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: 19
78
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


reply to post by undo
 


This video you posted? Do you know who made it? Also the video got screwed up or something. And I'm having problems playing the 2nd on YT right now.

Was it made by the Zeitgeist people? It seems to me, from only being able to watch the 1st vid right now, that the video makes assumptions. First it goes right into making the same claim that Zeitgeist made again, But saying Cleopatra claimed she was the virgin goddess Isis.

It is true that Cleopatra claimed she was Isis reincarnated, but I can't find in other texts where she claims she was the "virgin" goddess Isis.

They seem to be just taking the word virgin and just tacking it on here hoping no one will notice.

Also, the video asks the question "Who were these protectors of Caesarion? Were their names Mary and Joseph by any chance?" This is a word trick. It's a nice claim, but the problem is, why is the video asking me? I don't know. Was it Joseph and Mary or not? The answer of course is we don't know. It's for them to prove it. I feel like they're trying to lead me to believe something that may or may not be true instead of just showing me what their evidence is.

For example they claim that the Egyptian name for Jesus is Esue which also means son of Isis? But I can't seem to find the etymology or a source at all for this Esue except on other conspiracy sites which don't have a source at all or just source other conspiracy sites. They claim the source is Egyptian Hieroglyphics?

Which Hieroglyphics? Where were they found? and what scholars translated the Hieroglyphics and where can we find their work? They should have gotten an independent scholar to translate the Hieroglyphics in the video or at least shown his work in the video where they had done so. They just kind of make a vague claim based on a picture that it's in Hieroglyphics. If true, I would like to know which Hieroglyphics who translated them.

After that, they go on to make claims that they themselves say they can't prove.

Like Caesarion went to India and it is speculated that Jesus went to India too! So they must be the same person! Interesting, but they themselves say they have no proof. So what are we to think?

Also they make some misleading claims like when they refer to Jesus's half brother Thomas. The only problem is, the only place it is mentioned that Jesus had a brother named Thomas is in the Gospel of Thomas which isn't considered canon by most. And when you source it you find out that many people dispute that Jesus had a brother named Thomas. Which is fine, but the video fails to mention that their claim is in dispute.

Also, right away in the 3rd video it goes on to speculate that Jesus may have married his half sister Mary Magdalene. The only problem is, Mary Magdalene as far I know, isn't Jesus's sister and the whole concept of Jesus being married is usually attributed to modern fiction from the likes of Dan Brown.

Then in the third video when it claims that since Jesus Caesarion went to India and learned healing powers. And since healing potions were applied to Jesus after he was taken down from the cross? I wasn't aware of any evidence that shows this claims? I'd be interested to read it.

One problem with this is there is no Jesus Caesarion. They already admitted in the first video they couldn't prove Jesus was ever in India. Now they go on to speculate that Jesus survived due to being treated with healing oils and healing powers he learned in India?

They're just speculating too much in the video. It's nice a story, but the whole video is basically set up to ask me what I think? I don't think anything. Instead of speculating I wish they would just lay out their research and show what it proves.

But how it relates to this thread, in the end it is really in contrast with what Zeitgeist claims. After all, Zeitgeist claims that Jesus was the sun and never actually existed as a human. This video claims that Jesus was not the sun and did exist as a human and also named Jesus Caesarion. Both can't be true. I personally won't believe either one until I have time to research all the sources for this video IF I can find them.

But one or the other is wrong. That's quite obvious.





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




posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenKnightKeith Truth - Liar for the Lord


On Keith Thompson's video, Exposing the Satanic Empire,

video.google.com...#

which is very well done and documented, he shows Acharya S. 's website, where she has posted a quote from Karl Marx on religion along with a pic of him. Of course, when people began to look into Zeitgeist's sources, she deleted that. And we know how Marx's disciples dealt with the religious. The same way the Chinese are dealing with believers in Lamaism in Tibet. With torture and death.
Funny that Acharya would have the central figure in atheism on her site's front page. When she's supposed to be all new-agey and stuff.

If you fast forward to 53:33 in the video, you will find all the documentation from experts you need to show that any connection between the story of Christ and those of pagan gods is pure hogwash.

54:06 - Dr. Edwin Bryant, Prof of Hinduism at Rutgers University, on the statement that Krishna was crucified: "That is absolute and complete non-sense. There is absolutely no mention anywhere which alludes to a crucifixion."

And so on, ad nausem.

Here's a video excerpt of the relevant section of Thompson's video:

wn.com...

With the quotes from experts on these religions, refuting what Acharya and Zeitgeist say.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   
OK..... Here is the problem and where I am at within this discussion. I would appreciate if everyone took note. First off as a skeptic to the religious ideas in Zeitgeist, after looking at Acharya's page and checking one of her quotes from Paramanhansa Yogananda, I give her enough credit to suspend judgement and try her theories out. I am ignoring all the highschool kids who are Christian Bashing on here because they didn't get picked for their football team this year, as the OP didn't even state his religion in the original post and I find this bashing distasteful.. Zeitgeist is a movie, nothing more, it might spark an interest to learn more, Religion is a product of culture, history and human development.. How someone try to compare the two baffles me...
Points For Consideration...
Myth:... Ok... I've studied a lot of myths. Old Hindu classics describe nuclear war and flying machines... Old Myths carry much more weight and reality than I feel Zeitgeist fans are understanding. It's like they took the mystical ideas of Masonry and Theosophy but stripped them down to a two dimensional representation devoid of the depth that understands the malleable magical nature of this reality...... Schools teach so 19nth century.. But that is Personnel Opinion... Not fit for this discussion one way or another.
Culture: This point is more valid in that it does not ask for you to agree with opinion as much.... India... India has every myth known to man.. If Krishna is virgin born in one household, He is Shiva in the next, he is Rudra in the next.... You can always find a myth to support your idea in India, but then you have to understand how different myth operates in India, how localized it is... How different from the way myth operates in the Middle East... There are cultural differences.... so, this does not mean Acharya's case doesn't hold water... But some of you Zeitgeist fans forget that even the most main stream theories in religious history (done by non believers no less) still get debated and are unsettled. And they are debated in a civilized manner... So your theory which has much less support should be argued with the same understanding of the discourse at hand.. You can never act is if you have proved it, you can only be happy if you at least raise it to the level of possible which is all that any of the mainstream theories have done.... So quit saying you have proved beyond a doubt, I find Acharya's idea interesting, but I have read so many different takes already....
edit on 18-2-2011 by AudioOne because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
It doesn't really matter is there are reoccurring motifs of Trinities in multiple religions, mythologies, stories, or whatever around the world. What is the point? Trying to disprove that the Christian God isn't an old man with a beard sitting and answering prayers? Good job. Serious theologians haven't thought that since 200 AD. Buddha isn't a "god" figure anyway, he was a materialist himself and taught to withdraw from the world. No prayer, no magic, no superstition. It was simply a discipline, a very good one at that.

Drawing parallels between an Egyptian mythology from 5000 BC and comparing it to stories from ~20 AD is defunct as well. Jesus was probably a real person, and probably didn't have any magical powers. He was like the Buddha, spreading discipline. Christianity's metaphysical qualities are from Plato, as I hope all of you know. After Jesus was crucified the Apostles had to somehow communicate Christianity on a common basis, and back then the only common basis in all of the Roman empire was...Platonic philosophy. If you read the Bible with that in mind, it becomes clear. I'm not sure how much of it was on the internet, I've searched before, but believe me, you can go find hundreds of books on this subject, or better yet, go ask serious theologians that aren't supported by the religious right in this country.

As for why people believe in the Bible as this magical thing, it's simply said that it's a "Noble lie". The masses have their crutch, but if you read St. Thomas Aquinas, they don't deal with God as a "thing" with the qualities of existence or non-existence, because that's objectifying him. Aquinas is still one of the brightest minds in human history, he's most definitely wiser than you, me, and probably most people you know. Did you really think he considered God to be an old man sitting with a cane answering prayers?

So Zeitgeist's original point doesn't really matter, it is too obscure and just because there are several mythologies that span a 5,000 year history which have similar qualities doesn't mean what the Buddha, Jesus, or whoever said is less valuable. If you're trying to disprove the existence of a straw-man God, have fun, you can read Aristotle circa 300 BC and he'll show to you that God isn't a conscious being sitting outside, nor within, the universe. You can find directly that God being the "Alpha" and the "Omega" in Platonic philosophy, as well as the first being the "Word" -> "Logos" -> for Plato it's the world of Forms. The world is "Word" in the sense that we can describe physical laws of nature in mathematics, E = mc^2, etc.

And from this it follows even further, trying to disprove Zeitgeist shows some agenda. You might be trying to prove the existence of this fabled-God by disproving some silly video on the internet. If you're a faithful Christian, you should know that all of the Saints, Theologians, Popes, accept God and Jesus on the basis of FAITH. I'm not one bit religious but I know this. There is no way to prove God exists. Besides "existence" not applying to "God" because that'd make him a THING (like our bodies, they exist), if there was a way to prove God is there then it makes religion, faith, life, all of it pointless because we just know that he exists and the story is over, get it?

Really, the best step is to just sit outside of this Zeitgeist..Anti-Zeitgeist party and watch people argue things that have first off, been known for a thousand years, and secondly, they're just for fun. I would personally suggest that you guys read about Platonic Christianity, It's history from 50 AD until the 17th century. You can read all the letters from the Apostles, from the Popes, from the Roman emperors, it's not hiding in a cave somewhere. All of this is out there in the open for all of you to read, educate yourselves, stop bickering about this Zeitgeist movie, and move on to bigger and better things.

I hope this explains some things. I will leave a link to a poorly written website that might explain some things:
www.ccel.org...

But please just get some BOOKS. Believe it or not, even in this 21st century there is tons of information in BOOKS that is NOT on the Internet. Sorry to burst your bubble, but go read some books. There are things there that you wont ever learn on the internet.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by EmpathicBandit
There are many great points made

Name them.


Originally posted by EmpathicBanditI am not religious and i dont intend to offend your beliefs, but if you are going to make an argument in a place like this about a thing like this, then i suggest you come prepared, and MAYBE just MAYBE like again another member mentioned, if you DONT want to hear or talk about it, then.. keep it to yourself? dont click on them if it upsets you? just like following a religion or not, we all have a choice, sometimes the best choice is to NOT do something.


Here you are attempting to marginalize the presence of anyone who:
Calls out Zeitgeist a fraud (which it has been proven to be) while making the correlation
that the bible has too...been proven to be a fraud on the same merits used to discredit Zeitgeist.

The fact is: He/She has that right afforded to: NOT want to hear nor talk about something that has been unequivocally proven (based in the preponderance of the evidence) to be false....just like you and others like who
also have the right to disagree with those assertions: but academically...

You have yet to show ANY substantial proof
that the bible is of the same fraudulent creation as that of Zeitgeist: has been proven to be.


Originally posted by EmpathicBanditif you are as smart as you make yourself sound then you'll probably just walk away from this thread now and let the mods deal with it.

regards..


(1) A person is only as smart as they are perceived to be (which is NOT reality) : in reality!
(2) If I were the OP...and you attempted to smear my intelligence level based on my continued presence

in a thread that was designed to provide clear proof of a claim that were (upon closer scrutiny) decisively
destroys Zeitgeist's credibility by actually citing sources and explaining in great detail what things actually mean:

Unlike Zeitgeist. ....I would liken your attempt at doing so: to socially/psychologically trying to pressure them
from using their own original thought processes' to arrive at a conclusion: that makes sense.

Unlike Zeitgeist.

If you are a decent human being: you will allow opinions (no matter if you agree with them or not) to be
heard, voiced and used as the basis for their foundational argument: that has merit...

Unlike Zeitgeist.
edit on 18-2-2011 by Chinesis because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by AudioOne
OK..... Here is the problem and where I am at within this discussion. I would appreciate if everyone took note. First off as a skeptic to the religious ideas in Zeitgeist, after looking at Acharya's page and checking one of her quotes from Paramanhansa Yogananda, I give her enough credit to suspend judgement and try her theories out. I am ignoring all the highschool kids who are Christian Bashing on here because they didn't get picked for their football team this year, as the OP didn't even state his religion in the original post and I find this bashing distasteful.. Zeitgeist is a movie, nothing more, it might spark an interest to learn more, Religion is a product of culture, history and human development.. How someone try to compare the two baffles me...
Points For Consideration...
Myth:... Ok... I've studied a lot of myths. Old Hindu classics describe nuclear war and flying machines... Old Myths carry much more weight and reality than I feel Zeitgeist fans are understanding. It's like they took the mystical ideas of Masonry and Theosophy but stripped them down to a two dimensional representation devoid of the depth that understands the malleable magical nature of this reality...... Schools teach so 19nth century.. But that is Personnel Opinion... Not fit for this discussion one way or another.
Culture: This point is more valid in that it does not ask for you to agree with opinion as much.... India... India has every myth known to man.. If Krishna is virgin born in one household, He is Shiva in the next, he is Rudra in the next.... You can always find a myth to support your idea in India, but then you have to understand how different myth operates in India, how localized it is... How different from the way myth operates in the Middle East... There are cultural differences.... so, this does not mean Acharya's case doesn't hold water... But some of you Zeitgeist fans forget that even the most main stream theories in religious history (done by non believers no less) still get debated and are unsettled. And they are debated in a civilized manner... So your theory which has much less support should be argued with the same understanding of the discourse at hand.. You can never act is if you have proved it, you can only be happy if you at least raise it to the level of possible which is all that any of the mainstream theories have done.... So quit saying you have proved beyond a doubt, I find Acharya's idea interesting, but I have read so many different takes already....
edit on 18-2-2011 by AudioOne because: (no reason given)

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



K....

Which idea(s) that Acharya has presented: are very interesting (to you) ???

And, of these ideas: which of them are proven to be true, unknown to be true and proven completely false?



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


You cannot comment on the subject matter UNTIL you watch the videos.
It (unlike ZG) actually gives details, sources and insight and delves deep inside the misconceptions
derived from the purported similarities between Christ + other predated civilisational deities....



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 


Thank you for posting this.

I consider myself to be fairly anti-religious, I'm a former fundamentalist Christian turned atheist and I spend a lot of time researching religion. Zeitgeist has some very faulty information in its religion section. It truly is sad that they were dishonest in their attack on religion rather than using logic, reason and well researched information.
edit on 18-2-2011 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by tinfoilman

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 ahead. 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)


Before I take down your position: please state what IS your position?

I ask you this about the sand-scripts of Egypt (capitalise nation's yo)
Please state your source for this interpretation, and who else (besides yourself) that feel
this interpretation is a valid one: based on the support and backing of named scientists in the related field.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by kallisti36
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.




There are lots of problems with your topic of debate. I'll go over a few of them.

- while you insist that others stay on topic you are allowed to go off topic many times. When anyone else engages in your off-topic debate you reply that they must stay on topic. This is ridiculous and childish and difficult to engage in any type of coherent discussion when someone sabatoges debate in this manner. For example: you say that only hindus understand hinduism, only christians understand christianity etc. If anyone were to respond to your clearly off-topic comment by your own defintion of off-topic you would come back and say that they need to stay on-topic. This makes you a control tripper who does not like any type of opinion that threatens them. It ponts toward, as others have said, a very shallow,insecure and hurt ego on your part.


- yes, D.M.Murdochs response to the Birthday of Jesus was evasive. She describes her decision to use it as supported by current christians who acknowledge Dec.25th as Jesus birthday with a twist that attempts to point out their error - using their error - while failing to sufficiently or adaquately point out her own.

- DM Murdoch describes the virgin birth as being difficult to describe by todays standards. She explains that virgin had many meanings. A God could be classified as virgin by different definitions than what our society defines virgins. Perhaps this is where your definitions fail to understand the presentation of her meaning. Having taken a trip to India I have first hand experience of how myths have evolved and changed througout time to conform to different peoples ideas. This appears to be Murdochs purpose, to show various definitions of virgin from the mythological viewpoint and from people's interpration therein. You're trying to put a modern day definition on myths that were changed and twisted by very superstitious people. Murdoch points out that the definitions are problematic.

- You describe that it was incorrect to title the heading as TOTALLY refuted. Now you say the person lies and misses the overall point. Which is it? There are errors in the zeitgeist delivery but the contents are not all lies by any means. Are people then allowed to post Zeitgeists correct truths according to your control needs? Are people also not allowed to post from the Bible or other works that have inaccuracies because they have errors? Do you see how silly you sound? If you had presented your debate by saying that a few zeitgeist errors aren't adaquately explained by DM Murdoch and also acknowledge fully that your own christian doctrines have errors then it might be a more logical debate. Since you do not come from that stance it only appears that you feel threatened and do not yourself follow the demands you put on others.


- a socialist state is not necessarily a bad thing, although there are a number of abuses with socialism that can and have arisen. Many countries promote a more socialist equality view, however the USA wealthy have a great fear of sharing their wealth to their citizens although they will spend money sharing it in charities with other countries when they get something in return. Interest in helping humanity toward equality is very different than a New World Order agenda which conspiracists elude to. Any view of socialism is generally approached by Americans as being communist and bad; such has been thier programming. You might want to differentiate more clearly in order for whatever points you are trying to make be better understood.

What about the points the Zeitgeist movie DOES get correct?

And the last and possibly most important point is that all of the various teaching avenues on planet earth are here whether you like it or not. If you do not like it perhaps you would better serve your evolutionary state by asking other questions, like:
- is there something you need to learn?
- what is your role in this imbalance you perceive?
- where can your energy be greater forcused on greater truth rather than spinning your wheels on concepts that only keep the entire game playing?
- can you see how you keep the game spinning its wheels? If not why not and how can you better understand?
- why can't you find the off button and turn the other way making choices that might better represent your truth?
- why are you involved in this planet earth?

- why do you choose to feed it? what do you get out of it?
- does your debate perpetuate negative unbalanced energy rather than healing and balancing it?

Your words read as a perpetuation to the game rather than getting any clear understanding of your involvement in it, or balanced outcome for your place in it, which only keeps the wheel spinning.... in other words, if your not part of the solution you are part of the problem. Based on your words you are part of the problem and you don't see it or get it. It's a very unbalanced energetic game and the sooner you understand what your doing in it the sooner you'll get off your merry-go-round involvement which keeps it cycling as you are so obviously doing. The sooner you see and understand how choices feed the game -- your choices and others -- and more importantly how your involvement in this issue and ignorance of understanding details fuels the game from a different and equally (or perhaps more) incorrect perspective, then the sooner you will learn and understand making choices toward balance moving away from this negative feeding which you've got going on.

You can see error in one outlook, but not in your own. This is very telling.
edit on 18-2-2011 by gypsy heart because: (no reason given)

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

edit on 18-2-2011 by gypsy heart because: fixing errors...lol.

edit on 18-2-2011 by gypsy heart because: adding a sentence to better explain myself



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
ahaaaa Mr Keithtruth? I was subscribed to you at youtube when your username was Nowheretorun1984. Very first time I challenged you in comments section of a video bout 2 years ago you invited me to do an interview.
I only ever have challenged your views, never insulted you personally.
Now yesterday I happened upon your new user name and a video where you were claiming tyhat Michael Tsarison had got your channel taken down, and you were whining because 'all I did was challenge his views, I never insulted him'. Ie., you were speaking up for freedom of speech---HERE HERE SIr! But then when I went to leave a comment I get 'you are blocked!' So I am wondering why?

So it is funny to find you here, if your still posting--because you cant block me

Now you believe ardently, missionarily even, that your religion is the only true one right? And historical?

Now I want to ask you --who were the early christians? You divde them up from the 'bad christians' that came after and persecuted them, right?

Your 'God's' a brutal war God? isn't HE?

I think this is relevant, because trying to prove that other mythological characters are not connected with the Jesus myth doesn't take away the fact his dad is a brutal war god does it?
edit on 18-2-2011 by zimishey because: spelling



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by zimishey
 


Who are you addressing here?

Or is this a private conversation?



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Chinesis
 





Before I take down your position: please state what IS your position?


Roflol


That's absolutely hilarious. Its clear you're thoroughly objective on the matter of Christianity and not at all simply trolling for conflict with anyone who might happen to disagree with you, right?



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Awww...this is a conceited post here but...my reply answered a bunch of questions and the posts coming right after it completely disregarded it and contained the errors that I pointed out. I thought "You shouldn't join this reply, you haven't been on ATS for a year" but no, I thought I'd give it a try.... but hey, who expects serious conversations about religion and God on an internet forum? You guys think it goes somewhere serious? To highlight, all the posts right thereafter are simply carrying on little personal arguments from prior pages. Woot.

Everybody has a huge amount of confidence hiding behind a screen. Try talking religion or philosophy with someone credible and authoritative on the matter face to face, you'll run immediately.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by kallisti36

Originally posted by rebeldog
reply to post by madscientistintraining
 


The OP sounds like a christian who got their ego hurt by knowledge.(kinda like how the original sin of adam/eve was searching for knowledge) only idiots believe that stuff anyway. must hurt to find out the bible is not the end all of life or death..

whats wrong OP mad you were lied to by some backwoods hick preacher? and to embarassed to let the message of zeitgesit sink in..

I bet you hate Bill Hicks, George Carlin, and Christopher Hitchens too.. and you probably hate Religulous also..









I'm perfectly fine with people who disagree with me. However, Zeitgeist is intellectually dishonest and it's fans don't do any research. I don't care about Bill Hicks and I like George Carlin when he's not going off on Religion. You are right about Hitchens, I really don't like him. Not because he's an atheist but because he is a militant anti-theist and well... an ass.

My "ego" was not hurt in the least by the lies of Zeitgeist. I'm just tired of refuting the blatant stupidity of the people who support the movie. I am not hurt in the least by your ad hominem attacks and terrible grammar.

Good day sir


Wow. Someone needs some Stelazine.

Nobody is asking you to refute anything. Apparently, you feel an internal need to refute, refute, refute. Next time, instead of having a temper tantrum, take a deep breath and go to your happy place before you spaz on everyone for no reason what so ever.

Geesh buddy. Get a life bro.

Edit: And the three stars in Orion DO in fact point to Sirius. Exactly? No. But Relatively close enough.
edit on 18-2-2011 by phantomjack because: Left out a sentence



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


i don't know who made it either, but i have the same issues with it that you do, generally speaking. while i was researching ancient sumer (you familar with sumer?), i had developed a theory that EA (enki) was body hopping thru history, but only into a special line of nephilim and that he had a companion, named inanna, who was also body hopping with him. since inanna is isis, that meant ea was either osiris or horus OR, he was osiris, the body was killed and he was removed from osiris and hopped into horus. when i say body hopping i don't mean reincarnating. it's more like the description of the holy spirit coming to reside in the believer.

we are crippled by lack of historical data. we are crippled by 300 years of historical research that assumes everything ancient is backwards and unintelligent. i ain't so sure about that.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Chinesis
 


As I stated, I am suspending judgement till I read her theories. This came by the current series events. I do not agree with all of Zeitgeists' portrayal of religion and especially all the made up similarities. I argued this side while others argued for Acharya. I had it in my mind she was a fraud based on Zeitgeist. One poster showed that her book garnered praise from at least one person I highly regard and that her ideas are not best represented by Peter Joseph of Zeitgeist. An argument ensued about Virgin Birth and Krishna... Having Yogananda's commentary on the Bhagavad Gita I was able to find the allusion to Vyasa possibly having a virgin birth.. I came to the conclusion that just as SOME (not all) of the pro-Archarya camp seemed unwilling to see the points made against Zeitgeist, possibly there were points that she was making that I did not see and could not judge till I read them for myself. And as to some of the anti-Acharya camp not understanding that the myths of India were multiple enough to possibly have different narratives of birth (and more), I decided that I needed to suspend judgement. I have glimpsed through her booklet comparing Christianity and Egyptian Religion and am not personally impressed. Some of her ideas on Krishna (of the very small amount I have read) seemed more promising in at least creating a plausible narrative even if I didn't buy it. Like I said before, a lot like Robert Eisemann, who makes a great case, but doesn't mean it's true... So with Acharya, I thought, but so far the Egyptian - Christian connection seems shallow to me, not because there is not a connection, but the desire to not understand that myth can be experienced as historical and metaphysical event.... at the same time... For one, there are clearly recordings of the sayings of a master Jesus, what that means exactly, who can prove, but it isn't a myth that just came about devoid of real events... a real tradition.. a real transformation.... So... I decided that I would like to investigate further before I know what I do or do not agree with because I do not know what case she is making in every instance based on what evidence...
edit on 18-2-2011 by AudioOne because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
tinfoilman

p.s. as regards my post above, one clue that leads me to believe that such a thing is potentially being described in the old testament was the story of the king of tyre, who is addressed by the prophet (Ezekiel?) as if he were not just some king in tyre, but some really ancient being who had been in the Garden of Eden, created as a perfect being. this also drew attention the data about the serpent in the garden being deprived of his legs (he had legs before he didn't have legs, ya know, so i theorized this was a reference to a body hop event). i guess you could call it possession, but we've come to think of the word only as it applies to evil. so clearly there's a difference between possession of the human body by the holy spriit and possession of the body by an evil spirit.


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



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


if you read my responses above, directed at tinfoilman, you can read why i think this may be a very familar set of motifs. not because they are copy cats of older data but because we have something that may suggest what i'm calling "body hopping." it sounds a great deal like reincarnation but i think it's more than that.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by grizzle2

Originally posted by GoldenKnightKeith Truth - Liar for the Lord


On Keith Thompson's video, Exposing the Satanic Empire,

video.google.com...#

which is very well done and documented, he shows Acharya S. 's website, where she has posted a quote from Karl Marx on religion along with a pic of him. Of course, when people began to look into Zeitgeist's sources, she deleted that. And we know how Marx's disciples dealt with the religious. The same way the Chinese are dealing with believers in Lamaism in Tibet. With torture and death.
Funny that Acharya would have the central figure in atheism on her site's front page. When she's supposed to be all new-agey and stuff.

If you fast forward to 53:33 in the video, you will find all the documentation from experts you need to show that any connection between the story of Christ and those of pagan gods is pure hogwash.

54:06 - Dr. Edwin Bryant, Prof of Hinduism at Rutgers University, on the statement that Krishna was crucified: "That is absolute and complete non-sense. There is absolutely no mention anywhere which alludes to a crucifixion."

And so on, ad nausem.

Here's a video excerpt of the relevant section of Thompson's video:

wn.com...

With the quotes from experts on these religions, refuting what Acharya and Zeitgeist say.




Keith TRASH: "Zeitgeist’s main source Acharya S promoted the founder of Communism, Karl Marx, on her website ... She quotes Karl Marx defaming religion, thus showing her support of Marx and communism."


This SMEAR by Keith Trash has already been addressed in a thread addressing Keith, his videos and his little CULT of Christian extremists:



"Another total and utter lie. Don't ya just love how he makes these giant leaps of faith? When did we step backwards in time into the McCarthy era during the 50's? That was an embarrassing time in America's history when Senator Joseph McCarthy painted everyone he didn't like as a Commy (Soviet Union communist as well as atheists) after WW2, kicking off the cold war. Keith seems to have an affinity for the Dark Ages and McCarthyism, the most embarrassing times in our history. Could you set your goals any lower Keith? Keith simply adds theosophists to McCarthy's list of people to target. I think she once quoted Marx's VERY FAMOUS saying, "Religion ... is the opium of the masses" on her site many years ago. That's hardly "promoting" Marx - Keith Trash is an absolute imbecile. He knows nothing about Acharya but has been flailing around trying to impugn her character with whatever he can pull out of his arse ever since the Zeitgeist movie came out in 07. He's obviously grasping for straws in order to paint everyone who doesn't agree with his extremist religious ideology as evil. Keith and his cult buddies go around the net maliciously smearing, libeling, defaming whoever they chose and they are never held accountable or held responsible for any of it. My Spider-Man senses tell me that Keith, Chris White and their cult would love a new, modern day Inquisition to rid the world of non-believers. There is good reason we refer to that time in our history as the DARK AGES. Decent Christians are ashamed of Keith's cult and their trash. Nowhere in any of her books does Acharya hold Karl Marx in high esteem - or in any esteem. She despises Communism and has never even read any Karl Marx, other than that one quote. In fact, Acharya stands strong in support of the American Constitution" www.freethoughtnation.com...


Re: Dr. Edwin Bryant

Here's another post exposing a few factoids on this issue too:




"First of all, Mike Licona is not a credible individual, as his stated life's mission is to 'prove' that a Jewish man was 'the' God of the cosmos, and was born of a virgin and raised from the dead - a ridiculous premise that is unprovable. "Secondly, Licona's methodology of 'debunking' my work included making random phone calls to professors, reading them a couple of sentences taken out of context, such that they pronounced my book to be 'ridiculous' and made other disparaging comments about my person, and then hanging up. As an example of this unethical behavior of Licona - during which time he apparently also identified some of these 'ridiculous' sentences as mine when they were not - we received the following response from one of his main 'sources' in his attempts at discrediting me, Professor Edwin Bryant. When we asked Prof. Bryant about this affair concerning Licona, my work and Bryant's derogatory comments, Bryant responded as follows: "'I somewhat remember receiving a phone call from someone sometime back requesting my views on Krishna in connection with a book he was critiquing. I had no time or interest to read the book to which he was referring, nor was I criticizing the book itself, as you suggested in a previous email since, not having read it, I had no grounds to do so. As a scholar of the Krishna tradition, I felt duty-bound to answer his questions, which I did, and gave my opinion of the views he represented to me regarding Krishna's supposed crucifixion. There are no traditional sources indicating Krishna or any avatara of Vishnu was crucified. If western authors from (I assume) the colonial period have published claims that there are alternative folk narratives that do represent such a version of events, then the onus is on them to provide specific references to these sources if they are to be taken seriously by scholars. "'best wishes, Edwin Bryant' "Obviously, Licona was not as cozy with these scholars as the impression he gives in order to depict himself as an authority. Nor did he give much a disclosure concerning my arguments, which Bryant acknowledges he has never read. Moreover, again, my book "Suns of God" goes into greater detail regarding this issue in particular, much of which data I would think would be fascinating to a "scholar of the Krishna tradition." In specific, I address the assertion concerning the depiction of Krishna as 'crucified' or in cruciform. "Please also see my rebuttal of Licona vis-a-vis my work - "'It is obvious that apologist Licona's main tactic in refuting The Christ Conspiracy is to attack my credibility, constantly misrepresenting statements from my book and website in order to make me look absurd. Such is a classic tactic of apologists and other used-religion salesmen attempting to sell their shoddy goods to an unsuspecting public. Apologists are not generally trained to think independently or to refute facts but to assail the credentials and credibility of the individual who does not buy such shoddy goods. In other words, don't bother them with the facts or the science, they will simply retort that your hair is the wrong color or you will be punished by God or some other playground rubbish.' "In any event, even if a few assertions from my work are shown to be in error, and I admit to being fallible, the general premise - to wit, Jesus Christ is as mythical as Hercules - remains sound and unrefuted." - Acharya S Acharya regarding Mike Licona - www.truthbeknown.com... www.freethoughtnation.com...


I am really tired of all the lies and smears and malicious attacks from the anti-Zeitgeist crowd. I do look forward to rational, reasonable and objective discussion on these issues found in part 1 of Zeitgeist on religion.
edit on 18-2-2011 by GoldenKnight because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
78
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join