway. They were to busy in the fields working for the Lords of the Land to be bothered with anything like an education.
Like I have said in my previous posts, the Cross itself is the symbol given to us by those who used it as a tool of murder and destruction. The early
'rebel' Christians used the sign of a fish. The co-opted murderous Christians used the Cross.
So after Christianity was 'legalized' and symbolized with a Cross, the First Council of
got together at the behest of the new Patron Emporer Constantine. During which Time 300 Bishops were brought together with their
delegations and 'decided' on the best version of Christianity. Much like how your state Senator makes concessions to bring Ear Marks back home to
you, these Bishops traded on their faith to best find a consensus that best represented everyone. While in many way this is not all bad, many of the
stories and beliefs were discarded or watered down.
This sort of Streamlining has happened numerous times, but the version of the Bible that most people are familiar with today, The King James version,
is a prime example. Much of it can be attributed to individuals 'translating' form one ancient language to a modern one. But one cannot deny that
the translators and authors would have lost their job, maybe more, if their version of the Bible did anything to discredit the divine sovereignty of
In response to those that do not view the Christian Cross as an Idol, what do you think an Idol is? Is it because you don't view Christianity as the
Cult of Jesus Christ? So the symbol you use to represent Him and His Sacrifice is not an Idol. I find that to be an naive, ethnocentric view to say
the least. If a symbol represents a deity, and is man-made, it is an Idol. And in this case, the Idol had previous meanings before it was used as a
symbol for Christianity.
I am not saying the Cross is not, or should not be the symbol of Christianity. It is just my hope that Christians come to terms with the history of
the symbol and the numerous atrocities committed under its banner. Perhaps then you could see how 'charged' with evil the symbol is esoterically.
That is, if you are comfortable enough in the your faith to step outside the fantasy created to control you.
I doubt it.
[edit on 31/1/2008 by DocMoreau]