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: 32
78
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by racasan
 


Jesus = jewish zombie? lol

I was dead as a doornail and the doctors (and prayer) brought me back to life. Does that make me a zombie?
edit on 21-2-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)


Well
Matthew 27:51-53
“And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.”

Matthew 27:54
Braiiiinns braaainns brrraiiins!!!




posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Genesis 1:28
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

so where did you get

Originally posted by undo
i think the original sin was procreation,
so don't expect me to call it dopey


According to the bible god banished A&E from the garden in order to deny them access to the Tree of Life, which would have bestowed immortality onto them

No mention of original sin there



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   
What does any of this have to do with my answer?


Originally posted by adjensen

I think that fact that Jesus alleged birth date coincides with a change of astronomical age

But no one in the Church (certainly not in the early Church) thought that he was born on 25 December, so that's not indicative of anything.

Christmas is a festival that celebrates the coming of the Messiah, it's not supposed to be his birthday party. It occurs when it does for a pretty obvious reason -- when you tell people to stop doing something, they're a lot more likely to do so if you give them something else to do.

One of the major struggles with the early Gentile church was getting them to give up some of the practices that were common, but not particularly revered. Remember, this was at a time when the majority of the Church was Jewish and took great offense at some of the practices of the former pagans, like eating meat sacrificed to idols (not really nefarious -- it was common to say a prayer or put a little meat on a grate in deference to the gods, and if you had a family of mixed faith, are you going to yell at Mom for cutting off a piece of steak for Zeus?) Though Paul makes a point of saying that it's really not all that important, he also makes a point of saying "don't do it, because it causes problems for believers who do think it's important."

So you've got these events that people are told they can no longer go to, in spite of their friends and family bugging them about it. What to do? Well, let's just have our own event, and you can go to that instead. Thus, the "replacement" of a pagan festival associated with the Solstice with a Christian one. Very sensible, to be honest.
edit on 21-2-2011 by adjensen because: oopsies


Where the cross symbol comes from
www.imaginata.co.uk...

ages and how that works
i302.photobucket.com...



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Oh, and the Romans already had an "all encompassing state religion".


perhaps you might prove this, because i thought the Romans had many different religions


Actually, "Catholic" means universal, as in the orthodox church.


A whole thing on the use of the word catholic
en.wikipedia.org...


The word catholic (derived via Late Latin catholicus, from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning "universal"[1][2]) comes from the Greek phrase καθόλου (kath'holou), meaning "on the whole," "according to the whole" or "in general", and is a combination of the Greek words κατά meaning "about" and όλος meaning "whole".[3][4] The word in English can mean either "including a wide variety of things; all-embracing" or "of the Roman Catholic faith." as "relating to the historic doctrine and practice of the Western Church."[5]



You kind of drift off there at the end, but the Protestant Reformation wasn't really against the Pope at the time, or even Papal decrees. It was a protest against some of the actions of the Catholic church, absolutely, but if you go back and look at Martin Luther, as well as the Reformed theology which shortly followed him, it's really a radically different theological view that was emerging, not simply objections with certain practices.


Well it was late and I was anticipating someone saying catholicchristian



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by racasan
Genesis 1:28
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

so where did you get

Originally posted by undo
i think the original sin was procreation,
so don't expect me to call it dopey


According to the bible god banished A&E from the garden in order to deny them access to the Tree of Life, which would have bestowed immortality onto them

No mention of original sin there

I disagree with Undo here too. I believe original sin is just sin. When Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil they chose to understand sin by participating in it as opposed to observing it, and thus made it part of their nature. Of course there was no procreation before this (as far as I know) because it would have been unnecessary since they were immortal.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by kallisti36
I disagree with Undo here too. I believe original sin is just sin. When Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil they chose to understand sin by participating in it as opposed to observing it, and thus made it part of their nature.


How could A&E make an informed decision about eating the fruit, given that only by eating the fruit could they make an informed decision about good and evil?

Also
Who was god growing the fruit for any way?

Also
If the tree was that important why not plant in on Mars or in a different galaxy far far away?


Of course there was no procreation before this (as far as I know) because it would have been unnecessary since they were immortal.



1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

How exactly where A&E supposed to be fruitful, and multiply without procreation?

3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

So what upset god was that A&E might “put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever”

god was worried that A&E might achieve “GOD MODE” if they eat from the tree of life that’s why he kicked A&E out

Do you guys just not read the bible?



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by racasan
 


Oops, I thought fruitful and multiply was after their expulsion. Anyways, that's proof that sex wasn't the original sin.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by racasan
 


that was before the fall narrative. and the original hebrew words for multiply, can be one of several, and make the verses mean different things, depending on your understanding of the rest of the verses.

for example, multiply is also grow great or become great or even to grow large.

my favorite is "replenish" in the same verse, which means to replace what was there before. i don't know if the english translators were using the same text for that translation because the original hebrew means to fill or to consecrate. . replenish means to replace a missing item with a new but identical item to the missing original.

when you read the text, remember about 40% of the verse is added english words, that are not in the original hebrew at all. i don't mean the directly translated words, but other words added to make the sentence flow correctly in english. unfortunately, it also resulted in things like making people believe the first creation of man text is about humans in general, yet the original word was 'adam, and 'adam was made in the image of the gods (plural) male and female. not just male. so the first 'adam was a race of men and women, made, not from ribs or clay, but from the image of the gods. (sounds like cloning to me).



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by racasan
 




that was cute.
i think, however, that it means they were whole and alive again. i have another wacky theory that we are quantum-ly entangled to an identical version of ourselves that's stored in the form of a single strand of our dna and that it contains all our memories and data about our physical appearance, and it is this other us, that is resurrected (when and if there's a resurrection of the body of the person in question). i could be wrong of course, but it sounds like the book of life, mentioned frequently in the bible, is our DNA, which contains everything necessary to make us all over again. if that makes sense.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
that was before the fall narrative. and the original hebrew words for multiply, can be one of several, and make the verses mean different things, depending on your understanding of the rest of the verses.
for example, multiply is also grow great or become great or even to grow large.


But if it can mean lots of different things then in then end it means nothing


my favorite is "replenish" in the same verse, which means to replace what was there before. i don't know if the english translators were using the same text for that translation because the original hebrew means to fill or to consecrate. . replenish means to replace a missing item with a new but identical item to the missing original.


I’m familiar with the replenish thing – it could suggest that A&E where to repopulate the earth after god depopulated the earth in some event not mentioned in the bible


when you read the text, remember about 40% of the verse is added english words, that are not in the original hebrew at all. i don't mean the directly translated words, but other words added to make the sentence flow correctly in english. unfortunately, it also resulted in things like making people believe the first creation of man text is about humans in general, yet the original word was 'adam, and 'adam was made in the image of the gods (plural) male and female. not just male. so the first 'adam was a race of men and women, made, not from ribs or clay, but from the image of the gods. (sounds like cloning to me).


Again you’re not helping your case

so people are adding stuff based on their understanding of things at that time or the stuff added was to further their own agenda
For example:
en.wikipedia.org...


The Gospel of Matthew presents the virgin birth of Jesus as fulfilling a prophecy in Isaiah

7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Hebrew has a specific word, betulah, for a virgin, and a more general word, `almah, for a young woman. Since `almah is the word used in the Hebrew text of Isaiah, some commentators have believed it at least possible that Isaiah had in mind only a normal conception by a young mother and that Matthew applied this text of Scripture to the birth of the one he believed to be Messiah, as John seems to have applied to his death another text of Scripture that in its original context referred to the Passover lamb.[13] Others believe that Isaiah was directly prophesying the future virgin birth of the Messiah.


so if you are a Greek or Roman who likes his men-gods to be born of a virgin then you might correct a few things

And this fixing of the bible is still going on

Here the Jehovah’s-witnesses are correcting a few boo-boos
carm.org...



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by racasan
 


well i don't get bent out of shape about it. i just look at it as ancient people trying to explain and people many generations and in some cases, thousands of years later, trying to translate it into their more modern framework. it has the distinct disadvantage of having passed thru times in which knowledge of the science it appears to describe, was lost. the rise of the skeptic, who then views it threw the lens of 300 year old science, at which point entire schools of thoughts, complete with copious critical texts are written trying to chalk it up to as many different mundane and impossible things as possible, so that the final resulting discourse ranges from extreme to extreme, instead of interested investigation and study.
edit on 22-2-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


See even you are forced to make some changes to the bible, you recognise that the whole zombie thing is silly so you invent a way it might make sense based on your understanding of current science

It’s a pity you or someone like your with a sci-fi flare couldn’t have done the translating of the bible, it might have been more fun and we might have been colonising the stars by now

edit on 22-2-2011 by racasan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Yawn - this is probably the 3rd go-round of this (Ive seen, anyway) where some religious person found some holes in the religious portion (only 1/3 of the entire presentation, nevermind the awesome work done on 9/11, and the financial sections), and decides that the whole thing is bunk. Nevermind the fact that MUCH of the info is correct (in terms of Christian myths being bastardized stories from other religions, some of the astrological portions not-withstanding)

Not too many stars considering all the activity. Fail.


edit on 2/22/2011 by SquirrelNutz because: iphone spelling



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by racasan

Originally posted by adjensen

Oh, and the Romans already had an "all encompassing state religion".


perhaps you might prove this, because i thought the Romans had many different religions


Well, here's a nice article on it: www.unrv.com...

The Romans were actually pretty tolerant about other religions (when you've a polytheistic system, who cares if someone wants to worship yet another god?) but the caveat was that you had to worship the state gods and, in the time of the early Christian church, that meant you had to worship the Emperor.

Obviously Jews, who were monotheistic, refused to do so, but they were granted a special dispensation by treaty (prior to the age of Christ) and kept it in place by paying a special tax, by offering to say prayers to their God on the Emperor's behalf, etc. Christians, also monotheistic, were originally lumped in with the Jews for purposes of the dispensation, but the growth of the church, the schism with the Jewish community, and Nero's need for a scapegoat led to the determination that Christians were not Jews, and not allowed to 'dis' the Emperor under the dispensation, and the Colosseum games began. (That's a generalization, obviously, but you get the idea.)



Actually, "Catholic" means universal, as in the orthodox church.


A whole thing on the use of the word catholic
en.wikipedia.org...


Yes, that's pretty much what I wrote. There is the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church and "the catholic church". The first two are (for want of a better word) denominations, the last one is just another way of say "the world wide body of Christian believers", which includes everyone -- Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants and "other".


Well it was late and I was anticipating someone saying catholicchristian


There are extremist Protestants who will say that, just as there are extremist Catholics who will say that Protestants are not Christians, but do we really need to judge a group by its extremes?



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
Yawn - this is probably the 3rd go-round of this (Ive seen, anyway) where some religious person found some holes in the religious portion (only 1/3 of the entire presentation, nevermind the awesome work done on 9/11, and the financial sections), and decides that the whole thing is bunk. Nevermind the fact that MUCH of the info is correct (in terms of Christian myths being bastardized stories from other religions, some of the astrological portions not-withstanding)

Not too many stars considering all the activity. Fail.

edit on 2/22/2011 by SquirrelNutz because: iphone spelling

Ho-hum. Another malcontent whose own waaaay far-out there belief system of myths--Zeitgeist, Sitchin, Nibiru, Alien Manipulation of human DNA--has been challenged by this thread.

Everyone should stick up for their beliefs, however, so I'll give you that, squirellnutz. It's just that the true yawn fest is your off-topic whining about the impressive 57 flags (so far) and accusing other folk of believing in myths when your own are so 'out there.'

Let alone the fact that you had zilch to add to the debate besides your whine.

Some of us here agree (basically) with the diagnosis of Zeitgeist as regards societal ills--though not always the causes--we're just smart enough to know that Peter Joseph & crew don't--unfortunately--have the prescription.

Here's a lil' walnut for ya, squirellnutz!:

Sitchin Is Wrong

Bon Apetit!



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I will have a difficult time accepting this without more.
I suspect you are taking liberties in assuming the sex or non sex of angels.
It is said that the angels were neither male nor female.
Are you implying they were hermaphrodites?
It is when they gave up their first estate and enetered the material realm that they took on sexual attributes as did satan with eve.
The original sin was not procreation, it was procreation with the father of lies.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 


LOL, thank you for PROVING that you are merely interested in finding whatever dirt or trash you can find to poison the well with Zeitgeist part 1 and Acharya S. I would be embarrassed to cite Rook Hawkings for anything. Not you, anything passes as credible for you so long as it's anti-Zeitgeist and anti-Acharya. Most people with a conscience would be thoroughly embarrassed after being caught with such dishonest tactics - not you, you're no different than bigoted, prejudice Christian extremists.

Rook's blog on Acharya is as INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST as one could possibly be - ROOK HAS NEVER READ THE BOOK HE CLAIMS TO BE REVIEWING AND HE ADMITS IT IN THAT BLOG. Had you read the comments in that blog you would've seen Rook have his ass handed to him.


I see Rook is advertising his Anti-Acharya smear campaign everywhere he can. Rookie Hawkings is an embarrassment to Freethinkers everywhere. If you actually read the comments at Rook intellectually dishonest blog you find a few factoids by "Freethinkaluva" and others:

"Have a look at my posts & others at RRS in the "Jesus/Krishna/Horus" thread: If folks have a look at the thread there they would see how dishonest Rook is on the issue with Acharya's work. Rook omitted information provided to him in that thread & turned his "Problems with Acharya" into a straw man & an argument from ignorance. Mostly due to the fact that he hasn't read her work (which Rook admits in this thread) - especially "Suns of God" which addresses the criticisms of "Christ Conspiracy."

Rook is dishonest here but seems to appeal to people who are too lazy to do their own research. And on top of that, It seems that Rook gets his false assumptions about Acharya from his hero Richard Carrier who also hasn't read Acharya's work. So Rook is RELYING on R. Carrier & doesn't go to the source - hows that for "sloppy scholarship"? Rook is an embarrassment to freethinkers & Jesus mythicists by dishonestly smearing Acharya like this.

Folks who haven't actually read Acharya's works clearly aren't qualified to make commentary on it making their comments utterly lacking in honesty and integrity. Rooks blog that he has posted everywhere is nothing less than a smear campaign. An apology to Achayra from Rook is in order."

"I'd simply like to point out that this blog by Rook began with insults, derogatory comments & name-calling in the VERY FIRST SENTENCE. Am I the only one who has the courage to point that out? Rook has been name-calling me "fanboy" in the other thread so I feel that this blog is largely, directed at ME. So, I feel I have a right & a responsibility to address it without being molested & threatened with warnings & banning for merely pointing out the obvious. I realize it might be more convenient for RRS to ban me rather than address Rook's intellectual dishonesty on the issue of Acharya's work. Work Rook admits he's never studied."


Rook and the RRS banned Freethinkaluva and the others for telling the truth about Rook and his dishonest blog.

BTW, Rook claims to be a "Historian and ancient text expert" with nothing more than a high school education.

It appears Rook has a pattern with these intellectually dishonest issues:

rationalresponders.blogspot.com...

atheismsucks.blogspot.com...

If Rookie had anything serious to offer, these blogs based on fallacies wouldn't be necessary. Rook too hasn't studied Acharya's work.

A Response to Rook Hawkins' review of Acharya S
rationalresponders.blogspot.com...

Rookwatch
www.freethoughtnation.com...

atheismsucks.blogspot.com...
edit on 22-2-2011 by GoldenKnight because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
some religious person found some holes in the religious portion (only 1/3 of the entire presentation, nevermind the awesome work done on 9/11, and the financial sections), and decides that the whole thing is bunk.


You've somehow missed the spamming comments of GoldenKnight, where the guy who made the film you say is awesome is quoted:


"The religion section is the strongest of the whole work"

- Peter Joseph


So, if he thinks that the strongest part of his movie is the bit that is so easily and obviously refuted, what would you guess he thinks of the rest of it?



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenKnight
 


I find it amusing that both you and D.M. Murdock make these sorts of observations:


BTW, Rook claims to be a "Historian and ancient text expert" with nothing more than a high school education.

.. snip ..

If Rookie had anything serious to offer, these blogs based on fallacies wouldn't be necessary. Rook too hasn't studied Acharya's work.


and earlier...


Oh, I apologize, is Keith TRASH your hero? You must surely realize that he is a high school drop out who has absolutely no formal training, qualifications or credentials whatsoever, right? He makes his videos out of his mums basement. This is the guy who you are heavily reliant upon who also has never actually read a single book of Acharya's.


What are you, twelve years old? You think calling people names, claiming that they are uneducated and somehow having the omniscience to know that they've never read any of your hero's books are reasonable responses? All while citing people like "an influential knitting expert" as significant endorsements?

You've been asked, repeatedly, to show support for your claims that don't circle back to your own website, Zeitgeist fanatics or discredited sources like Kersey Graves and Gerald Massey. Why are you unable to do so?



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by GoldenKnight
 


No, we just check with history instead of accepting everything that comes out of Acharya S' sinful mouth


LMAO! That would be funny coming from someone else but, from you it's scary because you actually think that your OP debunks Zeitgeist - the fact that your video comes from a crazy fundamentalist Christian extremist with no formal training, qualifications or credentials IN ANY FIELD doesn't bother you a bit. Keith TRASH is another pathological liar for the Lord, as Joseph Wheless used to say "Liars for the Lord."

If you an ounce of integrity and character you would replace all your videos with this full video. It's the same video except it's mirrored by someone else who will actually allow the video to be criticized. Keith TRASH removes the comments and bans those who prove him and wrong and expose him as the liar that he is.

voiceofreason

Zeitgeist Part One Exposed: The Film
www.youtube.com...

Zeitgeist Part One Exposed: The Film

voiceofreason467 (from the info box):

"This is a film by Keith Thompson (aka KeithTruth on YouTube) which purports to debunk Zeitgeist: The Movie | Part One: The Greatest Story Ever Told. He draws upon many of sources in the film itself.

Note from the uploader: I do not in anyway whatsoever endorse this film, I am only mirroring it because KeithTruth is a censorhappy person and any comments critical of the film tend to either get flagged or removed. I am only uploading it because I want to hear what a critical community has to say on the subject."



Zeitgeist (2007) - Part 1 - Religion




new topics

top topics



 
78
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join