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

reply to post by shagreen heart


You may find this concept an interesting area to explore:

The Correspondence Theory of Truth

reply to post by shagreen heart


Man I totally disagree with you, but that's your business. I'm totally fine with it just as long as you don't lie about my religion.

As far as reality goes, well, Humanity isn't really the best judge of what reality is. We can basically only perceive the universe through a crack in the door. So, unless you can see ultraviolet light, feel x-rays, and taste gamma rays you are no judge of reality. Even before I became a Christian I was aware that the world as we know it is largely subjective; books, imagination, games, memories, emotion. The material stuff doesn't matter and I don't lend much credence to people who see the universe in atoms. What you define as reality is really just consensus, what the majority believes to be real. I don't lend much credence to the majority. For instance, I have had a first hand encounter with a demon. This was not a subjective experience unless you think a 15 year old girl can break a metal cross in half and open a Bible to Revelations (I don't remember the chapter but it had something to do with the Beast) without touching it. However, most people have not experienced such things so consensus would dictate that there is no such thing as a demon. I have also experienced the saving power of Ya'hshuah Messiah personally and this has a somewhat lesser consensus so it is debated tirelessly rather than completely discounted.

I also take offense at you assuming my belief and that of others is based on fear. I don't dwell on death so much as I used to (different reasons than you'd think), I certainly don't fear it. If I die, I return to my Father, if he is not there then I won't have a consciousness to give a damn. The important thing is that right now, I am loved and happy even when everything around me is horrible. If I am deceiving myself, then it is all a happy dream and there is no point to anything anyway. You really don't seem to understand that people with faith are the only people who haven't accepted this cosmic nihilism that this "reality consensus" keeps pushing. No God=No direction, no point, and no plot. Sure you can make your own meaning (still nihilism) but wouldn't that just be you deceiving yourself? See what I mean? So, I guess what I'm getting at is that, my faith if it stems from anything it is the hope that there is a point and some source of all love.

Nobody made this point better than this man: "One word, Ma'am," he said, coming back from the fire; limping, because of the pain. "One word. All you've been saying is quite right, I shouldn't wonder. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one more thing to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things-trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then al...l I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we're leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that's a small loss if the world's as dull a place as you say."-Puddleglum in the Silver Chair by C.S. Lewis

By the way, I would like to apologize for how I've treated you in the thread. I've been dismissive, sarcastic, and generally an ass.

reply to post by kallisti36


I really liked that post.

Perhaps they are both dreams, this one, and the one promised by Christianity? Perhaps there are only dreams. In which case it would seem to be a good idea to dream in as elevated a manner as possible, finding the most loving, inclusive, unifying dream of all.

If 'God is love' and yet we are capable of imagining a more loving or forgiving or all encompassing dream of 'God' than that offered by our chosen religion, then perhaps we have outgrown that vison of God.

When we find ourselves having to make excuses for Him and rationalizing away His lack of love, then we are perhaps ignoring the signs that its time to expand our perception of God and shed our former beliefs for something more expansive and worthy.

reply to post by shagreen heart


i don't think you understood my post but at the moment,
i'm in too much discomfort to explain.

Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by shagreen heart

 

Man I totally disagree with you, but that's your business. I'm totally fine with it just as long as you don't lie about my religion.

As far as reality goes, well, Humanity isn't really the best judge of what reality is. We can basically only perceive the universe through a crack in the door. So, unless you can see ultraviolet light, feel x-rays, and taste gamma rays you are no judge of reality. Even before I became a Christian I was aware that the world as we know it is largely subjective; books, imagination, games, memories, emotion. The material stuff doesn't matter and I don't lend much credence to people who see the universe in atoms. What you define as reality is really just consensus, what the majority believes to be real. I don't lend much credence to the majority. For instance, I have had a first hand encounter with a demon. This was not a subjective experience unless you think a 15 year old girl can break a metal cross in half and open a Bible to Revelations (I don't remember the chapter but it had something to do with the Beast) without touching it. However, most people have not experienced such things so consensus would dictate that there is no such thing as a demon. I have also experienced the saving power of Ya'hshuah Messiah personally and this has a somewhat lesser consensus so it is debated tirelessly rather than completely discounted.

I also take offense at you assuming my belief and that of others is based on fear. I don't dwell on death so much as I used to (different reasons than you'd think), I certainly don't fear it. If I die, I return to my Father, if he is not there then I won't have a consciousness to give a damn. The important thing is that right now, I am loved and happy even when everything around me is horrible. If I am deceiving myself, then it is all a happy dream and there is no point to anything anyway. You really don't seem to understand that people with faith are the only people who haven't accepted this cosmic nihilism that this "reality consensus" keeps pushing. No God=No direction, no point, and no plot. Sure you can make your own meaning (still nihilism) but wouldn't that just be you deceiving yourself? See what I mean? So, I guess what I'm getting at is that, my faith if it stems from anything it is the hope that there is a point and some source of all love.

Nobody made this point better than this man: "One word, Ma'am," he said, coming back from the fire; limping, because of the pain. "One word. All you've been saying is quite right, I shouldn't wonder. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one more thing to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things-trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then al...l I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we're leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that's a small loss if the world's as dull a place as you say."-Puddleglum in the Silver Chair by C.S. Lewis

By the way, I would like to apologize for how I've treated you in the thread. I've been dismissive, sarcastic, and generally an ass.

well we judge reality on everything we can perceive, i mean, until we can do the things you're talking about, then everything we can observe with our five (or more) senses, then that is reality to us. and it doesn't necessarily matter what reality is to something else, because we can observe it's behavior in it's environment in our reality, and that's simply the best we can do.
i've had encounters with beings/entities that i never want to see again unless it's on my terms myself, and... i can't deny that there are things in this universe that we all have to deal with that spans religious factions.
i personally believe there is a universal consciousness--and that jesus was a real person, but not the son of god, because we all are. he was so undivided with humanity in his love that when he died, he was reborn back into the light and love of the universe, and his soul left his imprint on the shroud of turin. say what you want about the shroud, but cutting edge experts of all fields of any science you can think of all agree, they don't know how it was made, but that simply that it exists. i also believe that newton's 2nd law of thermodynamics has a great deal to do with this--that eventually we will become too far apart and decayed in our universe to recover, and the universe will just decay and die for eternities until another big bang eventually can happen. OR, we can die with pure unconditional love and hold everything together with love, and keep being reborn in light and love into the universe so that we are all one with the conciousness again, because we are all literally the same, we all come from the exact same point in the universe, we are all one, without a doubt. so yeah, as dismissive as i've been in this thread, this is pretty much what i really believe

everything else you said i agree with though, and i'm gonna star your post for quoting puddleglum.

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by kallisti36

 

I really liked that post.

Perhaps they are both dreams, this one, and the one promised by Christianity? Perhaps there are only dreams. In which case it would seem to be a good idea to dream in as elevated a manner as possible, finding the most loving, inclusive, unifying dream of all.

If 'God is love' and yet we are capable of imagining a more loving or forgiving or all encompassing dream of 'God' than that offered by our chosen religion, then perhaps we have outgrown that vison of God.

When we find ourselves having to make excuses for Him and rationalizing away His lack of love, then we are perhaps ignoring the signs that its time to expand our perception of God and shed our former beliefs for something more expansive and worthy.

edit on 25-2-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-2-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)

I always found that with a good understanding of the scriptures you could find a reason for every controversial action. The reason why I accept an objective account of an entity that can't be perceived in a humanly objective way, is because I can be sure that my God is who he is (I AM that I AM) and not a projection of my psyche and what I want God to be. That is why God has to be presented in an objective way such as the WORD. It really offers a curious concept of God compared to the gods of other religions. He expects more than we can manage in our weakness, will not stand for human iniquity, and provides what we desperately need while never compromising himself so we get what we want. And yet, despite all of our failings, he loves us unconditionally doing what is right for us rather than what we want. Some people find this restrictive, but what Father isn't? He is THE Father.

I mean, you are perfectly welcome to come up with your own idea of God, but is the creator subject to his creation?

reply to post by kallisti36


not to be nit picky, but it's just I AM I AM.
the word "that" is not in the original Hebrew.

even more precisely it's HAYAH HAYAH
the word HAYAH is the root word from which jehovah comes.
why he said it twice is really quite interesting

my theory is that it stems from the older AYAH, which is how you pronounce EA.
Soooo AYAH AYAH or EA EA.
god god?

i do like how hayah is a palindrome

reply to post by shagreen heart


I see, so you are a spiritual person, you just have a problem with dogma and doctrine. I understand that. Dogma leads to arguing and arguing leads to pain, but that only really happens when you let it. I personally like studying dogma and doctrine and I'm fine with people disagreeing with me on them; they might have it right and I might learn something new. There are very few people who read the Bible as a whole and jumping around only serves to confuse and give one the impression of inconsistencies. I see a very cohesive work with hidden meanings, dual meanings, prophecy and a lot of other things to explore. There are concrete dogmas of Christianity such as the Nicene creed, but alot is left open to ponder. Are things predetermined? Do we have free will? Are we free of the law of sin and death? Did Ya'hshuah die as a punitive substitute for our sins (protestant opinion) or did he take the sins of humanity upon himself and die so that sin might die and along with it death (my opinion, and the orthodox opinion)? There's so much to think about. The Bible is not something so lightly dismissed. Still, I can see why some people just want the love without all of the pondering.

reply to post by undo


Yeah, I know. "That" is usually added for clarity and I prefer to use that instead of "who" because that brings Popeye the Sailor Man to mind. In retrospect, I'm glad the first time I read that verse was out of a KJV Bible; my mind was thoroughly blown. I don't think it would have had the same impact as I AM who I AM.

Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by undo

 

Yeah, I know. "That" is usually added for clarity and I prefer to use that instead of "who" because that brings Popeye the Sailor Man to mind. In retrospect, I'm glad the first time I read that verse was out of a KJV Bible; my mind was thoroughly blown. I don't think it would have had the same impact as I AM who I AM.

yeah when i read it, images of doc brown time hopping came to mind lol
it's an ever present statement yes like i am constantly, i am always, i am eternity
but twice? now that's interesting.

of course it also looks like and in english means the same as "is is" (isis).

reply to post by kallisti36


We only have 'our idea' of God. Either that or we borrow someone elses. The God of the Bible is idea that people thousands of years ago had and which some today have borrowed and adopted.

Its all just an 'idea of God'. So how can you speak of me being welcome to my idea of God, as if this could be contrasted with other concepts of God which are somehow not just ideas too? They're all just ideas.

Even experience is filtered through beliefs and expectations and is interpreted, so that what we believe about an experience is largely an idea.

God would not be subject to his creations, but I believe the Bible also says that a slave is not greater than his master. If anyone can imagine a God of greater, all encompassing love than the idea of him offered by their religion or holy book, then this would indicate that idea of God is wrong, because the creation has proven to be greater than it.

My belief is that the simple verse 'God is love' will eventually lead anyone who believes it to a new understanding and an expansion out from one single religion.

reply to post by Malcram


to be honest, i think some references to god(s) are references to his/her/their activities and in some cases, structures, that were deified. this is particularly true, with the super massive black hole concept. i had already been theorizing that tiamat was an early name for a wormhole, and that the creative function of a super massive black hole, was given god names, in effect, it was deified. but this deification of things/inanimate objects, didn't happen till after the flood narrative, which lead me to believe that the data was almost entirely lost and hoarded by a select few priests. there's more to the story, but that's enough for now.

in any case, it was quite a surprise to see the scientists saying now that super massive black holes at the center of galaxies, created the galaxies, the planets, the stars, etc.

just a reminder,

Google Video Link

Originally posted by shagreen heart

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by shagreen heart

 

contrary to your opinion, i wasnt born with a bible in my hand. it's not a genetic trait.
i'm an individual, which you can tell by reading this thread. mind throwing out that box you have prepared for me? cause i'm not getting in it.

...uhhhh

i'm not talking about you. i'm just responding to the fear thing that you reacted to now, without me even giving any context on it. so ya, i'm not talking about you, or calling you anything, or planning on calling you anything. just cause i have a dissenting opinion in this thread doesn't mean i'm attacking everyone

like I stated, you keep proving how religious you are in every post.
Your fear of Christianity seems to drive your every word as well.
When someone seeks to embrace truth, they avoid liars.
If you lie you cannot be trusted.
The ancient Hebrews had a simple dtermination for a prophet.
One false prophecy claimed in the name of Yah = death
So a prophet was required to give short term prophecies to validate their claims.
You see, truth was/is/will be important to discern facts.
From the very beginning you have been exercising transference onto us the factless faith based religion you embrace.
Sorry, but your rants are epic fail.
They willingly and knowingly lied to make their points.
Thats just too simple to understand when flexing that muscle called discernment.
You say it isn't a willing lie?
Then show me the retractions or be quiet about it allready.
I can see that they offended you by leaving you hanging like that having to defend their innaccuracies as something that is NOT lying.
That's a tremendous burden to place on a disciple. I don't think they are being fair with you.
They owe you an apology me thinks.
oh, just a question, if a brown dwarf enters our solar system will you pray, I mean meditate to it instead of the sun/son?

Originally posted by Malcram
When we find ourselves having to make excuses for Him and rationalizing away His lack of love, then we are perhaps ignoring the signs that its time to expand our perception of God and shed our former beliefs for something more expansive and worthy.

Too many people, both Christian and non-believer, suffer from what I consider to be "God in a box syndrome". It is something that stems from Biblical literalism, though not all literalists have it, and not all those who have it are literalists.

One can have a simplistic notion of God, so long as one has a simple faith. But, as you so correctly point out, once faith begins to spread out, that simplistic notion of God is no longer capable of supporting the questions that we have. Faith either matures, or it withers. Some begin to explore a deeper relationship with God, some turn away entirely and become non-believers.

By putting God in a box and saying "this is what he is, this is what he can do, and this is all there is", I think that we totally miss the point of God's story, as well as doing both him, and ourselves, a disservice. He isn't some old white guy floating on a cloud, casting judgement here and righteousness there, though that seems to be the perception of far too many people.

As you say, if that is an unsatisfactory view, then it is time to expand our perception of God, and that is precisely what brought me to the point that I am today.

Originally posted by manna2

Originally posted by shagreen heart

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by shagreen heart

 

contrary to your opinion, i wasnt born with a bible in my hand. it's not a genetic trait.
i'm an individual, which you can tell by reading this thread. mind throwing out that box you have prepared for me? cause i'm not getting in it.

...uhhhh

i'm not talking about you. i'm just responding to the fear thing that you reacted to now, without me even giving any context on it. so ya, i'm not talking about you, or calling you anything, or planning on calling you anything. just cause i have a dissenting opinion in this thread doesn't mean i'm attacking everyone

like I stated, you keep proving how religious you are in every post.
Your fear of Christianity seems to drive your every word as well.
When someone seeks to embrace truth, they avoid liars.
If you lie you cannot be trusted.
The ancient Hebrews had a simple dtermination for a prophet.
One false prophecy claimed in the name of Yah = death
So a prophet was required to give short term prophecies to validate their claims.
You see, truth was/is/will be important to discern facts.
From the very beginning you have been exercising transference onto us the factless faith based religion you embrace.
Sorry, but your rants are epic fail.
They willingly and knowingly lied to make their points.
Thats just too simple to understand when flexing that muscle called discernment.
You say it isn't a willing lie?
Then show me the retractions or be quiet about it allready.
I can see that they offended you by leaving you hanging like that having to defend their innaccuracies as something that is NOT lying.
That's a tremendous burden to place on a disciple. I don't think they are being fair with you.
They owe you an apology me thinks.
oh, just a question, if a brown dwarf enters our solar system will you pray, I mean meditate to it instead of the
sun/son?

...what the f# are you talking about? i was done with this thread but what kind of insane nonsense post is this?

i'm not religious, if you had any reading skills whatsoever. i don't "fear christians", i fear everyone fighting amongst themselves about a religion or religions that don't matter in reality.
if zeitgeist are such liars why do you guys talk so much about them? why not practice what you preach and avoid them? and if you want truth, listen to the real message of that segment again amigo.
nonsense about hebrews, not relevant to my posts or yours.
my "rants" are epic fail? gonna have to explain that one as well buddy. how did i fail to illustrate that everyone here is arguing the menial, poitnless argument rather than the important, intended one?
lying is intending to not tell the truth from the beginning. i haven't read it, because i don't care, and i'm not interested in the religious aspect of the movie, just that the message made sense to me, and that's all i need, but they apparently have provided loads of citations for all of their claims, so you can drop the petty insults and get on that. i'm not who you think i am at all.
i've seen zeitgeist once. i didn't believe everything in it, and i have no idea what you're talking about right now, but i know what you're trying to imply and assume, and you're grasping at straws by doing it. make up an insult about me? i feel bad for you. i've only been here defending the entirety of the films which have all been under attack, when this thread is only about ONE section in ONE movie. i'm just being objective, i'm sorry that means you think you can make up insults about me and fail to deliver them.

why would i pray--excuse me, meditate, to something i know nothing about and have never seen before? what an exceedingly immature post.

reply to post by shagreen heart


i think what manna is saying is, if you think christianity is not real, and that people believe in it for reasons such as fear of the unknown, and you base this belief on things other people have told you, that you should realize, the things being told are likely about as correct as the mistakes in zeitgeist.

the reference to the brown dwarf, is sitchin's nibiru thing, the 12th planet or in some cases, it's called planet X. the astronaut theory of creation fits in with zeitgeist, because it proposes that supernatural events are simply planets moving around, such as nibiru being the cause of events on the planet that were attributed to being acts of god, in the biblical texts, torah, sumerian texts, akkadian texts, babylonian texts (in some cases) and egyptian texts (in some cases). and that the priesthood on the earth, deified the planet nibiru.

it's entirely possible they deified the planets. that's a no brainer. but the rationale for why they did, is the point of argument with zeitgeist and sitchinites, as well.

personally, i think sitchin had some really thought provoking data. but i don't agree with him wholeheartedly.

p.s. i think this dichotomy is where the problem is. it's like we've all been trained to believe it's either one way or the other, and there's no other way of viewing it. i blame this partially, on the translations of the ancient texts, which took place during times when the ancient world was either constantly being referred to as mythology or further back, only true if from one set of books and not the other. rightly dividing is seen as only applicable to some books and not others, and millenia of interpretation by scholars from both sides of the isle, have left gaping holes in their interpretations. end result, chaos.

reply to post by undo


It still doesn't change the fact that religion is man made.

And at the time of it's creation the ministers and priests were asserting claims of truth, of absolutism - in both metaphysical and moral/ethical preachings. At the core of religion is absolutism, at the core of religion is a supernatural dictator that cannot be seen or heard, it's a totalitarian edict.

People, in defense, say "well what about charity, the search for truth, meaning of life, what about dicipline" - All these things can be investigated and discussed maturely without pre-subscribing to supernatural claims written in ancient texts. Without subscribing to new "literature" such like Scientology. Without labelling yourself.

Besides, who would feel proud of religion's morally reprehensible ideology?

I don't believe Zeitgeist has a problem with belief just a cocern with disgusting beliefs that would cause a child to live in false fear and hope. To boycott believing metaphysical or other claims as truth before investigation or critical thinking, as especially, without evidence. I know that's what Hitchens does, and i love him for it.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


i know this is going to be hard to wrap your mind around, but science does the same thing (although i think science is a good thing , generally speaking). this is because, (follow me here, just for a few seconds) the same guys that brought you the TRUTH before the enlightenment, are the same guys that brought you the enlightenment, and they were accustomed to telling people what the TRUTH was, and still are.

do you understand what i'm telling you?