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: 18
78
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by rebeldog
 


I'm as far from a Christian as you can get and still be some variety of bipedal primate.

Zeitgeist is garbage. It's like Wicca for dumbasses, it just takes whatever it finds lying around, mooshes it together, makes some crap up about the result and tries to tell you that's "the truth!!!!"

Basically, Zeitgeist is capitalizing om the fact that you're already primed and ready to believe anything that someone tells you, so long as it's not "mainstream." It capitalizes on your reactionary response to established fact, and your desire to be "special," to know "the truth" and to have a "leg up on everyone else."

Basically, you enjoy hte feeling of knowing you've been had so much, that you're willing to let someone lie to you so long as you get that sensation of "I knew it!"




posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by allprowolfy
 


Sandscripts?

Okay. What messiah was this? Please to tell, I'm all ears.Er. Eyes.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by allprowolfy
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?


Yes. That's what this thread is about. OP's videos? Do you know how threads work? Do you know how forums work? If you'd like discuss something else, or you have a question about something, PM me or start a new thread or something.


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

Yes it is good to ask questions to find out information. People like me don't just make stuff up. We try to ask questions and get information from other people. That's just how I work.


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

No? What's your point? Are you trying to say the Bible isn't true? Okay, go a.. I never claimed it was true??

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?

So what you're saying is the Bible isn't true? Okay, but Zeitgeist is still wrong also. You're an idiot if you can't see that BOTH can be wrong at the same time. It's a very simple concept.

I thought ats, was all about denying ignorance right?

Yeah, that's why I ask questions yo. To learn stuff. Try it some time.

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?

I'm sorry, in my opinion the OP's video debunks that claim. I'm sorry you don't agree. That doesn't appear to be true.
edit on 18-2-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

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

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



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


the hieroglyphs and most of ancient egypt, was not translated and/or discovered, till after the enlightenment period had thrown out everything else, and were left standing with no history to set a historical timeline with. today, you are reading their final conclusions, which are only added unto if the new addition agrees with the prior data, and this has been going for hundreds of years. .



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Could you please explain what you mean, as how that relates to the Zeitgeist film? What you just said I don't completely understand? Do the hieroglyphics you mention have something to do with Zeitgeist?



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


well let's take for example the egyptologists insistence that certain things meant certain things. the .dress of hathor, for example. they say the red disk between the horns is the sun, when it's much more likely that it's mars. when you make one small assumption, and then apply to that assumption any thing that looks similar, you end up with an entire set of data, spanning thousands of years, that is effecting other data, incorrectly. do you understand what i'm saying now? just think about it for a minute.
edit on 18-2-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Yeah I get what you're saying, but I just don't see how it proves Zeitgeist right. I mean it seems they have also made the same mistake and incorrectly applied some of their errors across all their data too and so you just have a bunch of data that doesn't check out and people making guesses at it. I mean, you can't go making claims about things if you've made such a mistake.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


it doesn't prove zeitgeist right. quite the opposite. if you assume this goddess or god is a sun god and turns out they aren't, and the assumption that they were, is based on a mistake someone made 200 years ago. this is the kind of thing i'm talking about. people are assuming information, based on information, that they've not personally investigated because they assume it's all correctly translated/elaborated on, to begin with. nothing ancient has ever been given the degree of debunking the bible has. if the level of scrutiny given to the bible was applied to other ancient texts, we'd learn so much new data, and find so many new things, people would be excited about the ancient past again.

too many assumptions, really.
edit on 18-2-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by tinfoilman
 

if the level of scrutiny given to the bible was applied to other ancient texts, we'd learn so much new data, and find so many new things, people would be excited about the ancient past again.

too many assumptions, really.
edit on 18-2-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)


Yes they would. It would be very interesting.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


as a side note, i'll give you an example: The Osirieon in Abydos, Egypt. It was discovered and rediscovered, like 3 times (kept getting reburied in sand and forgotten). The last time it was discovered, 2 famous egyptologists were the lead archaeologists. Sir Flinders Petrie and Margaret Murray. Margaret wrote extensively on the excavation. She concluded that because the Osirieon was undecorated and built in the fashion of the temples of Giza, that it was built at a different time than Seti I's temple, to which it was connected by a long tunnel.. However, other egyptologists insisted it was built by Seti I. They had to, because had they considered what it meant, they'd have to reframe many other statements made about what happened when and who did it. So they ignored their normal procedure of dating structures based on composition and style, and just dated it to Seti I's time.

There are even blueprints drawn up by archaeologists that show it to be a singular building, and that ancillary structures, such as foyers or tunnels attached to it from Seti I's monument, where the pharaoh's signature was found, do not date it to Seti I's time but merely show that during his time, he found it during excavation for his own monument and attached it via a very long tunnel.

you can find examples like this, all over archaeology. Particularly in ancient egypt because it's almost as pivotal to the past as israel, forming a nexus of several ancient cultures.
edit on 18-2-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
the thread title says "Zeitgeist totally refuted" but I can't find any video posted on here that talks about 9/11, or the federal reserve, or the income tax, or anything on Zeitgeist Addendum or part 3. So is this just about the defense of Christianity? When I first watched Zeitgeist I did some research on the various gods similar to Jesus, and I found that Zeitgeist took a little bit of creative journalism when comparing all the gods to each other, I think the point was to show the similarities between the different religions. But I don't appreciate people saying Zeitgeist totally refuted when only 1 part of the first video is debated.



What OP is saying, is that, if anyone does any research on that first part of zeitgeist, they will see that it's fiction. So the whole credibility of the whole zeitgeist movement is in question.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by kykweer
 


I think we all realize what the OP is trying to say, and why.

But I disagree, If they do, then they wont, so it isn't.

Zeitgeist has not been successfully refuted, especially not by the videos is the OP. While a few details may be inaccurate, Zeitgeist is basically sound in its claims regarding Christianity. It is cobbled together from elements of much older prechristian pagan practice and mythology and given a local flavour.

But its impossible to reason with those whose motivation is to protect their cherished belief system rather than face the facts.

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



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by kallisti36
Nearly everyone on ATS knows about Zeitgeist. It is constantly referred to and the disinformation spread by it is so rampant


You're correct. Starting at 53:33 , here is the evidence (quotes scholars on these different religions):

video.google.com...#

The rest of the film is quite good as well. There is no ambiguity on the issue of Zeitgeist. No room for argument. All of Zeitgeist's comments on Christianity are utter and total fabrication.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


what's your opinion of this ?



i believe parts of it are correct and parts are not. but the part that really gets my attention is:

he would've been the rightful heir apparent of egypt and the roman empire, which was in control of israel at the time, and because he was also a descendant of david (from the ptolemy line connection, apparently), he would've fit the bill of the messiah the jews were anticipating who would "rule the nations" with a rod of iron. the rod and staff are the two crossed items in the pharaoh's hands (called crook and flail by the egyptians). they represent the ALPHA and the OMEGA, which jesus called himself in revelation.
this would also explain why the romans would've been interested in getting rid of him and anyone who claimed to follow him. i mean, it answers so many nagging questions, but then there's these big gaps that do it some violence.

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



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 04:45 AM
link   
well That is the problem of man,he is very easily influenced
I saw both films the pros and cons and really is crap ! both let people stuck in
I do not know what is this force who wanted give the words at this littel human to make him good,
but he made it complicated and has made all the tracks remains blurred, and stay complicated
it sound like a joke...in the same everybody is free to bilieve on something...
but life with all this religion stories, I never really understood the devotion and
I do not understand ... I am my own god I am my own religion
and I never let anyone tell me what is right to do or not do
i must be responsible, respecting freedom of others, don't harm any living things.
but whoever put it up
bravo! He did very well ... no one understands anyone
edit on 18-2-2011 by pitchdragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by CuteAngel
 

Actually, the Bible as we know it today is a compilation of varying authors, which were chosen by the Roman Empire to suit their needs of reconciling the old Pagan Roman religions and the new religion of Christ and his followers. Jesus appointed Peter as . of this new Church. It turns out that the concept of the trinity came from Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180 and then later Tertullian. source :
www.newadvent.org...
Banned from the official bible are the writings of Origen, who was at first accepted in Christian thought, and later anathematized by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553. source orthodoxwiki.org...
Other ancient writings not included are excerpts of the Dead Sea Scrolls, although the book of Enoch is included in the Apocrypha after beind discovered by James Bruce in 1773. source reluctant-messenger.com...
The Roman Empire wanted control and added various elements of its pagan religion to Christian doctrine and practice. The date of Christ's birth is one such example of inserting pagan beliefs into practice.
The Old Testament is of the Tanackh, a canon of the Hebrew Bible. It's always very interesting to me when people refer to writings of the Bible as the official Word of God as if it is autonomous from the authors who wrote it down. If you were to say today that something you write is the word of God, how many people would claim blasphemy? Also, there is the question of translation, as I believe that some meanings can be lost in translation say from the Hebrew or Aramaic to Greek to English, and from the King James version to say, the New King James Version. re -Psalm 138:2, KJV HomeArticlesFAQBooksVerse ChartsKJV DictionaryOnline KJVSearchContact
That link give specific examples of possible erroneous translations
In the end, I believe we must go into the heart and find our connection with the Creator of all that is. There have indeed been some common threads in many religions. For one instance, the trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is comparable to the Hindu Brahma(father, Visnu(Son), and Shiva(Holy Spirit). Kali is the Divine Mother. Why argue with these similarities? If these are common, then perhaps the nugget of truth is deeper in our reality than any one written or oral version.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Fascinating video and theory. Thanks for posting.

I had heard the theory about Jesus travelling to India and I definitely agree that there are many, many similarities between the teacings ascribed to Jesus in both the Biblical Gospels and some of the Gnostic Gospels which are strikingly reminicent of the teacings of, for instance, Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta Hinduism, as many scholars from those traditions have recognized.

My opinion is, who knows?

I do happen to think that if a Jewish teacher named Jesus existed that those who most misrepresent and misunderstand the truth about him and his teachings are his supposed followers, the Christians. I also recognize that the myth they built around this character derives from many older preChristian mythologies.
edit on 18-2-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFoxZeitgeist is garbage. It's like Wicca for dumbasses, it just takes whatever it finds lying around, mooshes it together, makes some crap up about the result and tries to tell you that's "the truth!!!!"Basically, Zeitgeist is capitalizing om the fact that you're already primed and ready to believe anything that someone tells you, so long as it's not "mainstream."


LOL, Yes, it capitalizes on the innate desire to rebel against injustice. Most people today have grown up with constant programming that Christian societies are comprised of wife-beating, child-beating, child-molesting, drunken father figures, mothers who only dream of adultery and otherwise imitating their "betters" in the materialistic, consumerist city life, et cetera. In my experience this is not true. Whether one is Christian or not (I have not been for a long time, but recently returned to it), it isn't hard to see that the religious parts of Zeitgeist are the worst kind of appeal to the basest parts of human nature. "You are God".



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 05:27 AM
link   
An addendum to my last post, according to wikipedia, Catholicism was declared by Rome to be the State religion, legalized in 313. Since that time the Roman Catholic church has amassed great wealth and power. Another religion which appears to be a State religion in many parts of the world is Islam. Both religious empires have desired to force upon others a demand to follow at one time or another. At risk of entering taboo subject, Zionism could comparatively be a State religion of power similar to the others, while ignoring the deeper mysticism. I tend to like the more mystical elements of all the religions. At some point, how do we separate the mystical reality from our political persuasions?
edit on 18-2-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: spelling



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by grizzle2
 





It sn't hard to see that the religious parts of Zeitgeist are the worst kind of appeal to the basest parts of human nature. "You are God".


Hmm, your God may disagree with you on that.



John 14 - 10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto
you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works... 20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you... Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
John 17:11(kjv)—Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. . .14b . . . because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. . . 21 That they may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us[.]




The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.


Buddhaesque Nondualism, and the concept of realization of being One with 'God', or the Source or Brahman, or whatever you want to call it, appears even in the edited and selected Biblical Text designed to suit the Catholic Church. They couldn't quite erase all the evidence.




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

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



new topics

top topics



 
78
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join