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 Totally Refuted! (Do not post Zeitgeist BS ever again)

page: 15
78
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by GoldenKnight
 


Dhavaki conceived Krishna via "mental transmission", but this is irrelevant because she had seven other children before Krishna. So there was no virgin birth. The comparison to Ya'hshuah being conceived of the holy spirit in the womb of a virgin is wafer thin.


LOL,

All you do here is demonstrate your own utter ignorance, biases and prejudice on these issues.

The Virgin-Born Son of the Sun God
www.freethoughtnation.com...




posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenKnight
 





David J. MacLeod argues that the resurrection of Osiris differs from Jesus Christ, saying: "Perhaps the only pagan god for whom there is a resurrection is the Egyptian Osiris. Close examination of this story shows that it is very different from Christ's resurrection. Osiris did not rise; he ruled in the abode of the dead. As biblical scholar, Roland de Vaux, wrote, 'What is meant of Osiris being "raised to life?" Simply that, thanks to the ministrations of Isis, he is able to lead a life beyond the tomb which is an almost perfect replica of earthly existence. But he will never again come among the living and will reign only over the dead. This revived god is in reality a "mummy" god.'... No, the mummified Osiris was hardly an inspiration for the resurrected Christ... As Yamauchi observes, 'Ordinary men aspired to identification with Osiris as one who had triumphed over death. But it is a mistake to equate the Egyptian view of the afterlife with the biblical doctrine of resurrection. To achieve immortality the Egyptian had to meet three conditions: First, his body had to be preserved by mummification. Second, nourishment was provided by the actual offering of daily bread and beer. Third, magical spells were interred with him. His body did not rise from the dead; rather elements of his personality - his Ba and Ka - continued to hover over his body.'"



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


Ok, well then let me ask you to do some work for a change. You post the evidence here proving Zeitgeist misquoted or misrepresented Jusin Martyr and I'll address that when I get the time.

And pleas don't just point me to the video posted earlier, because I tried to do that earlier and you insisted it be posted here. I provided links to Justin Martyr and others which you didn't or couldn't read.

So it's your turn. You claim Zeitgeist misrepresented Justin's comments. So provide some quotes.


I don't claim Zeitgeist misrepresented Justin's comments. The video the OP posted at the start is the one making the claim that Zeitgeist is misrepresenting Justin's comments. That video has already been posted here. I have to say, at this point I'm agreeing with OP's video, but what I'm trying to do is see if anyone has information or evidence that proves the OP's video wrong. I'm looking for the truth. I'm not making any claims. But the OP's video is pretty convincing when it says Zeitgeist has some errors in it.

So, all I'm asking for is the other side, the people that believe in Zeitgeist, to show me evidence that proves that Zeitgeist doesn't have all these errors in it that OP's video is claiming. Or I'm just looking for them to admit that yes, Zeitgeist has some errors in it. One of the two.

I don't want to go believing the OP's video if it's wrong or the claims it is making are untrue. So if someone has anything that proves it wrong, that would be very helpful to me.

But so far, nobody seems to want to talk about OP's video. They all want to talk about other things, for example you keep telling me there are similarities between Christianity and other religions. Okay, that's fine, but I'm not saying there aren't. But I just want to know if the details presented in OP's video are accurate or not and if anyone knows of any details that are wrong in OP's video if they could point them out and explain why they're wrong.

The evidence we're trying to debunk was already posted as the first post in the thread. I'm asking if you can provide counter evidence to prove the OP's video wrong, or should I just go ahead and believe the video that OP posted that claims that Zeitgeist does contain factual errors?

And I don't recall you ever trying to link to a video? Like I said, I've seen the Zeitgeist movie. I can watch it again, but the problem is, I didn't know which part of the movie you were agreeing with.

I've seen the movie, but the only way for me to know which part of it you're agreeing with, or talking about is if you tell me.

Also, I read the Justin Martyr stuff, but what I'm saying is OP's video says that stuff was misquoted. I'm simply asking you, do you disagree with what the OP's video is saying about Zeitgeist in reference to Justin Martyr? Is your opinion that OP's video is wrong about Justin Martyr, or is your opinion that Zeitgeist is wrong about Justin Martyr?


edit on 17-2-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-2-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
tinfoilman,

You can prove the OP wrong simply by reading

The New Zeitgeist Part 1 Sourcebook (2010)
www.stellarhousepublishing.com...

And since the video was from Keith "Truth" or TRASH is more accurate you should read through this thread addressing him. Watch Keith make a complete fool of himself with his sock puppet

Keith "Truth" is a useful idiot
www.freethoughtnation.com...




edit on 17-2-2011 by GoldenKnight because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenKnight
 


Stop using Acharya S. as a source to prove Acharya's claims.

This is what you are doing: Baldur and Ya'hshuah are exactly the same, that is why we use mistletoe as a decoration for Christmas. It represents the death of Ya'hshuah as represented in the Nordic tale of Loki killing Baldur with a mistletoe sprig. Baldur was also resurrected from the dead. No, I don't have a source


Baldur and Ya'hshuah are exactly the same, that is why we use mistletoe as a decoration for Christmas. It represents the death of Ya'hshuah as represented in the Nordic tale of Loki killing Baldur with a mistletoe sprig. Baldur was also resurrected from the dead. No, I don't have a source.-kallisti36 So awesome, he doesn't need any other source but himself



edit on 17-2-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.


[Please do not alter or edit staff actions]




edit on 2/17/2011 by 12m8keall2c because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by Malcram
 


I guess my point would be that Krishna was not born of a virgin, crucified, did not have twelve disciples, and was not resurrected and that these connections between Ya'hshuah and Krishna are dishonest and ignorant.


Well referencing some disgruntled Hindus upset that their religion is compared to Christianity hardly proves this point, anymore than Christians being disgruntled in this thread does.

With regard to the virgin birth, there is similar disagreements within Christianity and in the Gospels, with some not mentioning the virgin birth and others doing so, and some mentioning Jesus brothers and sisters, etc. There are certainly striking similarities about the miraculous birth of Jesus and Krishna, however, which it seems very disingenuous of you to dismiss and gloss over.




"In the context of myth and religion, the virgin birth is applied to any miraculous conception and birth. In this sense, whether the mother is technically a virgin is of secondary importance to the fact that she conceives and gives birth by some means other than the ordinary....the divine Vishnu himself descended into the womb of Devaki and was born as her son Krishna." Thomas Boslooper, "The Virgin Birth," S.C.M. Press, (1962), Pages 148 & 149. Cited in: "The Virgin Birth of Christ," "The divine Vishnu himself descended into the womb of Devaki and was born as her son Krishna." Boslooper, Thomas, The Virgin Birth, SCM Press, 1962, Pp 148 & 149; cited in: The Virgin Birth of Christ.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenKnight
 


Again, Devaki was not a virgin and you are posting info from a site of Acharya S. and Zeitgeist fans. It doesn't matter if Krishna was conceived without sex. For a virgin birth to occur one must be a virgin.

By the way, calm down.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by frozenspark
 


I agree, there is good food for thought in them but they are highly inaccurate.. Once Again, I feel that this post would have done better had it been by an agnostic.. What is troubling to me is the fact that some of the non theistic
Zeitgeist fans post with more hatred, pompous supposed superiority, lack of historical reference of different cultures outside of the Zeitgeist Movement, and overall lack of civility. The Theists in this discussion, even if I do or do not agree with them on certain points, have been way more civilized in the discourse.. There have been great scientists both atheist and theist. Seriously, be what you want people, but do it in a civil manner to where I do not feel like I am talking to a high-school, I hate everything, rebel teenager.. Calling Christians fools and making crass statements does nothing for their case.
edit on 17-2-2011 by AudioOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


I reference Hindus, because they actually know their religion. Acharya S. on the other hand is not a Hindu and doesn't have the faintest clue of it's mythology, which is rather typical of white western new-agers.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


My opinion is that the video quoted in the OP is wrong in it's claims that Justin Martyrs words do not support the point that Zeitgeist is making. My opinion is that if you read the primary source, Justin Martyr, you would quickly see this. You should also compare this with what other early Church Fathers said on the matter. My opinion is that relying on either Zeitgeist or the supposed debunking videos alone wont get you anywhere. Others have posted Justin Martyr quotes, I have linked to them. But you keed to go and read them rather than relying on convenient hearsay.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by Malcram
 


I reference Hindus, because they actually know their religion. Acharya S. on the other hand is not a Hindu and doesn't have the faintest clue of it's mythology, which is rather typical of white western new-agers.


Sorry hindus know the basis and origins of their religion about as well as most Christians do, which is not very well at all. Reference those who study the origins of religion and mythology rather than those mesmerized by it.
edit on 17-2-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by AudioOne
 


I don't think Zeitgeist fans are a good representation of the atheist community. They're more akin to Raelians than actual atheists and have blind faith in the ideals and claims of Peter Joseph without testing the accuracy of them. The thing is that if you believe everything in Zeitgeist you are a non-theist by default. There have been plenty of rational atheists and agnostics in here quite distinct from the Zeitgeist fans.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


Religions are more than a collection of myths and stories. They are cultures and ways of life. This is something I learned while studying Theology in my agnostic days. Only Christians truly understand Christianity. Only Hindus truly understand Hinduism and so on and so forth. When people come in and decide they know a faith better than the people immersed in it, the people who truly understand it get offended. Especially when this person lies and misses the overall point (and makes a ton of money off of it). Regardless, even from a secular understanding of basic aspects of the religions it covers, Zeitgeist and friends are totally wrong.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 


I notice you completely ignored the second part of my post and the quote I included.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
It is, I suppose, a bit odd that some ATS members are so quick to jump on the bandwagon of an organization whose clear and stated purpose is the establishment of a one world communistic government. Seems like that would be the very epitome of what would earn support around here.

So, wrap your argument up in something like "here's a reason to hate the Christians" and suddenly you've rabid supporters. The power of propaganda -- convincing people to do something they ordinarily wouldn't by catering to something that they would. I was watching The Triumph of the Will last night -- required viewing for anyone who wants to see what propaganda can do.

I do, however, find it rather curious that the most vocal defender of D. M. Murdock here is someone who joined today, has not posted in any other thread, and believes that the word of D. M. Murdock is sufficient to vindicate D. M. Murdock.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 


Ah, so Christianity is a mystery only Christians can understand?

Yeah, Ive heard that before. I used to be a Christian and engaged in the same ridiculous mental gymnasticcs, doublethink and doublespeak in order to protect my faith from reality as I see being employed by Christians in this thread.

I once was blind, but now I see.
edit on 17-2-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenKnight
tinfoilman,

You can prove the OP wrong simply by reading

The New Zeitgeist Part 1 Sourcebook (2010)
www.stellarhousepublishing.com...

And since the video was from Keith "Truth" or TRASH is more accurate you should read through this thread addressing him. Watch Keith make a complete fool of himself with his sock puppet

Keith "Truth" is a useful idiot
www.freethoughtnation.com...




edit on 17-2-2011 by GoldenKnight because: (no reason given)


This links you post are from the Zeitgeist people make claims that are different than the ones in the Zeitgeist video. For example a quote is

Like Krishna, who is essentially a solar deity and not a ―real person,‖ so too
is his mother, Devaki, a mythical figure. Although the story becomes very complicated and far
from its roots in later retellings, the germ of the Krishna-Devaki myth can apparently be found
in the Rig Veda, in which the Dawn goddess gives birth to the rising Sun.

If Devaki is a mythical figure then wasn't real and could not of had a virgin birth. This is NOT what they claim in the Zeitgeist video, so therefore does not back up the Zeitgeist video. It actually disproves the claims they made in the video.

Another one is
The ―crucifixion‖ of Horus is misunderstood because many erroneously
assume that the term denotes a direct resemblance to the crucifixion narrative of Jesus Christ.

The reason is because that's what they claimed in the original Zeitgeist video. That the crucification of Horus is where Christianity stole the idea. When challenged, they prove it by saying basically, that yes you're correct, the Horus crucification did not resemble Jesus's crucification? So the OP's video is right in this regard.

Then they go on to say
Hence, it is critical to point out that we are dealing with metaphors here, not ―history,‖ as the
―crucifixions‖ of both Horus and Jesus are improvable events historically.
The issue at hand is not a man being thrown to the ground and nailed to a cross, as Jesus is
depicted to have been, but the portrayal of gods and goddesses in “cruciform,”

Basically they're saying that Horus was not crucified, that it was a metaphor. But THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY CLAIMED IN THE ZEITGEIST VIDEO. No where in the video do they claim that Horus was just portrayed in "cruciform". In the video they straight up say, Horus was crucified. So again, this proves their claims in the video are wrong or not accurate.

Further more, the scholarly sources already claim that Horus wasn't crucified at ALL, even metaphorically. And I haven't seen any evidence to disprove that. So, I also believe that the links you sent me, are not accurate and wrong. Do you have any independent scholarly sources on these topics from people not associated with Zeitgeist?

Another one is
...of the virgin Isis-Meri...

As is often the case with mythical figures, despite the way she is impregnated, Isis remained
the ―Great Virgin,‖ as she is called in a number of pre-Christian Egyptian writings. As stated by
Egyptologist Dr. Reginald E. Witt

I can't find any information on a Reginald E. Witt, but basically this is saying, even though Isis-Meri wasn't a virgin, she was still a virgin?? And if she was a mythical figure, she could not of had a virgin birth. Okay, well if you make claims that things that aren't virgins are still virgins? That's not evidence. That's just BS. The OP's video already addressed that Isis was not a virgin, and also already addressed that there is no scholarly source to call Isis, Isis-Meri.

The links you sent me are making different claims than the orig Zeitgeist video. For example the video claims Horus was crucified. The links you sent me claim that Horus was a mythical figure and NOT crucified. And there's far more claims than what is in the orig Zeitgeist video and many are opposite of what the Zeitgeist video claims. What you sent me is not backing up the claims made in the Zeitgeist video. It's actually disproving them.

So since it's not related to proving the video correct, it really doesn't help. I'm only interested in if the claims in the video are correct or not. But regardless I've already found errors in the links you sent too, but we're only addressing the video.

I don't have time to go over a million new claims when you haven't proved the original ones correct. If you want to point out where in the links you posted show that claims in the original OP's video are incorrect we can go over that.

But would not be helpful to go making NEW claims when no one has proven the old ones. The links you posted don't prove the original claims made in the Zeitgeist video. They actually argue against them. Unless you can show me how I'm wrong here.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by GoldenKnight
 


Again, Devaki was not a virgin and you are posting info from a site of Acharya S. and Zeitgeist fans. It doesn't matter if Krishna was conceived without sex. For a virgin birth to occur one must be a virgin.

By the way, calm down.


So, you now inadvertently admit that you are spreading falsehoods - you are making the assumption that just because something is posted on a website of Acharya's that it can't possibly be citing credible sources from highly respected and credentialed scholars. That way you can make these fabricated comments and do your typical hand-waving dismissal without EVER actually reading anything at all.

Now, you concede that Krishna was conceived without sex. What you and so many others who think you're experts don't know is that these Pagan religions believed that a female could regain her virginity via sacred union with God. It's convenient for you to be ignorant of those types of factoids.

So then, you can spread your lies across the net and unless someone who actually knows this, like me, comes along, you repeatedly get away with it and are never held accountable or responsible in any way.
edit on 17-2-2011 by GoldenKnight because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


My opinion is that the video quoted in the OP is wrong in it's claims that Justin Martyrs words do not support the point that Zeitgeist is making. My opinion is that if you read the primary source, Justin Martyr, you would quickly see this. You should also compare this with what other early Church Fathers said on the matter. My opinion is that relying on either Zeitgeist or the supposed debunking videos alone wont get you anywhere. Others have posted Justin Martyr quotes, I have linked to them. But you keed to go and read them rather than relying on convenient hearsay.


I have read Justin Martyr, but the point is, I'm not arguing against Justin Martyr. I'm not saying Justin Martyr is wrong. I'm just agreeing with OP's video when it says Zeitgeist misquotes Justin Martyr.

But I see you disagree with OP's video on that point. Me personally I'm not convinced OP's video is wrong on this point. But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. In my opinion the OP's video clearly shows Martyr was taken out of context and misrepresented.

But since we can't agree, then oh well. But I assume that's the only issue you have with the OP's video? Are there other issues you have with OP's video? Or do you believe that it is mostly correct, and you just disagree with this one issue?



new topics

top topics



 
78
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join