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: 17
78
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenKnight
 


I'm sorry, but your sources don't seem to check out. Your argument seems to have been completely debunked.

Unless you're claiming that Krishna Dwaipayana is another THIRD Krishna. As I said, I already have proven that Zeitgeist is not talking about Vyasa. They claim Devaki as the mother so we know which Krishna they're referring to.
edit on 17-2-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   
tinfoilman, you are confusing yourself. It is not in error, however, just let that one go for now. We can discuss that in its own thread at a later date. Otherwise, read my last post - I'll provide it again for ease of reference:

tinfoilman "You may be correct when you say someone was born a virgin, but the issue is, the Zeitgeist claims that Krishna was a virgin birth, and when checked we find out that's not to be true."

That is demonstrably false; Krishna's virgin birth is substantiated by Hindu scholars and Hindu texts such as the Mahabharata. All you had to do was read the thread - further down you will see quotes substantiating the claim in Mahabharata as well as Hindu scholars confirming it as pre-Christian.

tinfoilman "your link is in error. The writer of the Mahabharata was not named Krishna, but was named Vyasa whom may have been called Krishna, but Krishna was not his name and as we see there is no claim of a virgin birth for Vyasa"

Nope, his original name was Krishna Dwaipayana. Dig deeper, don't just grab the first thing you see off the net. There was no error - that's what happens when people rely on Wikipedia but, since that's not in Zeitgeist I won't get into it here.

"Author of the Mahabharata is Vyasa, a child of illicit union .... His original name is Krishna Dwaipayana or the ‘dark-one-born-on-a-river-island’. "
devdutt.com...

Born-Again Virginity in the Mahabharata
www.freethoughtnation.com...

Krishna Crucified?
truthbeknown.com...

Back to Zeitgeist:

tinfoilman,

Which specific video and what time from the OP does it discuss Justin Martyr? I've seen it before but need more specifics to be thorough. The argument they put forth is a typical Christian apologist argument.

I don't see that Zeitgeist took what Justin Martyr said out of context. You can simply read his entire first apology and see that.

* I'm done for the night - I'll pick this up tomorrow.

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

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



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenKnight
 


I'm sorry, but both characters that you claim to be Krishna were not virgin born. Neither one of them were. Vyasa's mother had sex with a sage or rishi.

The other Krishna's mother was named Devaki and Devaki had 7 other kids before Krishna was born. Not a virgin birth. And we know which Krishna Zeitgeist was talking about. The one who's mother was named Devaki just like it says in the Zeitgest video itself.

And nowhere was the issue of crucification proven. I checked your links. It's not there. They don't check out. I'm sorry, your sources are in error.
edit on 17-2-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   
tinfoilman, you are only getting one version of each of those. Stop relying on Wikipedia. There are other versions where both had virgin births. It is *NOT* an error.

The claim that Devaki couldn't have given a virgin birth to Krishna comes from people who do not understand mythology or that there are other versions and by those who've not read the texts. It's an amateurs error.

What most people don't know is that these Pagan religions believed that a female could regain her virginity via sacred union with God. Yes, regardless of being married or the number of children. These are mythological characters we're talking about and mythological characters don't have body parts to have sex with. It's a myth telling a story with deeper meaning behind it.

Yes, indeed Devaki was considered virginal and it certainly is right there in the ancient texts. Just as the Hindu scholars and Acharya S point out.

Born-Again Virginity in the Mahabharata
www.freethoughtnation.com...

--------

Mahabharata of Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa

"Without doubt, through the grace of that god, I once more became a virgin"

"Thus addressed by Kunti, Vyasa, that foremost of all persons, said unto her in reply,–’Blessed be thou; all that thou hast said unto me will happen. (As regards the birth of Karna) no fault is ascribable to thee. Thou wert restored to virginity. "

www.astrojyoti.com...
edit on 17-2-2011 by GoldenKnight because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenKnight
 


I will have to read Acharya books to come to a conclusion... It is interesting that Robert Eisemann praises her work.. RE is a great scholar who has his own vast, convoluted, well argued, almost impossible to follow theory on the Dead Sea Scrolls and James and Paul... His theory is greatly nuanced and everyone respects him as a great scholar though few agree with him as he flies against the grain in his field... I feel Acharya might be that way, maybe she has some points, but she flies in the face of how any of these cultures understand themselves.. I'll need to give it go...



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
So let me get this straight. A guy born from a virgin, who could perform miracles that we today have never seen, was actually the son of god, but yet part of the holy spirit has well, three parts that are actually one, who was killed and rose from the dead, was real? Or he didn't exist at all. Which one seems more plausible? I dont want to burst anyone's bubble but seriously people believe that? Well, then again , I can fly. Oh you dont believe I can fly? You believe in Jesus.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   
I just gotta say...

I love how ---everybody--- here knows it all.



I think it is ironic to see such a religious attitude from people who claim that religions cause war.




posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


I agree I think it makes a lot of good points and puts things into a perspective can most people can understand, even those without previous knowledge on the subjects. They probably just exaggerated to make a point. I'm not saying it's good bend the truth but it seems like their intentions are in the right place non the less.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   
When you think about it the first movie mentions religion and 9/11 but then the second and third movie are all about the monetary system basically. You ever just think that they used this to get peoples attetion? It certainly got mine for a while. Also the whole porject behind the movies is about changing the world we live in now, not trying to clear the past up.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   
When I watched Zeitgeist I thought the first part about Jesus was a bit of a stretch. I had studied Buddhism and Hinduism and never read any similarities from the Life of Jesus that were close at all to Krishna or Buddha.

A much better way to compare religion would be to show how similar they are in their teachings. Truth, compassion and detachment seem more like a common theme to me in the world religions.

The parts about 9-11 and the economy seemed convincing to me but by the time the third Zeitgeist came out it just seemed like Utopian pipe dreams gone mad. I did agree with the part that when our resources become scarce we will be forced to change but the circular city just seemed silly. A little too much like Scientology or some creepy New Age cult that would just become a totalitarian system on its own.

So parts of it I believed but other parts sounded crazy. Just like everything else I suppose.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenKnight
 


You're talking about a concept called perpetual virginity which is a concept they brought up LATER after Zeitgeist had already been debunked to cover their butts and it does mean what they think it means. It does not mean that you can get your virginity back. If you have sex, you lose your perpetual virginity too! And I don't believe Mary was a perpetual virgin anyway nor do I believe the concept is important.

What they're trying to say is no matter how many times you have sex you're still a virgin! Well how convenient for the Zeitgeist people huh? But perpetual virginity does not work that way. In other words it's a bunch of BS. They're just plain wrong. They even admit it themselves. Krishna was not a virgin birth. He was some kinda other special, rework the rules, maybe if everyone lets us get away with this crap, pagan, redefinition of the word virgin, virgin birth. Which is something completely different than saying, Mary never had sex. So when they compare the two they're comparing apples and oranges and are being dishonest.

Also they contradict in later texts. They say the deities can get their virginity back, but in other texts they go on to say that since all these deities were mythical creatures that didn't exist, they could never lose their virginity! If they can't lose it, how do they get it back? And further more, how does a mythical creature have a virgin birth?

Also, nowhere in the Zeitgeist video do they talk about how the deities had to get their virginity back or the concept of perpetual virginity and how it's different than the normal understanding of the concept of virginity. They only bring it up LATER after the claims in Zeitgeist were proven to be wrong and bring up a false interpretation of it. They should have been honest and said, they weren't actually talking about virginity. They were talking about something else, kind like what we all think of as virginity, but different.

When they talk about Mary they mean virgin. However, when they compare Devaki to Mary they mean something entirely different, but they still use the word virgin. They're lying by omission. They should have said, NOT virgin, but "something else that we want to pretend is kinda like, maybe a virgin, and hope you don't notice we're screwing with you kinda thing, K?" and explained the difference between the two.

However, we all know what would have happened if they had been honest. Also, even if it were true, nowhere in the mainstream text have I seen any proof that Devaki got her virginity BACK before giving birth to Krishna. This is only claimed by Zeitgeist people

Also, giving birth to a divine being does not give you your virginity BACK. The concept just says it doesn't remove your virginity. After all, you have to have sex to lose your virginity. Even if you have a kid some other way, if you haven't had sex, you're still a virgin. But once you have sex you are not a virgin anymore and cannot have a virgin birth and can't get your virginity back.

Now you can go ahead and redefine what the word virgin means just to trick people. But that doesn't mean that's what they were talking about in the Bible. It just means you're now making a different argument, which means you've actually lost your original argument based on a misleading use of a word that you later wish to redefine to back out of your error. The original argument, that Devaki had a virgin birth just like Mary's is incorrect.

You may redefine the word virgin so that Devaki had a "virgin birth", but once you've done so, then you're talking about something else and to be honest about it, and not to confuse people, since you're talking about a completely different concept, you should use a different word than virgin.

What you're talking about is not a virgin like most people think. It's a different concept that most people aren't familiar with, and you're being dishonest by not educating the people about the alternate concept and trying to cover it up and pretend that when you say "virgin" you mean the same thing as everyone else when you clearly do not.

After all, you don't want to confuse people on purpose do you? Or do you? If not, then please don't use the word virgin with two different definitions. Clearly label one definition as something else, such as BS-virginity and then show how that relates to Jesus.

For example you could say, Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus. This is similar to how Devaki was a BS-virgin and a BS-virgin birth, which wasn't quite the same as Mary's VIRGIN birth, but it was just like it, I swear. And then see if people still agree with you when you speak your concepts clearly.

And still the issue remains that Krishna was not crucified. But guess what? They tried to redefine that too didn't they? "Cruciform". And I paraphrase, "Oh Horus wasn't actually put on a wooden cross and crucified! He was just portrayed in Cruciform!" Oh really? That's nice, but again, that issue was never brought up in the original video. Only later when Zeitgeist was debunked did they CHANGE the definition and then turn around and claim something else. However, in the video they just went along using the word crucifixion just like it meant what most people THINK it means. But it didn't mean that did it? They meant something else by it didn't they?

If you have to change the definition of word to prove your argument, AND cover up the fact that you've done so, your argument is probably just wrong.


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 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by kallisti36
I have been in so many religious threads in which people refer to Zeitgeist claims with absolutely no backing.


The same could be said for Christianity , If you weren't a Christian and I told you that there was a religion based on a guy that's a God, but he's a guy at the same time , he walks on water, turns water into wine, gets killed by humans but comes back alive 3 days later so you don't go to hell where he's locked in a battle with a fallen angel that he himself created and has the power to destroy. You would look at me like I had 3 heads.

The only backing of your Religion (or any other) is the book that you read that has told you it happened and you have faith in that book ,(As do many others) so you accept it. Your acceptance has no bearing on the fact that the Bible , Qur'an , Torah , Vedas etc were in fact written by MAN!

Many of the stories in these books are more ridiculous than Lord Xenu

(One guy builds a boat that houses 2 of every animal on planet earth?....really? , another one parts an ocean with a stick)

At the end of the day , before you put inflammatory words in your thread title like
"Do not post Zeitgeist BS ever again" , why don't you step outside of yourself and look inwards at your own belief system and how ridiculous it looks to others not involved in your cult , for every Christian (or whatever else religion) thread I see, I could make a thread called "Do not post Christian BS ever again" , but I don't out of respect of the believers of that religion... everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want.

But when you yourself start a thread called "Draco is a red herring. Beware the Pleiadians" and then use your bible decoder ring to explain to me how some ridiculous alien race is really trying to get me tossed into the lake of fire , or other threads like "Chasing devils leads good people into hell (Dangers of Gnosis)" you sort of lose credibility. I Mean really WWJD?



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by EyesWideShut

Originally posted by kallisti36
I have been in so many religious threads in which people refer to Zeitgeist claims with absolutely no backing.


The same could be said for Christianity , If you weren't a Christian and I told you that there was a religion based on a guy that's a God, but he's a guy at the same time , he walks on water, turns water into wine, gets killed by humans but comes back alive 3 days later so you don't go to hell where he's locked in a battle with a fallen angel that he himself created and has the power to destroy. You would look at me like I had 3 heads.


A Christian might never question the belief the their god (Jesus) impregnated his mother in order to give birth to himself so that he could die in order to forgive a few select individuals from the sin of their ancestral mother being tempted by a talking serpent, but when they are confronted by the rather ridiculous beliefs of competing religions, such as the myths of the Hindu elephant deity Ganesha, their human reason will start to work and they would probably consider such myths to be irrational

The Christian accepts the irrational beliefs of their faith due to a very lengthy process of religious hypnosis and indoctrination, often since early childhood. For those of us who are immune to such hypnosis and indoctrination it is often because of a modern education which essentially develops the rational and critical mind. If a person who was never subjected to Chrstian hypnosis or indoctrination read Acharya S's writings, which Zeitgeist Part One was based upon, they would probably consider her analysis and conclusions to be perfectly reasonable; the hostility towards her writings are simply because they challenge the Christian mind control programming.

The entirety of Acharya S's "The Companion Guide to ZEITGEIST, Part 1" can be read in PDF format on: files.meetup.com...

Whereas Peter Joseph's Zeitgeist Part One, does seem to contain a few claims which do not seem to be able to be substantiated historically, I do not find this to be the case for Acharya's "Companion Guide to Zeitgeist" which is more scholarly work. I have pointed out a few problems with Peter Joseph's script on: "In Defence of Zeitgeist Part One & Acharya S: Saviour Deities: the Sons of God." on: www.abovetopsecret.com... however his overall thesis concurs with that of Acharya's.

Lux



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   
double post
edit on 18-2-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   
getting pregnant without intercourse is defined as artificial insemination.
now that's entirely possible as a description of the birth of horus.
personally, i don't agree with very much of zeitgeist but that's because it treats all
ancient history with the same disrespect. i think it's all suffering from what i call
translation bias. decisions are made and have been made about the scientific validity (which has
been said to be impossible in the past, but which is now quite possible in almost every case) of
the ancient histories of the near, middle and far east. the entire ancient world suffers
with lack of common frame of reference, particularly during translations and refutations.

if everyone just sat down with these old writings, objectively, and asked themselves if the events
described are scientifically possible, one of the biggest arguments used against their validity in
the enlightenment period, would be gone. we're still treating the text, skeptically, based on 300
year old science.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


The Zeitgeist people make the claim that Horus and his parents Isis and Osiris were mythical creatures that didn't really exist and so that is why they could not lose their virginity.

So artificial insemination has nothing to do with it. If they're mythical creatures that didn't really exist, like the Zeitgeist people claim, then Isis could not have been artificially inseminated and produced a virgin birth. How do you artificially inseminate something that doesn't exist?


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, 18 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   
LOL at Zeitgeist movie being totally refuted.

There are similarities among religions. That much we can prove.

What if a scientologist comes over and preach you about his belief? You'd think he's nuts. Right? Why?

If you didn't know about Christianity and Jesus Christ and somebody came over and preached to you about him, his virgin birth, and him dying on the cross just so that you can be saved from hell for something you didn't do (what your ancestors did), would you believe him?

There is something to ponder about... why are there 12 disciples of Jesus? Why do each of them correspond to the 12 signs of the zodiac? Also, why are there 12 tribes of Israel and why do they correspond to the signs of the zodiac?



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   
cmon now.. would Jesus have posted with the acronym "BS" in a thread he had started?
FN he wouldn't have


from an "outsiders perspective" :

--->> Zeitgeist:
good movie.... even during the "creative journalism" I would never use it as a quotable source though I have recommended others to take a look. Interesting history on the director and his ability to read ancient texts.
Major points given for the creative journaldox it's brought to the table..
-- IRDB rating: 6.9


--->>Christianity:
also a good movie.. it really shows you what true creative journalism can do. Unfortunately the original script had complete chapters wacked out + it's gone through multiple revisions which detracts points..
MAJOR points deducted for the millions of people tortured and killed throughout it's history, but there does seem to be a positive message peeking through.
-- IRDB rating: 4.3


Both have very good points to make and I take both into consideration.
there's a
sad
reality though...
.... I'm afraid of Christians.. also Muslims... and I guess just about every other religion/cult which blends violence into it's history.

b



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Amazing tin, that you stick around for this discussion as you have not yet once pinpointed an elaborated valid point as your discussion has been all about the op's videos?


So question again, and yet again, and yet again?


Was your arse around the time of christ>?
To placate and allocate your opions as valid?


I think not< as history has always been written by the winners, and you and your lil mind has been consumed with your childhood dreams of kindergarten and the bull!!!! that they taught you their. the king james bible was rewritten over 280 times and jesus was not written about till over 200 hundred years after his death, and now can you or anyone try to void the sandscripts of the passages of egypt to void the content of what they have to argue, regardless of what they had too say?


I thought ats, was all about denying ignorance right? if you read the sandscripts of egypt you will find that they had their own messiah, from a virgin mother, brought and raised to be the enlightened one,a a sun god of the Egyptians, but i guess i digress, as, know one wants to seek the truth this day and age? do they?
edit on 18-2-2011 by allprowolfy because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-2-2011 by allprowolfy because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-2-2011 by allprowolfy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 



that's why i said, i don't agree with pretty much anything zeitgeist says, but i do believe part of the problem is translation bias and lack of frame of reference. now that we have a frame of reference called science, which has accelerated to such a place where almost every miracle can be explainable with science, we want to pretend they are fake for any number of other reasons.

you realize that people all over the world believed their own ancient histories till the enlightenment period, when it was decided that the events described in the texts were not scientifically possible and therefore, mythological. that was the number one reason given for throwing out over 4000 years of ancient history as being historically invalid, and this was before the creation of archaeology!

i think we look at the ancient world in the wrong way. we expect it to read like a biology book, whereas it reads more like somebody in your family recounting the events on the planet during the lives of your ancestors. they contain poetic nuances, art forms, unusual things that translators don't quite understand so they assume, and etc.

edit on 18-2-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
78
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join