Take the Zeitgeist Challenge

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

And Luke did too meet Jesus, he was a teenager during his lifetime. That is why his account deals a great deal with the healing miracles of Jesus because that was his big interest, he later became a physician.

There is no evidence that Luke knew or met Jesus in any capacity. Then again there is no evidence that Luke was the author of Luke and the Acts of the apostles.


G

Originally posted by DJM8507

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

However, all men can see if a person has a true faith or not by his works.

Wow, sounds like 99.9% of modern American Christians are in trouble...

That's a gross exaggeration. More like 57%. That is the percentage of "christians" who think there are many ways to "get to heaven".

However, just looking at works also ignored the fact that there are backslidden Christians and babes in Christ. Or new Christians. But here is a good verse to look at:

Matthew 7:13-14 (King James Version)


13Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


All I hear is someone who is so threatened and insecure that they are clamoring for evidence to the contrary.

If you were so confident in your faith, you wouldn't be sitting here pandering in your posts and signatures.

Like I always say, people who have to bring up religion constantly are trying to convince themselves as much as others.

If YOU feel it is a lie, then you know the difference, and you don't need to prove anything and go about your day.

I am with the PP that 200$ will go to anyone who can prove Jesus existed.
and no mythical hidden actual documents that no one has seen or knows the location counts.

I've watched the movie several times but never really felt like it was arguing against the existence of Christ. I think the argument was that the mythos of Christ was shaped by a pre-existing mold. Having done some religious studies on my own time, I can attest that most religions share a few fundamental, basic beliefs or holdings, as well as tell of similar legends.

Sitchin makes it pretty clear that the pantheon of "gods" was ultimately in a constant state of flux, and that whenever one would rise to the top he would revise the religious texts consumed by the slaves so that he was the new "God" of all and everything and so that his predecessor or his adversary was the new "devil."

My least favorite Christian legend is that of "hell." That makes it fairly unique. Well, at least the Eastern schools of spiritual thought don't threaten students with an eternity aflame for "sinning." This is why, while I respect Christians and Christainity and try to live by the moral universal philosophical imperatives of Christ, I don't see the Bible as a direct pipeline to "God."

Anyway, I thought the point of Zeitgeist is that we've made the mythos of 911 into something of a religious school; and just like how the OGCT on 911 is a myth, a huge chunk of most religious holdings is based on myth, myth perhaps loosely rooted in Truth but definitely designed with a specific use, a purpose. It's an important message: He who controls the myths we use to rationalize our irrational behaviors, controls those irrational behaviors.

In the end, when you boil it all down, civilization itself is a psy op. Religion is but one part of that psy op. Christianity is no different. It does some good things and some bad things. More than anything, it is a tool or a means of political socialization that keeps the slaves slaves and the masters the masters. Nothing like a mythos that tells you turn the other cheek while you're being raped because after you die good things will happen to you for doing so. Nothing like a mythos that tells you that the Messiah from the sky is going to save you and you alone because you followed the rules and didn't rise up and smash the oppressor who so clearly deserved it. No?

peace

reply to post by Bigwhammy


wow, you christians are fanatics, in a very bad way.

If you havent learned anything in the past 2 years, listen to this.

ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE

Zeitgeist can be true, the bible can be true, santa claus, the easter bunny, leprechauns

They can all be realities.

As soon as you choose to believe, or not believe, a specific idea or concept, you effectively create a barrier in your own conciousness to those ideas limiting the ability of your conciousness to expand. By accpeting the possiblilty of anything, you allow your awareness and perspective to grow, which is why we are here on Earth. Learn lessons of life and return to our greater self, "our" greater self, and share our experience and newly gained knowledge.

Put all your bible thumping crap aside, and open your mind. Its amazing how far a little open-mindedness can go.

Thats what Jesus taught.

reply to post by nixie_nox


just thought i'd reply to your post. you seem like a logical fellow. so answer as logically as you can, why it's not a problem as long as it's against what you personally believe to be untrue, but is bad when it's something you believe? in other words, it's okay for zeitgeist to be written, purchased, and is clearly doing a good thing (in a rather odd way), but it's not okay if someone defends against zeitgeist? do you see any logic in that position?

[edit on 12-8-2008 by undo]

reply to post by Lightmare

To believe Zeitgeist is to embrace ignorance rather than deny it.

Hmmm. Turn the monitor back right side up perhaps. Here's a book called "Forgery in Christianity" by Joseph Weless. Of course some on here will refute it without reading, but here is a person definitely denying ignorance, and he has a ton of references to back up the 365 pages suggesting strongly ...well the title says it all!

Here's the link:

www.jordanmaxwell.com...

I'm presently on page 55 and finding it a rather interesting and quite thorough read. I just wish I had the paper copy.

Hi all. Let me be brief. Zeitgeist, at least the first part, is complete fabrication based on outdated information. All attempts to link jesus to every monomyth ever have failed miserably on the grounds that there is ZERO evidence to support the assertions. The whole premise is a vast reaching over simplification so that wannabe authors can hock books to you and I. Period.

You have to stop and ask why NO ONE in any related ACADEMIC field is cited in the footnotes. You have to ask why not one single shred of actual physical evidence is cited to support the claims.

There is "evidence" offered mind you, but the evidence is cherry picked to support an assertion. The assertion that jesus and every christ like figure ever are all based on solar mythology was a plausible theory at one time, however, it lost support as more actual evidence came to light.

Correlation does not equal causation! Say it loud and proud.

For a nearly complete dissection of the first part of this film check this:
ct.grenme.com...

oh yeah. you are the same guy that said Nibiru doesnt exsist and offeered$$$$...

when i proved you wrong you pulled your post...

internet troll, you are not fooling anyone...

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


"Islam has overtaken Roman Catholicism to become the world's largest single religious denomination, according to L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper." www.timesonline.co.uk...

This appears to not support the very first line from the link you provided (saying that Christianity is the largest...I had documentation back in the 90's that showed that Islam was much larger, and so this really caught my eye), and does little to reasure the reader of it's credibility to say nothing about an apparent agenda. I wonder what other surprises and bent facts are in store for the reader...it would be nice if the reader could right away find out about who the authors are etc...but it appears like they would rather keep that part hidden for some strange reason.

Oh and I see they have a link for donations...pass the hat sort of thing perhaps? Right off the bat here I see three eyebrow raisers: 1. the first line of the link you provide appears to be innacurate. 2. A click on "about" tells one nothing about who the organization or author of the web site is. 3. There is a donations link to support the cause. 4. You post anonomously...just like the author's of the link you provide us with...anonomous. Why isn't there any author? Why no information behind the web site??? These are two very important questions.



[edit on 13-8-2008 by skyshow]

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


It’s been a long time since I’ve seen such a flurry of interest in something that apparently is very threatening to organized religion as this film. Now of course we must exclude the plethora of political hobgoblins and wedge issues that fuel the flames amongst the sheep of Christendom, but were this film not threatening to the faith it’s doubtful we would see so many well developed web sites and massive bloggers all over the internet rushing to refute this film.

As usual, and with the site brought to our attention by the anonymous poster, we see endless reactionary writings based on conjecture, speculation, circumstance and rampant subjectivity that claims to refute something also based on subjective beliefs! It then becomes somewhat circular and pointless.

The web site refers over and over to the movie as attempting to be a scientific analysis…huh? I have watched the movie several times and it definitely is not scientific. It simply does what it intends to do, and that is raise issues and draw parallels to some very interesting coincidences in human history. If you compare something to the sun rising and setting, for example, as the movie does, why do you try to refute that? You know (this subject is really quite comical, and I don't know why religious folk take things so seriously and get so incredibly bent out of shape...well, ok yes I do, it's called: "cognitive dissonance"...but anyway I digress) remember what the church did when a certain someone suggested that the earth orbits the sun rather than the other way around? Oh man, there were a lot of ticked off people over that one! What makes anyone think this movie and it's claims might provoke some other response?

Obviously it is threatening. Obviously there are some strong motivations for folks with a vested interest to work hard at trying to keep the flock behind the gates and fences, lest a few begin to stray and take all the sheep, and their money. The site suggested that the movie was based on information found freely in the public domain and thus try to overturn the premise of the information being “hidden”. The references it made are to works that are attempting to bring this information into the light of day and so that it won’t be hidden…what kind of an argument is this?

The whole things reads like passive desperation. While it says that the movie attempts to pass itself off as something “objective” vs subjective, this is in fact what the author of that article (who we don’t know who because it doesn’t say) is trying to do.

Hypocrisy and complete rubbish if you want my opinion (and reads like everything else coming out of Christendom regarding this movie that I have read online) and I doubt you do, but you got it anyway, and I’m not asking for donations! I also don't have anything here to lose as I don't have a whole life invested in the faith, nor am I in the business of religion, however were I in the church business, I might be whistling a different tune, indeed if I enjoyed that lucrative cash flow and power of the pulpit I would be doing back flips to change minds regarding Zeitgeist, so much so that I would hope to persuade the followers of my faith to not even watch the film. Luckily I have morals and indeed a conscience and would never make my living this way.






[edit on 13-8-2008 by skyshow]

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Ok, why is it that the christian fanatics are the rudest people and possibly the most idiotic and naive people? I went to 12 years of school learning about jesus and the teachers contrdicted themselves every 8 minutes or so. The truth is no one knows anything in this world except fake ideologies that no one can prove or disprove. So be you christians start ripping me apart, close your eyes and think outside the box for a second. Ask yourself, why am I always rude to people who don't believe in what I believe? Then maybe grow up.

reply to post by Myendica

The truth is no one knows anything in this world except fake ideologies that no one can prove or disprove.

If this is true then they cannot be fake,they haven't been proven or disproven.

reply to post by jakyll

Ok fine I mis-worded it. Made up ideologies. That better for ya?
Like religion is made up based on things that can't be proven or disporven. Everything you experience is made up in some way or another. 2 plus 2 equals 4 because someone made up the term for 2 and decided that 2 of them made up something called 4.

reply to post by skyshow


I starred you and I thank you for your post.

To the evangelicals:

It is this simple: I believe in God and I believe in his son. I don't have to convince anyone of that to feel fulfilled, justified, or learned.

Either we are comfortable with our reality of things, or we are constantly looking for affirmation that what we believe is true, accurate or accepted.

The problem that I mentioned before and many on this thread are supporting is that: we don't actually know what the original writings even said (as they don't exist), no less be able to argue about them in an informed and intelligent way.

So many truths are being revealed now by so many accredited scholars or lay scholars like myself. Meaning also; too many of us are no longer content with anything having to do with religion. This seems to be a tough one to grasp and I might admit; I would have felt the same - many years ago. But I got over it and decided to let go of the "carrot" and search for accurate truth.

I suggest that you be willing to search out all this new insight yourself and to not take anyone's word for it and that includes myself! I guarantee you that if you sidestep your "accepted" scholars or theologians - you will be stunned!

"The truth shall set you free, but first it will make you miserable!"

reply to post by NOTurTypical


It seems to me that is all in how you interpret what you are reading. If you take it at its word, then works are synonymous with faith that will save you from punishment. One without the other will not get you the saving grace you desire. That IS if you are taking the bible at its word rather than your interpretation of it.

Originally posted by justamomma
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

It seems to me that is all in how you interpret what you are reading. If you take it at its word, then works are synonymous with faith that will save you from punishment. One without the other will not get you the saving grace you desire. That IS if you are taking the bible at its word rather than your interpretation of it.

I know exactly what I am saying. A faith that doesn't produce works is a "dead" faith. But that doesn't mean that works need to be carried out for a specific amount of time to have salvation in the future. Salvation is a one time deal by God's grace, now if a person claims to have saving faith yet his life is no different than it was before he asked for it, then it can be assumed his faith isn't real, or he has faith in the story of Jesus being true. Make sense? Or here. lemme put it another way. Satan knows for a fact Jesus is Lord, do you think he is saved? The evidence whether or not a person is saved is if they REPENT as a result of their coming to Christ.

Anyone can say they "know God", big deal so do the demons, anyone can say that "Jesus is Lord", big deal, Satan will admit this too. What saves a man or woman is if they trust the Lord enough to put their life in his hands. If their life is in a process of change or not.

That is exactly what the scripture says, salvation is SIMPLE, accept Jesus as your savior, that means also to accept his laws for your life as well. But that act of salvation is not a progressive thing, it just means that if it isn't genuine there will be no fruits associated with it. It will be a "dead" faith.

That's what "born again" means, that the person isn't the same old sinful self anymore, he is conscious of his sins, and conscious of trying to walk the straight and narrow just like his Master, Jesus Christ.

reply to post by NOTurTypical



Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling doesn't seem to be a one time deal to me. Sounds like an ongoing process.

Originally posted by justamomma
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling doesn't seem to be a one time deal to me. Sounds like an ongoing process.

It is for those who's faith isn't genuine. For someone who truly accepts Christ they will also at that point repent and turn from their sins. From that point they will love the things that God loves, and will hate the things that God hates.

If a person want to hold on to things of this world then he will suffer the same fate as the world.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


What does all of that have to do with Zeitgeist the movie? Listen here, I know where the nearby mega-entertainment-metropolis church is at, and I know how to open the front doors and enter on Sunday with all the other SUV driving, cool-aide drinking, drunk on religion sheeple if I want to. I am on this thread to try and see how folks reason this thing out and then I come to your posts and tell me how it's any different that proselytizing Sunday morning at some church somewhere? huh? How can you get on here and debate such subjective superstitions as the existence of whom you call God, demons and Satan? How is this adding to the conversation when you present unverified variables and figures from mythology like this? What are you telling us that we haven't already heard before? I don't see one shred of evidence that these gods even exist as presented, yet you serve them up like it's something set in stone. How is that? By the same way, I could print up here in a blog post how Santa Clause climbs down the chimney on the third day following the Winter Solctice to deliver for all the little boys and girls toys manufactured by little elfs at the North Poll and brough hither by a team of rambunctious raindeer, and of course we all would know that was the ordained gospel...jeesh, do you actually think you're going to convince ATS'ers of such? You think we come here to seek to repent and be saved by your Jesus god? Unbelievable.

I'm not trying to be a jerk here. Ney. I'm trying to say that at ATS we damand a bit more than the regular tired and worn out religious mantra. Are you trying to debate that Zeitgeist is a fraud, or are you trying to persuade others to believe in your brand of mythology and it's gods? In my opinion, what your actually succeeding in doing is pointing out a major part of why ATS exists in the first place!


[edit on 14-8-2008 by skyshow]