Archaeologists uncover pre-Christian temple in Norway

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
the author
better known as Acharya which means something like "Hindu teacher"
Author of The Christ Conspiracy, The Greatest Story Ever Sold
She thinks Christ is a faberication
Check out "Stellar House Publishing" on the web.
Shoot just Google her. She has made a career of bashing not only Christians
but Christ himself.
Anyone on this thread that would deny this?

She believes Christianity is founded on earlier myths and the characters depicted in Christianity are based upon Roman, Greek, Egyptian, and other myths

en.wikipedia.org...

Well, she's not completely wrong. A lot of what mainstream Christianity is has too many similarities with older beliefs. It seems to have absorbed many different beliefs to accommodate different people, in other words it became a political thing. If she states that the man "Jesus" never existed though, well that's wrong.

Originally posted by Danbones
One aspect of this article is that it states they felt the need to protect their holy site from Christians.
This intrigues me...
Why do christians have to destroy and/or build on top of other people's holy sites?
Also do you have a favourite example of a holy site that Christians have built on top of, or is there such a site where you are?

edit on 17-3-2012 by Danbones because: spelling grammer

This intrigues you in 2012, the POSSIBLE (bearing in mind this is just a guess/suggestion from someone, not a fact) destruction and/or building on top of other people's holy sites from Christians over a thousand years ago?

Seriously?

Maybe hop in a time machine and ask em

Originally posted by Danbones

Originally posted by Malcher

Originally posted by Danbones
if you want to bash the authors opinion
fine
state the opinion you disagree with
then prove its wrong

where have you done that?
SHOW ME!

That is not how things work though.

If i tell you i have a little green elf locked in a box but dont have the key to let him out. Then i demand proof that there is no green elf in the box or else we are to assume that since you cannot prove there is nor green elf then ther is a green elf in the box.

Is this normal to you?

here at ATS the accepted decorum is if you make a statement the readers have a right to ask
link please
to not do that while demanding others do so is considered bad form at best
hypocritical at worst
go ahead ask anyone

have you not noticed the HOAX bin?
for those that make unsubstantiated claims etc

my favourite christians tell me to be a hypocrit is the worst sin of all
methinks you give christians a bad name all by your self by behaving so

edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

Dan, how am i supposed to substantiate asking someone for proof?

You want to believe so you do believe. I see absolutely nothing that substantiates the claims in the articles. Do you or are you merely content in attacking someone who asks for proof. Do you not like proof?

Define: Substantiate

www.google.com...=en&sa=X&ei=D3tmT47eF_GB0QHButGSCA&ved=0CBgQBSgA&q=substantiate&spell=1&ba v=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=590ed4f3649af2e1&ix=sea&ion=1&biw=1130&bih=978

Synonyms:
prove - corroborate - confirm - verify - establish

You are pulling out too many cards here.

Card one: Your claim that i need to prove that asking for proof needs proof. Proof of what exactly?

Card Two: Your claim asking for proof is against the sites rules. I never saw such a rule on a forum before.

Card Three: Your claim that i speak for Christians. I made no such claim and would say that i do not speak for anyone but myself.

Has nothing to do with Religion at all just if someone is making up stories and saying the story is true i ask for proof. Is there something inherently wrong with asking for proof or are we all supposed to be sheeple? Baaaahhh.

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by Danbones
One aspect of this article is that it states they felt the need to protect their holy site from Christians.
This intrigues me...
Why do christians have to destroy and/or build on top of other people's holy sites?
Also do you have a favourite example of a holy site that Christians have built on top of, or is there such a site where you are?

edit on 17-3-2012 by Danbones because: spelling grammer

This intrigues you in 2012, the POSSIBLE (bearing in mind this is just a guess/suggestion from someone, not a fact) destruction and/or building on top of other people's holy sites from Christians over a thousand years ago?

Seriously?

Maybe hop in a time machine and ask em

edit on 18-3-2012 by blueorder because: (no reason given)

what an odd statement

well since I am decendant from a people who had it done to them maybe I have an interest


the sites moto is deny ingnorance not perpetrate it

Originally posted by Danbones

what an odd statement

well since I am decendant from a people who had it done to them maybe I have an interest

the sites moto is deny ingnorance not perpetrate it

what an odd reply.

What are you talking about

a) we don't know if this WAS the reason, it is simply a suggestion from someone in 2012

b) As it happened over a thousand years ago (if it indeed happened for the reason the person making the assertion suggests) I'd lose the victim shroud

Deny ignorance indeed

Originally posted by Malcher

Originally posted by Danbones

Originally posted by Malcher

Originally posted by Danbones
if you want to bash the authors opinion
fine
state the opinion you disagree with
then prove its wrong

where have you done that?
SHOW ME!

That is not how things work though.

If i tell you i have a little green elf locked in a box but dont have the key to let him out. Then i demand proof that there is no green elf in the box or else we are to assume that since you cannot prove there is nor green elf then ther is a green elf in the box.

Is this normal to you?

here at ATS the accepted decorum is if you make a statement the readers have a right to ask
link please
to not do that while demanding others do so is considered bad form at best
hypocritical at worst
go ahead ask anyone

have you not noticed the HOAX bin?
for those that make unsubstantiated claims etc

my favourite christians tell me to be a hypocrit is the worst sin of all
methinks you give christians a bad name all by your self by behaving so

edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

Dan, how am i supposed to substantiate asking someone for proof?

You want to believe so you do believe. I see absolutely nothing that substantiates the claims in the articles. Do you or are you merely content in attacking someone who asks for proof. Do you not like proof?

Define: Substantiate

www.google.com...=en&sa=X&ei=D3tmT47eF_GB0QHButGSCA&ved=0CBgQBSgA&q=substantiate&spell=1&ba v=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=590ed4f3649af2e1&ix=sea&ion=1&biw=1130&bih=978

Synonyms:
prove - corroborate - confirm - verify - establish

You are pulling out too many cards here.

Card one: Your claim that i need to prove that asking for proof needs proof. Proof of what exactly?

Card Two: Your claim asking for proof is against the sites rules. I never saw such a rule on a forum before.

Card Three: Your claim that i speak for Christians. I made no such claim and would say that i do not speak for anyone but myself.

Has nothing to do with Religion at all just if someone is making up stories and saying the story is true i ask for proof. Is there something inherently wrong with asking for proof or are we all supposed to be sheeple? Baaaahhh.

you made statements
I have asked for you to reference then you refused
I and several posters have referenced our opinions
you have stated thats not how it works
Well, at ATS that IS how it works
I am not responsible for your posting issues and lacks

several posters have posted opposing positions to the author as have I myself re the peaceful acceptance of christianity by former norse pagans
with references


you are simply causing thread derailment
which is in effect promotion of Ignorance
not the denial of it as is the moto of this site

is that what christianity is all about?
the sun goes round the earth
the earth is flat?
burn the whiches kill the unbelieves?

its christian bashing ?
no its ingnorance bashing

you are quite welcome to join the discussion if you care to play by the same rules as everyone else
to change the rules to suit your lack?
not so much

Originally posted by AdamsMurmur

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
the author
better known as Acharya which means something like "Hindu teacher"
Author of The Christ Conspiracy, The Greatest Story Ever Sold
She thinks Christ is a faberication
Check out "Stellar House Publishing" on the web.
Shoot just Google her. She has made a career of bashing not only Christians
but Christ himself.
Anyone on this thread that would deny this?

She believes Christianity is founded on earlier myths and the characters depicted in Christianity are based upon Roman, Greek, Egyptian, and other myths

en.wikipedia.org...

Well, she's not completely wrong. A lot of what mainstream Christianity is has too many similarities with older beliefs. It seems to have absorbed many different beliefs to accommodate different people, in other words it became a political thing. If she states that the man "Jesus" never existed though, well that's wrong.

hi AM
I do not ever beleive any one is wrong or right.
Being either is not possible. thats why there is the Yin/Yan.
I was slow in editing the post above take a look.
In a way I could care less about whether Christ lived as the story is told or not.
Shoot that was 2000 years ago.
Even if you could know the truth of the day, could you rationalize the concepts of the day with your modern brain. I think not well.
The point is, in this thread, is that she hijacked a discovery in Norway and some here are eatting it up like a shark feeding frenzy on nothing but myth and absolutly no proof. She is entilted to her opinion. But she should be (held to the fire about it). only kidding
the posters need to be

The christians had a couple of reasons for building on these sites. First, the local people were used to going to these sites and it was easier to convert people to Christianity this way. Their main concern was conversion and secondly they would destroy. Second thing is that these sites had geomagnetic properties, sometimes coming from underground rivers or even the eternal fire of the native culture. Years and years of fires in one spot makes a carbon chimney down to underground water. Energy follows along this carbon pipe up to the surface and it somehow attracts people. It's not all bull, the churches knew of this for thousands of years. Is taking over these sites evil? I don't know, if the people didn't convert they were killed so getting them to church was better. Orders usually came from way up in the church. The people who buried this site were aware of the Christians ways and tried to preserve it by hiding it. They weren't a bunch of dumb heathens. These were probably regular people of the time. I don't agree with the ways that were used in the past. I hope those ways stay in the past. I hold nothing against the church of today either for this. This was the way it was everywhere those days.

reply to post by MrSinister


Mr. Sinister you are a breath of fresh air in what could have been a really good thread - thanks for the links.

Thought I would add this link www.guardian.co.uk...[/url] which shows a recent discovery in Cambridge UK of an Anglo Saxon burial just on the cusp of Christianity, combining elements that are both pagan and Christian.

Nothing wrong in hedging your bets eh?

Interesting thread Dan - learning a lot - I always thought that this area of the world isn't exposed much or perhaps I didn't take the interest.

S&F for interest level - I think I'll be delving into this a bit more - the area in general and then get deeper.

Originally posted by Malcher
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Apparently you do not like this, but you are going to have to get used to this. We are not sheep at the trough.

Where exactly are the extraordinary claims? The archaeological process shows that the site was hidden or sealed. You can tell by comparing the matrix covering the site with that around it.
Then the lead investigator says that from his experience as a scientist, this site is a temple site. OK, we can trust him on that, right?
Then he states that elements are missing from the sealed site, and that it was the habit of the Norse to take those elements with them to use in new temple sites. History shows that there was an influx of pagan Norse in Iceland about this time. Why would they hide the site as they left? Christians destroyed the old temple sites...but the land was still sacred to the pagans.

Again, what's all the hub-bub, Bub?

Are you trying to say that it is bashing Christianity to refer to coercive conversion? Wrong argument.

You'll note I have already questioned the initial link...something smells about the process. But the archaeologist provides the relevant opinions on what he has there, and he has spent a lot of time in his studies acquiring the knowledge to make such a determination. We haven't seen the site reports, so his opinion is the best material available at this time...but it is an educated opinion. Again, I really don't see what has your knickers in a knot unless you take offence at the inference that Christians destroyed the liturgical elements of those who came before. Tough. They did.

Originally posted by MrSinister
If anyone has an actual interest in the find (not christian-bashing and bickering) this 13-page document (in danish) describes the site pretty well. Some nice pics included

www.transpersonlig.no...

Hi mr S
I am thanks for the link.

reply to post by longjohnbritches

Hello.

Even if you could know the truth of the day, could you rationalize the concepts of the day with your modern brain. I think not well.

I thought I did rationalize it by calling it a political move. /shrug

The point is, in this thread, is that she hijacked a discovery in Norway and some here are eatting it up like a shark feeding frenzy on nothing but myth and absolutly no proof.

The people here are trying expose certain things. It's our history and we have a right to learn. They may be going at it a little aggressively but that's fine. I guess I see your point anyway.

There's more info here though where she goes into greater detail: www.freethoughtnation.com...

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Malcher
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Apparently you do not like this, but you are going to have to get used to this. We are not sheep at the trough.

Where exactly are the extraordinary claims? The archaeological process shows that the site was hidden or sealed. You can tell by comparing the matrix covering the site with that around it.
Then the lead investigator says that from his experience as a scientist, this site is a temple site. OK, we can trust him on that, right?
Then he states that elements are missing from the sealed site, and that it was the habit of the Norse to take those elements with them to use in new temple sites. History shows that there was an influx of pagan Norse in Iceland about this time. Why would they hide the site as they left? Christians destroyed the old temple sites...but the land was still sacred to the pagans.

Again, what's all the hub-bub, Bub?

Are you trying to say that it is bashing Christianity to refer to coercive conversion? Wrong argument.

You'll note I have already questioned the initial link...something smells about the process. But the archaeologist provides the relevant opinions on what he has there, and he has spent a lot of time in his studies acquiring the knowledge to make such a determination. We haven't seen the site reports, so his opinion is the best material available at this time...but it is an educated opinion. Again, I really don't see what has your knickers in a knot unless you take offence at the inference that Christians destroyed the liturgical elements of those who came before. Tough. They did.

Hi Johnny,

How can we believe you when you say you are an archeoligist?
Can you post the definition of one and show how it hub bubs off your post above.
Thanks ljb

reply to post by AdamsMurmur


thank you
the link you post should be required reading on this thread since it carries the body of the op
is in the op
and has been posted several times not just by the OP
but by posters

Back in the day politics and religion and the law and daily life were quite intertwined.

I'm sure this is why in the link I posted on pg 1 there is a whole history of the norse leaving to find places to live across the atlantic
...................................................................................................................................................... ...........
funny it is said to CROSS the ocean
now Why is that term used?
the celtic cross as is shown in another post on page one is one thing that was totally usurped by the christian religion and its real use and history was completely buried by the church

which certainly denied the people a wealth of knowledge and use,,,the chistians destroyed the manyan versions they found in the new world when they burned all the Mayan codexes

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Malcher
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Apparently you do not like this, but you are going to have to get used to this. We are not sheep at the trough.

Where exactly are the extraordinary claims? The archaeological process shows that the site was hidden or sealed. You can tell by comparing the matrix covering the site with that around it.
Then the lead investigator says that from his experience as a scientist, this site is a temple site. OK, we can trust him on that, right?
Then he states that elements are missing from the sealed site, and that it was the habit of the Norse to take those elements with them to use in new temple sites. History shows that there was an influx of pagan Norse in Iceland about this time. Why would they hide the site as they left? Christians destroyed the old temple sites...but the land was still sacred to the pagans.

Again, what's all the hub-bub, Bub?

Are you trying to say that it is bashing Christianity to refer to coercive conversion? Wrong argument.

You'll note I have already questioned the initial link...something smells about the process. But the archaeologist provides the relevant opinions on what he has there, and he has spent a lot of time in his studies acquiring the knowledge to make such a determination. We haven't seen the site reports, so his opinion is the best material available at this time...but it is an educated opinion. Again, I really don't see what has your knickers in a knot unless you take offence at the inference that Christians destroyed the liturgical elements of those who came before. Tough. They did.

Hi Johnny,

How can we believe you when you say you are an archeoligist?
Can you post the definition of one and show how it hub bubs off your post above.
Thanks ljb

you can believe JC is an archaeologist because he IS an archaeologist
and a very experienced and methodical and careful one as well
he is highly regarded at ATS

sooo...how can we believe this Jesus Christ is the son of god?

are there any archeaologists that will vouch for that fact?
or is it a hoax?

Originally posted by AdamsMurmur
reply to post by longjohnbritches

 

Hello.

Even if you could know the truth of the day, could you rationalize the concepts of the day with your modern brain. I think not well.

I thought I did rationalize it by calling it a political move. /shrug

The point is, in this thread, is that she hijacked a discovery in Norway and some here are eatting it up like a shark feeding frenzy on nothing but myth and absolutly no proof.

The people here are trying expose certain things. It's our history and we have a right to learn. They may be going at it a little aggressively but that's fine. I guess I see your point anyway.

There's more info here though where she goes into greater detail: www.freethoughtnation.com...

hey AM
Oh yeah when I look at the post it does seem that I was zeroing in on you.
I was generalizing about how hard it is to know, feel and smell things that far back in our past with any amount of certainty. My bad
Thanks for the link.
Any bets on where her bankroll comes from?
later

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Originally posted by AdamsMurmur
reply to post by longjohnbritches

 

Hello.

Even if you could know the truth of the day, could you rationalize the concepts of the day with your modern brain. I think not well.

I thought I did rationalize it by calling it a political move. /shrug

The point is, in this thread, is that she hijacked a discovery in Norway and some here are eatting it up like a shark feeding frenzy on nothing but myth and absolutly no proof.

The people here are trying expose certain things. It's our history and we have a right to learn. They may be going at it a little aggressively but that's fine. I guess I see your point anyway.

There's more info here though where she goes into greater detail: www.freethoughtnation.com...

hey AM
Oh yeah when I look at the post it does seem that I was zeroing in on you.
I was generalizing about how hard it is to know, feel and smell things that far back in our past with any amount of certainty. My bad
Thanks for the link.
Any bets on where her bankroll comes from?
later

the link is in the OP
you mean you didn't know

reply to post by rickymouse


thanks RM
you make some very interesting points
conversion and
the lay lines

of course in all the side tracking I forgot the lay lines and standing stones and henges are all over europe
my bad
thank you so much for introducing that concept on to this thread

Originally posted by ironorchid
reply to post by MrSinister

 

Mr. Sinister you are a breath of fresh air in what could have been a really good thread - thanks for the links.

Thought I would add this link www.guardian.co.uk...[/url] which shows a recent discovery in Cambridge UK of an Anglo Saxon burial just on the cusp of Christianity, combining elements that are both pagan and Christian.

Nothing wrong in hedging your bets eh?

thank you so much for that link
considering the post re the OTHER history of the celtic cross
there are maybe more then one reason why the cross was important