Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 4
77
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 


Maybe you ought to stop being so ignorant and provide proofs/Facts for your own claims rather than asking other people for claims. Its the pot calling the kettle black... You need to prove the existance of Jesus Christ rather than refuting Zeitgeist...

The methodology used to debunk Zeitgeist as seen in the videos are rubbish. Zeitgeist is only trying to tell us that there are many similarities between Jesus and pagan heroes/messiahs of the past and many similarities between christianity and other pagan religions. Just cause its not exactly the same as Jesus or Christianity does not mean its not copied from earlier pagan messiahs or religions. Or why did'nt Jesus Christ write down the Bible huh...?

It amazes me as to why people dont seem to notice as to how the old testament condemns Idolatory and Image worship and chistianity is the exact opposite of it. Most of the Chrurches are filled with idols and images...
Inorder to understand this one needs to understand the origins of christianity as well as that of the Bible. It was a religion created by the Roman empire, they took the Torah/Talmud (or) a few excerpts from those (i.e) a few incidents from Judaism and made it out to be the old testament. The oldest known 'Gospel' is the Gospel of the Buddha. Took the Gospel of the Buddha and modified it here and there and made it out to be the New Testament. You have to be blind sheep to believe the Bible to be of any authority...

Christianity started out as a catholic religion (i.e) believing in the trinity (i.e) polythiestic pagan religion...




posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by EricD
 



I wouldn't mention this if the poster wasn't calling some Christians idiots, insulting the OP's supposed lack of knowledge and making generalizations about 'backwoods preachers', but it seems incredibly hypocritical to be insulting the erudition and sophistication of thought in others when you can't string together a sentence or two without proper use of parenthesis, capitalization or commas. I hope you have a great view from that glass house.


Yes Eric, but seriously mate, you're doing more or less the same thing yourself.

By insulting the poster you're answering, you're doing the very same thing that you're posting to complain about!

Grammar and diction are either mastered as we grow, or they are not - some find it a simple and natural thing to be able to write creatively and accurately, others do not.

They're environmental (based on life experience) human constructs to enable the transference and communication of ideas and thoughts. Consequently, as long as the ideas and thoughts are communicated, the choice of grammar and diction used are fairly unimportant in the grand scheme of things...only the ideas and thoughts themselves are.

e.g. You understood perfectly what was being communicated by the poster you're answering, so why is it apparently important for you to insult the choice of grammar and diction used?

It seems to me, based on my observations over the years on this and other internet forums, that people are *usually* attacked over using perceived poor grammar or diction, simply as an excuse to wound or otherwise hurt or subjugate. IOW *not* out of a genuine intellectual desire to correct perceived errors in this regard.

The 'stones in glass houses' analogy could equally apply to yourself (and myself, and just about everyone else at one time or another) you know.

Just thought i'd mention that (IMO) it's a better and less offensive idea to challenge the ideas and thoughts being conveyed, rather than the vehicle used to convey them.

Don't you agree?

As far as the OP goes, the thread is pretty useless i feel. (sorry OP, not bashing you)

Being argued about are a cobbled together, hotch-potch of ancient myths and legends, embellishments and out and out lies designed to coerce and control humanity.

Why any rational adult would ever fall for it, makes me despair for our species sometimes, but hey - that's just my point of view..could be right or could be wrong, but ultimately all of us, can only go on our instinctual reasoning, when the lack of any tangible evidence for or against is as severe as it is around this topic.

This is the reason religion is *so* divisive and always has been. Every person of conviction experiences exasperation and sometimes fury, not because their neighbour doesn't necessarily believe the same things they do, but because they can not break through their neighbours conviction and convince them of their folly as they perceive it to be.

This is true of every area of human belief systems.

Take this thread for example.

The OP believes and has a conviction regarding his or her belief system, in this case it is Christianity (unless i'm mistaken OP?).

There is no proof to support any of it, nor is there for any other religion...that's why religion is a *faith* and not a factual, provable or tangible thing.

Faith *is* required. (or you could call it 'conviction of belief' if you like that better)

Christians recognise there are people who do not share in their particular belief system, that they believe or have faith that something else is true.

That is the same thing with this Zeitgeist argument.

People believe that the ideas and thoughts conveyed by the makers of the Zeitgeist series, are more valid or hold more truth for them personally, than Christianity or any other belief system.

How does this make a belief in the message of Zeitgeist *any different* to a belief in the message of Christians, Muslims, Hindus or any other recognised system in the world?

It doesn't. It's the same principle.

The OP does not attack Islam, or Judaism or Hinduism or Buddhists...they are all belief systems, that have similar, although ultimately very different aspects and teachings. Sometimes the ideas and teachings surrounding one or more of these beliefs, greatly conflict or disagree with another, yet they still coexist and millions of people subscribe to one system over another despite of the apparent difference in the detail.

Why is it acceptable to attack the difference in the detail and aspects of a belief in a Zeitgeist message but not acceptable to do the same for other systems messages? It isn't acceptable.

People who subscribe to a belief system, regardless of whether that system is in your (or my) opinion basically what amounts to a children's fairy tale, or a complete corruption of logic or history - is *irrelevant* to believers, because it *is based on faith* and the conviction one has in that faith, and is not based in logic or on available proof.

It's highly unproductive to try and argue one system is wrong and the other system is correct, when your reasoning from a faith based perspective, and not one of logic and proof.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by CuteAngel
reply to post by kallisti36
 

The oldest known 'Gospel' is the Gospel of the Buddha. Took the Gospel of the Buddha and modified it here and there and made it out to be the New Testament. You have to be blind sheep to believe the Bible to be of any authority...


I'm sorry, I had a few questions. When you say the oldest know 'Gospel' is the Gospel of the Buddha are you referring to the book, The Gospel of Buddha written in 1894 by Paul Carus for the purpose of being a teaching tool to teach the concepts of Buddhism to westerners? The Gospel of Buddha

I mean 1894 isn't really all that old is it? How did they take a book that wouldn't be written for almost another 2,000 years and change it around into the NT?

Also, while OP may be a regular type Christian, I am more of an agnostic type that believe in some of the NT's teachings, but don't necessarily know if there is a God or if Jesus really existed. I'm not making any claims that Jesus was real. Therefore the burden of proof isn't on me. I'm not making any claims.

All I know is that the Zeitgeist video did make claims and the burden of proof was on them and they seem to have failed. The OP's video has seemed to have debunked their evidence in my opinion.

What would you say to someone like me? I'm not claiming Jesus is real. The burden of proof isn't on me. It's on you if you claim that Zeitgeist is true. I don't know if it is or not. Where's your evidence to prove your claims?
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 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by shagreen heart
 


It happens to be relevant to me, because not only does the movie slander my Messiah, but I have to refute these falsehoods again and again from it's fans that don't bother to research. I don't care about the guy's psuedo-religious philosophy, he's entitled to his beliefs. I do care when he exalts his philosophy on a mountain of lies about my religion and misleads impressionable people in the process.


If your looking for lies look no further than the bible...... you know... the book that was heavily edited for the purpose of population control.. which led to the deaths and persecution of millions and millions of people since its conception, and continues to do so still...! As for your Messiah, you are free to believe in whatever you want to believe, but you have no proof of your Messiah ever existing so my question to you is... how do you know its not a psuedo Messiah and Religion that you feel so strongly in protecting? wheres the proof?



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 


nowhere in the Bible are the Magi numbered

true
Matthew 1:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
but
11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.
3 gifts so 3 givers

moving on
Matthew 1:2 saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

question: if the wise men came from the east and its was because they follows a star in the east, which way would they be going to look for baby jebus?


(oh, and the three stars in the belt of Orion don't point to Sirius)
wrong
please look here:

bdaugherty.tripod.com...
edit on 17-2-2011 by racasan because: opps



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by zerbot565
 


if it can be backed up where are the references to scholar material (not wiki)


Again. Watch the video, it had no lack of reference or validity in the references or the reputation of the scholars quoted.

Zeitgeist was created to persuade people into 'believing ' in a one world order'. Once the TPTB get us all believing in one religion - or one lack or religion, they can only control us all the better. For you who think religion controls the masses? The lack of it = Devastation.

peace


The lack of it = Devastation ...............the lack of religion = Devastation! You serious? That was the funniest thing I read in a while. I do not believe in any religion and I don't go out murdering, stealing etc. I believe them all to be man made fabrications, part created for control, part created in an attempt to try give some meaning to this life. We all have this little thing called a conscience, which tells you the difference between right and wrong should you choose to listen to it, I don't need the threat of hell, or the possible exclusion from heaven to force me to live a good life......
You say a lack of religion = devastation, then obviously you do not know the history of religion and its devastation upon this world. Please explain to me how you came to this point of view....



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by kcfusion
 




You say a lack of religion = devastation, then obviously you do not know the history of religion and its devastation upon this world. Please explain to me how you came to this point of view....


Kind of make you wonder how modern humanity survived for hundreds of thousands of years, without organised religion really doesn't it!

Perhaps we all just got lucky, or else we were just better at coping with 'devastation'.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by kcfusion
 


This could be a myth too.

Virtually all ancient documents, the original sources are missing. Back in ancient times to preserve documents they simply copied them over and over and over. We have the copies but not the sources. I'm not talking about the Bible hear. I'm talking about all ancient documents.

The Bible was no different and there were a crap ton of copies. To determine if a document is authentic to its time period, scholars will use what's called Textual criticism.

They will look at things like history, the author's writing style, the language the work is written in, the dialect the language is written in, compare it to other works by the same author, and whatever else they have to do to determine when the original was written, by who and so forth. The Bible isn't the only book. All ancient documents including all the works from the Greek philosophers and things like that go through the same process to determine when they were written, by whom, and to find errors in the text and so forth.


One technique for example is where you look at all the copies and compare them side by side to find out where the errors are. For example if you had 100 documents and 99 of them had the same text, but this 1 text over here had something different, that's pretty suspect. That's probably an error.

But no matter how good at copying things you are, there will be errors. The Bible is no different. However, most scholars agree that the errors in the Bible are very few and they're mostly errors. Not something done on purpose. More than that, they're marked!

Not in all Bibles to save space, but if you go get yourself a full size newer translation of the Bible, the places where the text may not be correct, are actually marked. Usually people read right by it and don't even notice it, but it's there. It's not like anyone is trying to hide anything. Biblical errors when noted, are usually noted right on the same page as the text they occur in. This is the way my copy is and there's usually a note.

If you want to see where the Bible may of had copy errors, just look for one that marks disputed text. The online versions usually do as well, so you can just look there too via Google.

Also, the idea that the Bible was heavily edited by the Council of Nicaea and so forth are just myths. By that time the Canon had already been decided.

Also, it's a myth the Bible even has a single Canon. Also, books not in the Canon. It's not like they all vanished. You can usually still read them if you feel like looking them up. You may have to learn a couple other languages first though to read them all. Some of course are missing, but since they're missing we don't know what they said do we?

The thing is, the Bible didn't start out as a book. It started out as hundreds of books and then later was put together in various configurations. It's almost like a Linux distribution. To say the Bible was edited when they created the Canon doesn't make much sense. Before they created the Canon there was no Bible. There were just Christian texts.

But most scholars agree that the text we do have is mostly original as it was written and most disputed texts are caused by mistakes and not anyone intentionally trying to make the Bible say something that it wasn't supposed to. Since you're going against the scholars here, the burden of proof is on your to prove them wrong.
edit on 17-2-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by CuteAngel
 


Christianity started out as a catholic religion


Oh hell (no pun intended) that truly gave me a chuckle.

No... Christianity I can assure you, did NOT 'start out' Catholic.

Now, when you study that one on your own, and get over it, maybe you'll have a clue.

And no, I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just not up for trying to spoon feed someone who is so mired in propaganda, hearsay and just plane fallacies they can't see the forest for the trees.

Zeitgeist is nothing but a stretch of someone's imagination - trying their best (and failing) to refute Christ and make him nothing other than a man, if they give him that credit at all.

Watch the video from the OP.

If you can debunk the debunk video - go for it - I'll listen. But I can assure you, you cannot.

peace



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by racasan
 


I don't think you paid attention to the video that well. We can't assume that because there was three gifts there were also three magi. That would be a logical mistake. But more to the point, that wasn't the main issue in the video. Even if Jesus did have three magi, the other gods that they were comparing Jesus to did not.

If Jesus did have three magi, he would have been the only one. None of the other deities did. So even if you're correct, it does not show any similarities between Jesus and another deity. The burden is on you to show that even if he did have three magi visit him, how is that relevant? How does that prove Jesus never existed?

Also, a star in the east. You suffer from the same problem. Yes Jesus had a star in the east. The point of the video wasn't to show that there wasn't a star in the east. The point of the video was to show that none of the other deities DID have a star in the east. What is the relevance of the star in the east? We know how it relates to Jesus. How does that relate to the other deities who did not?

Also, the three stars aligning with Sirius. The video does not say that these stars don't align. What they are debunking is when Zeitgeist claims they align on a certain day. They're all stars. Stars don't move. They align 365 days a year. The point of the video is how is aligning on the 25th or any other day relevant to Jesus?

That's where those stars are 365 days a year? How is that important or relevant to the day Jesus was born? They would have been in the same spot the day before Jesus was born and the day after and 6 months after? So what?
edit on 17-2-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


"Oh hell (no pun intended) that truly gave me a chuckle.

No... Christianity I can assure you, did NOT 'start out' Catholic."
- Of course it did. Even if we are to assume what you say is true (which its not of course), the concept of GOD having an incarnation or coming in the human form is a PAGAN concept, has nothing to do with worship of the creator or Judaism...

"
And no, I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just not up for trying to spoon feed someone who is so mired in propaganda, hearsay and just plane fallacies they can't see the forest for the trees."

Zeitgeist did'nt seem like propaganda, is an eye opener and teaches people to think for themselves and do research so as to see things as to what they are
or what is to say that the Bible isn't a propaganda...? it serves as a wonderfull mass hypnosis...

"Watch the video from the OP.

If you can debunk the debunk video - go for it - I'll listen. But I can assure you, you cannot. "

I dont have to refute those videos, its nothing but junk, it speaks for itself. Those videos did a poor job to debunk Zeitgeist according to me... All zeitgeist is trying to say is that one needs to wake up from the fact that the Bible is not based on truth and has nothing to substantiate itself to be of any authority... its at best a comic book



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by kcfusion
 


This could be a myth too.

Virtually all ancient documents, the original sources are missing. Back in ancient times to preserve documents they simply copied them over and over and over. We have the copies but not the sources. I'm not talking about the Bible hear. I'm talking about all ancient documents.

The Bible was no different and there were a crap ton of copies. To determine if a document is authentic to its time period, scholars will use what's called Textual criticism.

They will look at things like history, the author's writing style, the language the work is written in, the dialect the language is written in, compare it to other works by the same author, and whatever else they have to do to determine when the original was written, by who and so forth. The Bible isn't the only book. All ancient documents including all the works from the Greek philosophers and things like that go through the same process to determine when they were written, by whom, and to find errors in the text and so forth.


One technique for example is where you look at all the copies and compare them side by side to find out where the errors are. For example if you had 100 documents and 99 of them had the same text, but this 1 text over here had something different, that's pretty suspect. That's probably an error.

But no matter how good at copying things you are, there will be errors. The Bible is no different. However, most scholars agree that the errors in the Bible are very few and they're mostly errors. Not something done on purpose. More than that, they're marked!

Not in all Bibles to save space, but if you go get yourself a full size newer translation of the Bible, the places where the text may not be correct, are actually marked. Usually people read right by it and don't even notice it, but it's there. It's not like anyone is trying to hide anything. Biblical errors when noted, are usually noted right on the same page as the text they occur in. This is the way my copy is and there's usually a note.

If you want to see where the Bible may of had copy errors, just look for one that marks disputed text. The online versions usually do as well, so you can just look there too via Google.

Also, the idea that the Bible was heavily edited by the Council of Nicaea and so forth are just myths. By that time the Canon had already been decided.

Also, it's a myth the Bible even has a single Canon. Also, books not in the Canon. It's not like they all vanished. You can usually still read them if you feel like looking them up. You may have to learn a couple other languages first though to read them all. Some of course are missing, but since they're missing we don't know what they said do we?
The thing is, the Bible didn't start out as a book. It started out as hundreds of books and then later was put together in various configurations. It's almost like a Linux distribution. To say the Bible was edited when they created the Canon doesn't make much sense. Before they created the Canon there was no Bible. There were just Christian texts.

But most scholars agree that the text we do have is mostly original as it was written and most disputed texts are caused by mistakes and not anyone intentionally trying to make the Bible say something that it wasn't supposed to. Since you're going against the scholars here, the burden of proof is on your to prove them wrong.
edit on 17-2-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)


I think you are mistaking what I said to a certain point, and maybe editing is not the right word to use. I am not disputing that the Bible's documents are probably authentic, but as you said the Bible did not start of as a book but hundreds of books, the bible is then the product of picking and choosing of christain documents to fullful a predetermined agenda to gather as many followers as possible. For example if I wanted to create a religious following I could pick and choose which original christian documents I wanted for my bible as long as they agreed with my perception of what christianity is..... if you get what I am saying.

Also do hundreds of documents based on belief's, similar or not, imply that these belief's are correct? Or does it just indicate common belief's at the time of writing? If we had hundreds of authentic pagan documents, all saying that the sun is god, which was then compiled into a pagan bible would this mean this bible is the truth?



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by zerbot565
 


if it can be backed up where are the references to scholar material (not wiki)


Again. Watch the video, it had no lack of reference or validity in the references or the reputation of the scholars quoted.

Zeitgeist was created to persuade people into 'believing ' in a one world order'. Once the TPTB get us all believing in one religion - or one lack or religion, they can only control us all the better. For you who think religion controls the masses? The lack of it = Devastation.

peace


Getting the world to follow one religion is the last thing TPTB wants. The reason I say this is because TPTB makes huge amounts of money during war and what causes most wars? Religion



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by CuteAngel
 



Originally posted by CuteAngel
reply to post by silo13
 

the concept of GOD having an incarnation or coming in the human form is a PAGAN concept, has nothing to do with worship of the creator or Judaism...


This thread is about the film Zeitgeist and the OP's films are for the purpose of debunking certain claims made in Zeitgeist. The claims that the OP's videos are debunking have nothing to do with Catholicism or Pagan origins of the concept of a God coming in human form.

If you feel that the Christian concept has Pagan origins and you wish to do some research and make a thread about it, that's fine. Maybe you're right, or maybe we're wrong. I'll probably show up and we can discuss that. It'll be fun. I'll put on coffee.

However, that's not an issue we're debating in this thread. No where in the OP's video is that topic, pagan origins of God coming as man, discussed.

The OP's video only discusses very specific factual errors about specific deities found in the original Zeitgeist movie. While it claims that Zeitgeist has errors, it does not make the claim that the Christian concept of god coming to earth as man is not a Pagan concept anywhere that I can see. That is not a topic that it points out as an error.

If you want to rant about that, that's fine I guess, but it would probably be better if you just watch the films, and see what they say, and you have any problem with the claims actually made in OP's video then maybe we can get somewhere.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:36 AM
link   
My 2cents worth here.
In the first zietgiests they were totally anti establishment,bush,rothschilds,youi name every goddamn reptillian was in there.
Now we get zietgiest moving forward,holy crap if ever there was a NWO movie thats it,a colony called venus in a city out of .what looks like LOGANS RUN.
Holy Bs ...talk about simple input/output=reaction=everybody conforming to a new idealogy.
Thats my 2 cents,judas was my friend and look what he did .



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by racasan
 


I don't think you paid attention to the video that well. We can't assume that because there was three gifts there were also three magi. That would be a logical mistake. But more to the point, that wasn't the main issue in the video. Even if Jesus did have three magi, the other gods that they were comparing Jesus to did not.


Sorry, I wasn’t responding to the videos, I was responding to the opening post

3 gifts therefore 3 givers is one possible solution to where the 3 magi thing came from



Also, a star in the east. You suffer from the same problem. Yes Jesus had a star in the east. The point of the video wasn't to show that there wasn't a star in the east. The point of the video was to show that none of the other deities DID have a star in the east. What is the relevance of the star in the east? We know how it relates to Jesus. How does that relate to the other deities who did not?


My hypothesis is that the bible can be read at two levels 1 in a simple straight forward way – jebus > son of god > ect
The second way is as occult (hidden) information that only those initiated into the mysteries can understand

For example
Matthew 1:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

So: wise men in the east

Matthew 1:2 saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

So: the wise men saw a star in the east and are alleged to have followed it to jebus

Jerusalem > east > wise men > east > star in the east

So which way did the wise men go?
If they went east, following the star then they went around the world to get to Jerusalem
Or
Whoever wrote the bible made a mistake
Or
Its an indication to the initiated that something else is going on, such as the belt stars in Orion pointing to the Sirius which points to where the sun rise’s



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by kcfusion
 


I think you misunderstand. I'm not here to say that what the Bible says is true or to claim that Jesus was real. Like I said before I'm mostly agnostic.

When I say the Bible has been textually analysed, all I'm saying is that, whatever text was changed in it, you can go see for yourself what text was changed or is missing in most cases if you liked. Nobody is trying to hide what text was changed.

If what the text says is true or not, I don't know. I'm not making any claims as to if the Bible is true or not. That's not we're debating. We're debating if the claims made in the OP's video are true or not and that's all. Therefore the only ones that need to provide evidence are the authors of Zeitgeist and people that argue that Zeitgeist is true because the authors of Zeitgeist are the ones that are claiming that Jesus never existed AND that Jesus was a Freemason even though he never existed. They need to provide evidence that both are true because they have claimed both.

I don't need to provide evidence or prove the Bible was true, because I don't know if Jesus was real or not. I'm not trying to tell you he was. And I don't know if the Bible was right or not. I'm not trying to tell you it is. I'm just saying we know pretty much what the original text said. I can't speak to if that text was correct or not.

But the supporters of Zeitgeist are the ones with the burden of proof because they're the ones making the claim that Zeitgeist is true. If they were to say, they didn't know if it were true or not, that would be different. But that's not the claim they're making.
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 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by racasan
 


I don't really know. Except the video does touch on the wise men follow the star to King Herod first, and when they got to him, the king sent them back to Bethlehem to search for Jesus if you read the whole story. But I'm only hear to debate the claims made in Zeitgeist. I'm not really here to debate the Bible. I don't know if the Bible is correct or not and I'm not here to make the claim that it is correct. All I'm debating is that the film makes comparisons between other gods and Jesus based on bad evidence.

The Bible can be wrong, and also the claims made in the Zeitgeist movie can be wrong too. It won't help to prove that the Bible was wrong. That's not what we're debating. We're debating the claims made by the Zeitgeist people which may also be wrong.
edit on 17-2-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by CuteAngel
 


Christianity started out as a catholic religion


Oh hell (no pun intended) that truly gave me a chuckle.

No... Christianity I can assure you, did NOT 'start out' Catholic.

Now, when you study that one on your own, and get over it, maybe you'll have a clue.

And no, I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just not up for trying to spoon feed someone who is so mired in propaganda, hearsay and just plane fallacies they can't see the forest for the trees.

Zeitgeist is nothing but a stretch of someone's imagination - trying their best (and failing) to refute Christ and make him nothing other than a man, if they give him that credit at all.

Watch the video from the OP.

If you can debunk the debunk video - go for it - I'll listen. But I can assure you, you cannot.

peace


1. Jesus Christ cannot be proved to even have existed so can you not see the gaping big hole in your argument and what your accusing Zeitgeist of doing. If not then your missing the point of Zeitgeist.
2. If Jesus Christ did exist as you are adament he did, is it not possible that he was in fact just a man and was hailed in society at the time as the son of god, due to his teachings and philosophy. It is said he bled like a man, had feelings and insecurities like a man, he died like all of us will eventually die and the supposed resurrection could easily have been mistaken as such even though a more ordinary explaination.... like his followers taking his body from the tomb so as not to have it in the hands of the men that killed him??



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   
Zeitgest totally refuted huh? that is like saying op that you were around when jesus was born so you know for a fact of his life if there truly was one, so do you? All religions are hypotheticals. Religion is one hell of a way to keep the masses scared to death, and weary of their every action as if the government does not get you with your unjust deeds, by god, he shall, thus the reason we the people never get off our knees as your god and all his literature quotes things like the following!

Psalm 75:7 “But God is the judge: he putteth down one, and setteth up another.”

Daniel 4:35 “And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?”

Daniel 2:21 “And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings:…”


In my eyes there has been corruption and death, genocide, and atrosities on epic proportions for over 2500 years, you sure that this god is good and has the average persons best interest in mind


Dont get me wrong here i am not mocking god, i am saying put 2and 2 together here per se. If God puts kings in that keep killing, maiming, and are unjust leaders towards there peoples, would you not start thinking that this god has some illnatured tendencies?






top topics



 
77
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join