MovieChat Forums > Zeitgeist (2007) Discussion > Wrong about dates

Wrong about dates

posted 15 years ago by jfstalin
56 replies | jump to latest

You do realise that according to orthodox calender the xmas is on a different date, right?

[–] ZAROVE 15 years ago

Thats not really the most interestign part about dates. The Winter Solstice doesn't actually fall on the 21st all the time either. It can actually fall ont he 20th, for example.

And to be fair, technically the Orthodox Calender is the old Julian Calender, and Christmas is still on December 25th, its just that the Calender has a leap year every 4 years without Fail so every time there is a Leap Year in the Julian Calender that falls on a year with a 00, like 2000, the Julian calender adds an extra day, which is not added in the Gregorian, thus accounting for the descrepancy.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Jumping_Elephant 14 years ago

As annoying as overenthusiastic pro-Zeitgeist arguments are, your *beep* is just as unnecessary.

My vote history: www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=22981176

My iCM: tinyurl.com/4c9erff

[–] All_Seeing_Fly 14 years ago

Or a Pagan festival, and like Easter, that was 'adopted' by the Christians. It worked.

[–] ZAROVE 14 years ago

Actually Easter was linked to Passover. Its the Oldest Christian Holiday, and really isn't connected to Pagan festivals. if you stop and think about it, the story that it is makes no sense. A goddess we know nothing about, Oestora, was worshipped by Celts so the whole Christian world decided to adopt that day but made it about the resurrection of Jesus?

Roman Holidays, like Saturnalia, were near Universally celebrated, as the Roman Empire had conquered the known world, so it makes sense that a pagan Holiday like Saturnalia that had been practised in December would find Christians uncomfortable in worshipping Saturn, so created their own Holiday, which lair became Universal to all Christendom. (Contrary to popular mythology around Christmas, it was not made a Church Holiday to help convert Pagans or to ease them into Christianity. it was created to give Christians an alternative calibration to Saturnalia as they did not want to worship Saturn.)

But, why would a Celtic Holiday win Universal support, and be celebrated even in the Eastern Churches?

It becomes more weird when you try to force it into being about Ishtar, a Babylonian goddess. Not only would you now have to explain why the Celts were worshipping a Babylonian Deity, you have to wonder why Christians would care so much about said Holiday given that Ishtar's Worship had declined to insignificance by the time Christianity came along. Plus, Easter is always on a Sunday, the Babylonians did not have a Seven day week, nor did the Babylonians.

No, Easter was not Pagan. its the First Sunday after Passover as Jesus died after Passover and is connected to Jewish Passover Tradition.

[–] All_Seeing_Fly 14 years ago

Easter goes way back to the celebration of spring and new birth. The exchange of eggs in the springtime is a custom that was centuries old when Easter was first celebrated by Christians.
When Christian missionaries discovered the Saxons celebrating the spring, and the Goddess Eatre in glorious fashion, they cleverly converted 'Eastre' into Christian dogma. And as Christianity took over, through missionary conversions, the old ways died out naturally.
It makes perfect sense to demolish anything that could possibly endanger Christianity, even if we think other religions are rare now, it doesn't mean that million of people didn't worship them then. It' all about who's God wins is the one with the most power, and the missionaries certainly had power.

Was Jesus born on December 25th? There's no proof unfortunately, but some historians think it was in Autumn.
The winder solstice celebrations on the other hand were celebrated on the shortest day of the year, Yule - when the Sun God, Mithras, was born.

In 350, Pope Julius-I declared that Christ’s birth would be celebrated on December 25. There is little doubt that he was trying to make it as painless as possible for pagan Romans (who remained a majority at that time) to convert to Christianity. The new religion went down a bit easier, knowing that their feasts would not be taken away from them.

[–] ZAROVE 14 years ago

Fly-

Easter goes way back to the celebration of spring and new birth.

No, It doesn’t. Easter is always the First Sunday after the First Full Moon after the Vernal Equinox. Passover happens to fall on the Vernal Equinox. This is because Jesus was killed right after Passover and resurrected on a Sunday according to Tradition.

The Jewish Calendar, like most Ancient Ones, was regulated by the Moon and the Seasonal Cycles, so it makes sense that important events are marked by the Equinox’s and Solstices, and has no connection to Paganism at all.

The exchange of eggs in the springtime is a custom that was centuries old when Easter was first celebrated by Christians.

Read he following link.

http://www.theholidayspot.com/easter/history/icons/easter_egg.htm

Easter Eggs were not connected to Pagan Rituals and the Custom seemed to have started in the High Middle Ages in Germany. It was connected to Lent, because people weren’t allowed to eat Eggs or other Dairy in Lent. This commemorated the New Life of Christ (Eggs have been a Symbol of New Life for longer than Christianity True but…) AND the end of the Fast Privations at Lent.

When Christian missionaries discovered the Saxons celebrating the spring, and the Goddess Eatre in glorious fashion, they cleverly converted 'Eastre' into Christian dogma.

Do you even know what the word “Dogma” means? Because the Celebration of Easter is not Christian Dogma, tis a Holiday. A Dogma is a tenet of Faith that is principle aspect of the core teachings, not a Celebration. The Resurrection of Christ and his Divinity are Dogma, Easter is not.

That said, they didn’t cleverly convert Easter to a Christian Holiday to convert Pagans, they were Celebrating it as early as the Second Century. Also, the Saxons? They invaded Britain in 450 AD, which is about 150 years after Britain had been Converted to Christianity and some 400 years or more since Christianity first arrived.

And as Christianity took over, through missionary conversions, the old ways died out naturally.

But according to you Easter is a Holdover form “The old ways”, which, if they were Saxon, were actually later arrivals to the Islands than Christianity itself was.

It makes perfect sense to demolish anything that could possibly endanger Christianity,

I thought you said that the Old Ways died out Naturally, but ntow they were demolished? Isn’t that intentional?

And how does incorporating Paganism into Christianity Demolish it? It seems more Synchronic from that position.

even if we think other religions are rare now, it doesn't mean that million of people didn't worship them then.

Excuse me but, millions? The entire population of Europe was only about 9-12 Million, and Britain was sparsely populated at this time, and was lucky to have a Million people. More like a few hundred thousand.

Also, who said other Religions were Rare?

It' all about who's God wins is the one with the most power, and the missionaries certainly had power.

But what Missionaries were active in 450 AD? Britain was already Christian by then.

Was Jesus born on December 25th? There's no proof unfortunately, but some historians think it was in Autumn.

But I already said Christmas was a Roman Idea…

The winder solstice celebrations on the other hand were celebrated on the shortest day of the year, Yule - when the Sun God, Mithras, was born.

1: Not all people worshipped Mithras.

2: Yule was when Mithras was born? You’ve got to be kidding me. Yule was a Germanic Holiday that fell in Winter and had nothing do with the Persian Deity Mithras. Yule was actually held in Honour of Odin, but even then was not all about Odin so much as about giving thanks for the previous Harvest, and looking forward to a Peaceful and Fertile New Year of Crop ahead.

Yule was also a Month long Celebration, not a Day.

In 350, Pope Julius-I declared that Christ's birth would be celebrated on December 25. There is little doubt that he was trying to make it as painless as possible for pagan Romans (who remained a majority at that time) to convert to Christianity. The new religion went down a bit easier, knowing that their feasts would not be taken away from them.

I’m sorry but this is Idiocy. The feasts were taken form them if this is True, because the focus is totally different. Saturnalia was about giving Homage to Saturn and being thankful that he gave Mankind Civilisation and agriculture. Christmas calibrated the Birth of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour. Also, the idea that it was to ease a Transition for Pagans makes no sense either. Why would this make them feel better about worshipping only one god and abandoning their previous ones? No, Christmas was actually created before Rome was Christianised, when most Christians were slaves or poor. At Saturnalia all were freed temporarily to Celebrate Saturnalia with the rest of Rome. Christians did not want to worship Saturn but wanted to make merry and take advantage of the Season so came up with an alternate reason. It was to make Christians more comfortable in the Holiday Season by giving them something connected to their Faith as opposed to a Pagan Holiday, not to make Pagan Converts feel more at home in a new Faith they converted to. It was about people who were already Christian being given something to Celebrate as an Alternative, not giving Pagans a Holiday on the same date as their old one.

[–] All_Seeing_Fly 14 years ago

No, It doesn’t. Easter is always the First Sunday after the First Full Moon after the Vernal Equinox. Passover happens to fall on the Vernal Equinox. This is because Jesus was killed right after Passover and resurrected on a Sunday according to Tradition. The Jewish Calendar, like most Ancient Ones, was regulated by the Moon and the Seasonal Cycles, so it makes sense that important events are marked by the Equinox’s and Solstices, and has no connection to Paganism at all.

Because of the roots to polytheistic religions (Paganism) it's preferred to be called “Resurrection Sunday" as a reference to Christ's resurrection. Easter was never used in scriptures.
Passover is Eosturmonath, which is now translated as "Paschal month" which was named after the Godess Eostre. Of course going back far into history gets difficult to judge, but the connection is interesting.

http://www.theholidayspot.com/easter/history/icons/easter_egg.htm
Easter Eggs were not connected to Pagan Rituals and the Custom seemed to have started in the High Middle Ages in Germany. It was connected to Lent, because people weren’t allowed to eat Eggs or other Dairy in Lent. This commemorated the New Life of Christ (Eggs have been a Symbol of New Life for longer than Christianity True but…) AND the end of the Fast Privations at Lent.

The egg is clearly a symbol of fertility. It's been a symbol of birth and renewal for many cultures and some for thousands of years. It's not really surprising either, it's an egg after all. I suspect the so called Pagans took the idea from people a millennia before them, nobody really knows.
I didn't realise that the decorated tree was mentioned in the bible as being a 'false idol' but many Christian argue that it meant is was just a bit silly and that God is more important than the tree itself. Of course they do, it would spoil Christmas not to have a tree!

I thought you said that the Old Ways died out Naturally, but ntow they were demolished? Isn’t that intentional?
And how does incorporating Paganism into Christianity Demolish it? It seems more Synchronic from that position.

When I said 'naturally' I meant a natural result of Christian's self importance and the need to convert. There is evidence that Christian churches were build over the top of Pagan ritual sites. Trying to replace the religion of those feeble minded Pagans perhaps?

Excuse me but, millions? The entire population of Europe was only about 9-12 Million, and Britain was sparsely populated at this time, and was lucky to have a Million people. More like a few hundred thousand.
Also, who said other Religions were Rare?

I'm so, so sorry. Right?

But what Missionaries were active in 450 AD? Britain was already Christian by then.

I don't remember speaking for Britain alone, although we still have a fair share of evangelists and Jehovah's Witnesses about the place, on recruitment drives - just like any other competitive religion. I'm sure they're all nice people with good intentions, and it's best not mention the Crusades though, or the ecclesiastical blood flowing of the Inquisition!

1: Not all people worshipped Mithras.

Good. Okay.

2: Yule was when Mithras was born? You’ve got to be kidding me. Yule was a Germanic Holiday that fell in Winter and had nothing do with the Persian Deity Mithras. Yule was actually held in Honour of Odin, but even then was not all about Odin so much as about giving thanks for the previous Harvest, and looking forward to a Peaceful and Fertile New Year of Crop ahead.

I was merely trying to find an example of Winter solstice celebrations, in Britain we have 3000 year old 'henge' that have distinct indicators for the winter and summer solstices. Clearly built for some kind of ritual gathering.
It could be a complex religion, but it could also be a simple celebration of life, death and the seasons, along with some astronomical events.
It's all quite basic and pleasant really.

I’m sorry but this is Idiocy. The feasts were taken form them if this is True, because the focus is totally different. Saturnalia was about giving Homage to Saturn and being thankful that he gave Mankind Civilisation and agriculture. Christmas calibrated the Birth of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour. Also, the idea that it was to ease a Transition for Pagans makes no sense either. Why would this make them feel better about worshipping only one god and abandoning their previous ones? No, Christmas was actually created before Rome was Christianised, when most Christians were slaves or poor. At Saturnalia all were freed temporarily to Celebrate Saturnalia with the rest of Rome. Christians did not want to worship Saturn but wanted to make merry and take advantage of the Season so came up with an alternate reason. It was to make Christians more comfortable in the Holiday Season by giving them something connected to their Faith as opposed to a Pagan Holiday, not to make Pagan Converts feel more at home in a new Faith they converted to. It was about people who were already Christian being given something to Celebrate as an Alternative, not giving Pagans a Holiday on the same date as their old one

Interesting, perhaps it worked for a particular time period. But I can't help thinking the Christians were pushing their way through it all.
Rome was hideous in the name of religion though at times, look at this guy:
'...Emperor Theodosius (379-95) consolidated Christian dominance once and for all with his 380 decree, "We brand all the senseless followers of the other religions with the infamous name of heretics, and forbid their conventicles assuming the name of churches." A series of fourteen edicts followed, one per year, that both outlawed all pagan creeds in competition with Christianity and mandated the destruction of their temples. The most notorious of the measures against pagan religions imposed by Theodosius, in either 389 or 391, was the destruction of the Temple of Serapis located in Alexandria...'

[–] ZAROVE 14 years ago

Fly, I fear you really have fallen for the routine Pseudo-History we see commonly on the Internet. You also seem to conflate several things together and even get the old story wrong, much less the real facts.

Do you really think the Jewish Passover was a Holdover from Polytheistic Days and somehow ties tot he goddess Oestare?

Passover In Hebrew is Pesakh. This sounds nothing like Oestare. The Passover itself is base don the Hebrew story of how they were Liberated form Bondage in Egypt, and seems to have originated as a Nationalistic Foundation story, like the Pilgrims in America, or the Revolutionary War, and not a product of previous Paganism.

Also, the Hebrews would have no reason to make conversion easier as they did not seek Converts. They were mainly interested in Bloodlines. While Converts were allowed to join in, they were not overly Evangelistic as a Culture.

I think you allude to the claim that’s often made that the word “Easter” as a Christian Holiday is rooted in Paganism. This claim owes its existence to a passage in the Venerable Bede, which below is discussed.

According to Bede, Celts in Gaul and Britain began to call the Annual Celebration of the Passover and Christ’s Resurrection by the name of the Month it fell in, which happened to be Oestare. This Month was named after a goddess. That’s why its called Easter in Germanic and Celtic Languages, after the Month it falls on. This is very different form the common belief that Easter started as a Pagan Holiday that the Church took over, as the reality is its simply a name given to a pre-existent Church Holiday by Pagans who simply referred to it by the name of the month it fell in.

Its only Indirectly related to a Pagan goddess’s name.

By the way, not all Languages refer to it as Easter, and here is a list of some other Languages which refer to it as another name.

Latin: Pascha (Meaning Passover)

French: Pâques

Italian: Pasqua

Greek: Pascha

Spanish: Pascua

Romanian: Pasti

Try these links below.

http://www.celtic-catholic-church.org/oak_tree/easter.html

The connection to Paganism rests solely in the name Easter, but we have no evidence the Holiday was called this prior to 899 AD. Otherwise, we have a long History o it being called “Passover” or some equivalent long before it was referred to as Easter or some derivative.

As to Easter Eggs, I fear you miss the point. They weren’t pat of Easter originally, and weren’t acquired to appease some local pagan Culture, they were added in the High Middle Ages at a time when everyone was Christian and as a means to celebrate the end of the Lenten fast.

There is no evidence linking the Easter Egg with paganism.

Just because two cultures share a common symbol doesn’t mean one got it from the other, especially if said symbol is something from nature, like an Egg. Without evidence, you have nothing to base this on, and a lot of explaining to do in order to tell us why the Church waited about 1300 years or so to add this particular Pagan Custom, at a time when there were no Pagans and few if any recalled Paganism.

Also, when you said this…

When I said 'naturally' I meant a natural result of Christian's self importance and the need to convert. There is evidence that Christian churches were build over the top of Pagan ritual sites. Trying to replace the religion of those feeble minded Pagans perhaps?

You forgot something: The actual evidence. Show it, don’t tell.

What real evidence do you have of this assertion?

Now on to this…

I don't remember speaking for Britain alone, although we still have a fair share of evangelists and Jehovah's Witnesses about the place, on recruitment drives - just like any other competitive religion.

In 450 AD? Please do keep the topic where it is…

I'm sure they're all nice people with good intentions, and it's best not mention the Crusades though, or the ecclesiastical blood flowing of the Inquisition!

Why not? Neither the Inquisition nor the crusades really were as terrible as you or others tend to try to pretend they were. The crusades were launched to protect Christian Europe from invasion and to protect Christian Pilgrims into the Holy Land, and generally were good.

The Inquisition lasted centuries and tended to have a reputation as being more fair than the Secular Courts.

Not that it matters, as you’ve mentioned Jehovah’s Witnesses and Evangelists, which I assume are protestant, and I’m pretty sure they didn’t fight the crusades or have an Inquisition.

You also seem to simply want to find Fault with Christianity, which is always a bad way to go about history. You seek information to you Biases, and likely just read superficial sites.

Interesting, perhaps it worked for a particular time period. But I can't help thinking the Christians were pushing their way through it all.

And why is that? Any particular Reason?

Rome was hideous in the name of religion though at times, look at this guy:
'...Emperor Theodosius (379-95) consolidated Christian dominance once and for all with his 380 decree, "We brand all the senseless followers of the other religions with the infamous name of heretics, and forbid their conventicles assuming the name of churches."

Which is Horrible How?

All this says above is that those places cannot be called “Churches”, which also is only a partial Quote. Have you read the full quote in context? Or do you assume he’s talking about Pagans and making Pagan worship Illegal?

A series of fourteen edicts followed, one per year, that both outlawed all pagan creeds in competition with Christianity and mandated the destruction of their temples.

This is somewhatFalse.

Rome never outlawed Paganism and never decoyed Privately owned Temples and Shrines. Only State run Temple were ever destroyed, and most of them simply were converted to Churches. Theodius ended the Subsidies to State Run Paganism, removed the State Altar to Victory, and *beep* down State run Temples.

He also repealed State Holidays dedicated to Pagan Causes, declaring them work days.

However, this was not the same as killing or actively persecuting Pagans, and many Pagans even still sat on the Senate.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa062601a.htm

http://www.thenagain.info/WebChron/Mediterranean/Theodosius.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_I

The most notorious of the measures against pagan religions imposed by Theodosius, in either 389 or 391, was the destruction of the Temple of Serapis located in Alexandria...'

Which was owned by the State, and thus State Property…

I know you want to believe that Christianity has had a long, bloody, violent History of Intolerance and hatred, and that’s a popular story these days, but do try to get into a real History book at some point. History is not what you think.

[–] All_Seeing_Fly 14 years ago

So you find non-crossed referenced web sites yourself, and only copy'n'paste the bits that agree with you?
I got my information about Easter from Christian documentation, not anywhere else! They're not ashamed, are you?

"Neither the Inquisition nor the crusades really were as terrible as you or others tend to try to pretend they were."

WHAT?! So the THE RECONCILIATION WALK never actually happened in your little world?
Stop self medicating.

Here in the UK they've actually FOUND pagan sites under Christian churches, the Church wants its way and it always has. What's wrong with that? Why does it matter if Church did all those things, why do you care so much?
Your beliefs are about the here and now, not some farcical historic horror show.

What part of "We brand all the senseless followers of the other religions with the infamous name of heretics" isn't horrible?
Which part of "consolidated Christian dominance" is not hideous. They wanted power and they were going to get power.
So? What's your problem with that?

From YOUR own links:
"During his reign, Theodosius successfully fought two brutal civil wars against usurpers Maximus and Eugenius. As the defender of Christianity (394), Theodosius defeated pagan forces under Arbogast and Eugenius. This is considered by many to be his greatest achievement. "
Well who's a clever little Theo.
It's always about power, and never anything to do with anything else.
Just power.

[–] ZAROVE 14 years ago

Fly-

So you find non-crossed referenced web sites yourself, and only copy'n'paste the bits that agree with you?

No, I also use encyclopaedias. I used those as they are easier to read, but can supply more. I can also supply the names of books on History, though in my experience hey don’t really get read when I do.

However, you haven’t really supported your own assertions form anything credible, and usually from nothing at all. On what basis are my counterclaims disproven to you?

I got my information about Easter from Christian documentation, not anywhere else! They're not ashamed, are you?

Listen mate, there are loads of bad sources, and I never claimed all Christian ones were good. If I did, I’d not argue against the thesis that Muslims worship a different god than Christians and Jews, a pagan moon god. This theory was proposed by a Christian Apologist named Morey, who wrote a book on it, claiming the Muslim god Allah was a pagan moon god and Islam was a continuation of Pagan moon worship. That’s why, he contends, we see the Crescent Moon today as the Symbol of Islam. Its all balderdash, of course. The Crescent was a Secular State Symbol o Constantinople that was adopted by the Ottomans and cam into Islamic use centuries after Muhammad, Allah is not a name but simply “the god” in Arabic, and the moon worship theory falls apart. But it is from a Christian source. For that matter, those who say Barrack Obama is himself a Muslim are usually Christian Sours, but bad ones. I’ve seen Christian Sources that attack Catholics, or agree with the generally negative view of Christian History but shift the blame to the Catholic Church. “The Trail of Blood” claims that the True Church was always persecuted by the Church of Rome, for example.

None of this means anything.

Wile I’m not saying all Christian Sources are unreliable, its foolish to assume that all of them are Reliable. Of course you don’t, your selective, and only choose to report those who support (or seem to support) your own claims. That still doesn’t prove them correct.

Even if the Source is credible, its also of note that you may be misrepresenting what they say. Example: Many try to push the Christ Myth thesis by quoting out of context Justin Martyr and insertion an interpretation into a single paragraph he clearly did not intend.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Neither the Inquisition nor the crusades really were as terrible as you or others tend to try to pretend they were."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHAT?! So the THE RECONCILIATION WALK never actually happened in your little world?
Stop self medicating.

You know, it doesn’t matter that a lot of Christian leaders got together in 1996 and said they were sort for the Crusades. The actual History is still one in which he crusaders were not abject Villains who went down to Muslim Lands to slaughter them for no good reason. The Crusades were mainly defensive Wars fought to preserve Christianity in Europe and secure protection for Christian Pilgrims. The Crusaders were not really in the wrong, last of all by Midaevel standards.

Here in the UK they've actually FOUND pagan sites under Christian churches, the Church wants its way and it always has. What's wrong with that? Why does it matter if Church did all those things, why do you care so much?

Rome is not Britain, and the topic is still not as cut and dry as you like to pretend it is.

Not all Christian Sites were built over Pagan Sacred grounds. Worse, really there weren’t’ that many temples in Britain… mainly it was groves. Loads of Churches built over Sacred groves may simply mean the Church decided to use the Timber, and because the gods of old were false ignored the sacred aspect of the groves.

But this has nothing to do with Rome shutting down State Run Temples in the Mediterranean, does it?

Your beliefs are about the here and now, not some farcical historic horror show.

But, history needs to be honestly evaluated, and the sort of fictionalised account of Christianity spreading by violence and by oppressing those who did not fall in line has only served to damage propels perception of Christianity as a whole as it stands today, and also prevents genuine reflection on how things came to be.

The point is, these claims are false.

What part of "We brand all the senseless followers of the other religions with the infamous name of heretics" isn't horrible?

Do you even know what the word “Heretic” meant to Theoditus? Because the word really has changed meaning over time. The Historian Flavious Josephus used the term to describe differing sects in Judaism, for instance, including his own, without any negative Connotation.

So the real question is, have you read this quote in context and do you understand what he meant by it?

Which part of "consolidated Christian dominance" is not hideous. They wanted power and they were going to get power.
So? What's your problem with that?

The fact that you fall prey to the idea that “The Christian Church” was all about power and would destroy those who stood in the way. Again, they never actually persecuted Pagan worshippers. He only closed down State Run Temples.

From YOUR own links:
"During his reign, Theodosius successfully fought two brutal civil wars against usurpers Maximus and Eugenius. As the defender of Christianity (394), Theodosius defeated pagan forces under Arbogast and Eugenius. This is considered by many to be his greatest achievement. "
Well who's a clever little Theo.
It's always about power, and never anything to do with anything else.
Just power.

He was a Roman Emperor. However, you have no evidence that he sough tout run of the Mill pagan worshippers and did anything to them at all that caused them distress. Both Maximus and Eugenius were Rival Political Figures, defeated as much for their claims to the Throne as their Religious Leanings. This proves only that Emperors killed Rivals, not hat Christians in general persecuted pagans.

[–] All_Seeing_Fly 14 years ago

It's all quite convenient how you automatically dismiss anything that shows the church not to be pure as white lilies. That's not the balanced truth is it? errr 'mate.'
I'm just quoting what many scholars have said, I haven't got the time or the effort to dedicate my life to theology e.t.c. so I turn to people who have, and use their knowledge. What's the point in showing you anything? You just speed read it going 'laa-laa-laa-laa' in your head.

Anyway what's exactly wrong with the Church taking over Pagan sites? Can't you for one minute think to yourself, "well OK never mind, that was in the past." And who said we were supposed to only discuss Rome? More rules?

I suppose you thought the Inquisition were a bunch of OK guys really.

The problem is, is that NOTHING is provable. For example:
1. Did Jesus actually exist? There's no proof.
2. Was he a construct, made from a collection of older ideas. There's no proof.

There ARE religious similarities from all over the world, and all different times, but those can only hint at the broader truth. This film was designed to make you think, some people like to think, and others hate it for that. But that's ALL it does.

BTW, so you don't actually think the Easter egg is a symbol of fertility then?

And where did the Christmas tree come from again? Put one up every year do you?
.
.
.

[–] ZAROVE 14 years ago

Fly-

It's all quite convenient how you automatically dismiss anything that shows the church not to be pure as white lilies. That's not the balanced truth is it? errr 'mate.'

The problem is, I can look up the information I present in actual sources that are credible, while I can find the things you claim no where other than in cheap secondary sources that serve an agenda or repeat old myths that have been passed around.

Which is sort of my point…

…by the way, Don’t I make “The Church’ look bad when I expose the popular claim that Muslims worship a pagan moon god, as this argument is popular with many Christian Apologists?

Accuracy, not an attempt to whitewash anything, motivates me here.

I'm just quoting what many scholars have said,

No, you aren’t. You are quoting what many popular books or websites say that haven’t been peer reviewed and that weren’t written by Scholars. There’s a big difference.

If you wan tot contest this, please present the names of the Scholars who argue this. I bet that you either can’t name any, or will pull odd names form the 19th Century. I can’t decide if it;; be Bruno Bauer or someone less credible like Gerald Massey…

I haven't got the time or the effort to dedicate my life to theology e.t.c. so I turn to people who have, and use their knowledge. What's the point in showing you anything? You just speed read it going 'laa-laa-laa-laa' in your head.

The Irony is that I’m studying Theology and Psychology.

I go “Lalala” in my head? No, I actually took the time to read the Truth. I use to belie some of this nonsense myself, EG, that Easter was originally a Pagan Holiday. I grew up in the Churches of Christ who do not Calibrate Easter to begin with, and the idea didn’t really bother me that some Christians back a long time ago ado toped a Pagan Holiday and its custom of Easer Eggs and Rabbits and decided it was to be repurposed to commemorate the Resurrection, while keeping Pagan Trappings. I use to even say it was the Truth myself. Then I read real History books n the topic. That’s when I started saying Easter was always a Christian Holiday and never had Pagan connections.

The same is true of the other things you’ve mentioned. I use to think the Crusaders were unjustified and driven by greed or a desire to force conversions in the Middle East. I don’t now because I read real History.

The real history simply doesn’t support these sorts of claims, and worse, these claims generally began around the 18th or early 19th Century by people who were pushing the Enlightenments ideals, and came to be in order to undermine Christianity. The Commonly Known Truth that I grew up with was really just propaganda.

That’s the Irony of this whole affair, not only was I told how horrible Christian History had been, and believed it, and was told anyone who didn’t was issuing Propaganda, I later learned that this was Propaganda in and of itself and supported by nothing.

Anyway what's exactly wrong with the Church taking over Pagan sites? Can't you for one minute think to yourself, "well OK never mind, that was in the past." And who said we were supposed to only discuss Rome? More rules?

The reason was because you explicitly said this of Emperor Theoditus, remember? Obviously you can’t take what I said about him and expand it to all situations that ever existed in History.

As for the initial question of the Past, the point is that a lot of what you think you know about the Past is inaccurate.

I suppose you thought the Inquisition were a bunch of OK guys really.

Oftentimes yes, and what’s more, the Inquisitional Courts actually had higher standards of evidence than the Secular Courts of the Day, and also a higher rate of exoneration. Oh, they also tended to be more lenient.

Try reading Edward Peters's “Inquisition”, released in 1988, or Henry Kamen's “The Spanish Inquisition” given to us in 1997.

The problem is, is that NOTHING is provable. For example:

Actually a lot of this is Provable.

1. Did Jesus actually exist? There's no proof.

Not another Christ Myther.

Of course no one takes the Jesus Myth idea seriously in academia. (Please don’t lie and say plenty of Academics support it, it is not hotly debated in the Halls of Academia.)

We have actually enough evidence to prove Jesus existed as a man, more in fact than we have for most other people. EG, the New Testament alone is a compilation of 27 separate books written by 9 authors Minimum. These texts were written before the close of the first Century in Living Memory of Jesus. The texts themselves often include difficult to near impossible details that end off right. Paul himself said that Witnesses to Christ’s resurrection could still be found alive and questioned, and said there were about 500. None of Christianity’s enemies even said Jesus never existed, including those in Jerusalem who were present at The time of his Execution by the Romans.

Only an uneducated mind would think Jesus, the man, never existed.

2. Was he a construct, made from a collection of older ideas. There's no proof.

Not only that, but none of the claims hat say he was make any sense.

There ARE religious similarities from all over the world, and all different times, but those can only hint at the broader truth.

Actually not really. Unless you become too broad such as a general moral code or this guy also worked Miracles, you have no similarities at all, and those sort of Similarities are well too vauge to really be seen as a basis for something.

This film was designed to make you think, some people like to think, and others hate it for that. But that's ALL it does.

No, this film was designed to sell you three Conspiracy Theories and an overarching sense of dread and doom and a hatred of the Establishment. You aren’t suppose to really think, just accept the claims and feel like a Free Thinker because you know “The Truth”.

That is hardly promoting thinking for ones self.

BTW, so you don't actually think the Easter egg is a symbol of fertility then?

Not, specifically, the Easter Egg no. I am not claiming eggs were never used as such, but the Easter Egg is an Early Modern Era production and commemorates the New Life in Christ, and the end of the Lenten Fast when Dairy Products like Eggs may once again be consumed.

And where did the Christmas tree come from again? Put one up every year do you?

The Christmas Tree was a German innovation in the 1500’s, and was actually new in Britain when the Hanovers brought it in from Bavaria in the Reign of Queen Victoria in the 19th Century. It came to America before Britain, though, by way of German Immigrants.

Also, not all Christians even Celebrate Christmas. Worse still, unless you live in a Nation with German Influence, you really don’t erect a Christmas Tree every year. Most Christians in the Middle East don’t raise them, for example, and most places that do got the idea from either Europe, Like Africa in the days of Colonialism, or America, such as Modern Chinese Christians.

[–] kurgan-10 14 years ago

Yeah, the tradition is that Martin Luther is actually the one who introduced the Christmas tree. I suppose ancient Germanic pagans might have danced around trees in the forest, perhaps they were decorated somehow, but this was outdoors, so I doubt they put lit candles on them and tinsel hadn't been invented.

As for the oft repeated claim that rabbits and eggs were representative of some pre-Christian fertility god(s), I've never seen anyone be able to point to which god(s) and culture this is referring to.

I understand that they don't matter in regards to the Christian holiday known as Pascha (popularly known in the west as "Easter" even though this isn't the official name, but a colloquial name for Pascha, which means "passover" and no this isn't some conspiracy to suppress "Judaic" sabbatarian Christianity, that's just what it was always called).

If you ask somebody "where did the easter bunny come from?" they'll say "pagan fertility god" but that's about anyone seems to know.

I'd like to see that fleshed out a bit if anybody knows...

http://www.historyversusthedavincicode.com/
History vs. the Da Vinci Code

[–] All_Seeing_Fly 14 years ago

[ZAROVE] Why the vicious ferocity? What would Jesus say about your fist shaking and madness?
The more you complain, the more you appear to be loosing your faith.
Now you've said the Inquisition were the good guys, well, very strange.

Christianity has only been here for 1% of human history, it's a little arrogant to say Christianity is the best, and original.

You can't prove Jesus existed, by quoting your New Testament. You simply cannot prove it without actually being there when he's supposed to be around.
What kind of fool would quote the book about the source to prove the source existed.

The Christmas Tree was a German innovation in the 1500’s, and was actually new in Britain when the Hanovers brought it in from Bavaria in the Reign of Queen Victoria in the 19th Century. It came to America before Britain, though, by way of German Immigrants.

Read:- Jeremiah 10:2-4
Not the short version.
But of course you'll twist it around in your stressed out ferocity.

You really are firing from the ramparts of your golden tower.
You think you win your wars on here, but people just give up on you.

[–] ZAROVE 14 years ago

Fly-

[ZAROVE] Why the vicious ferocity? What would Jesus say about your fist shaking and madness?

Madness means insanity, not anger, which I believe you mean here. That said, my fist isn’t shaking and I’m neither angry nor insane.

This sort of thing is really easy to do on the Internet though, try to undermine someone by claiming they are angry or hostile. I’m simply contradicting your statements, not issuing fourth a flood of profanity or condemning you personally.

The more you complain, the more you appear to be loosing your faith.

This doesn’t logically follow. I’m correcting historical errors based on actually knowing the History of events, and that somehow shows thst I’m loosing Faith? In what?

Now you've said the Inquisition were the good guys, well, very strange.

Actually I said the Inquisitional Courts weren’t the horrifically oppressive, unjust court system popular Imagination makes them.

Also, as strange as that may be in a word that accepts the Inquisition as an unfair religious Court responsible for suppressing people and ensuring strict obedience to the Catholic Church as a tool of tyranny, its still Historically accurate of me to say they weren’t as bad as the Popular Myth around hem says.

Saying “That’s strange” doesn’t really prove mw wrong, and you right, about them, either.

Christianity has only been here for 1% of human history, it's a little arrogant to say Christianity is the best, and original.

Which doesn’t really tie into anything we’ve previously discussed, so I’m not really sure why you even said this.

You can't prove Jesus existed, by quoting your New Testament. You simply cannot prove it without actually being there when he's supposed to be around.

By this Logic we may as well say Julius Caesar may never have existed. When studying History you go by the sources we have been left, and quiet frankly the source materials left us in regard to Jesus couldn’t have been produced had he not lived. They are too much a product of a contemporary world when they were written, not the legend f someone long ago, but someone who lived in recent memory.

That, and extra Biblical material also exists.

I’m sorry you don’t like this, but no real Historians give the Christ Myth theory the time of day, and it is an accepted Historical fact that Jesus lived as a man.

What kind of fool would quote the book about the source to prove the source existed.

They are usually called “Historians”. The “You can’t quote the source” idiocy is really an irritating argument. By this reassign nothing written about Jesus could be used, in which case of course we couldn’t prove he existed, but we’d also have to reject 95% of all History.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Christmas Tree was a German innovation in the 1500's, and was actually new in Britain when the Hanovers brought it in from Bavaria in the Reign of Queen Victoria in the 19th Century. It came to America before Britain, though, by way of German Immigrants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read:- Jeremiah 10:2-4
Not the short version.
But of course you'll twist it around in your stressed out ferocity.

Jeremiah 10:2-4 does not refer to a Christmas Tree, and saying in advanced that I am stressed out and ferocious and will twist it may enable you to dodge the fact that this is about carving Idols, not an actual Christmas Tree, but it won’t ,make it a reality.

If you read the entire Chapter Ten of Jeremiah, you’d soon realise that he was referring to how they would carve Idols out of Wood, and is simply saying “It’s a tree” to illustrate that these gods aren’t real.

It’s a condemnation of Idolatry.

But that’s not really the same thing as a Christmas Tree, which is an actual Tree, cut down and brought into a house and decorated. These tree’s were carved into the shapes of gods.

Incidentally its Ironic that you say I’m twisting things, given that you just twisted this passage.

You really are firing from the ramparts of your golden tower.
You think you win your wars on here, but people just give up on you.

That’s nice, but your still wrong that Jeremiah 10 is about a Christmas Tree or shows that the custom is of Pagan origins, and are twisting a few key verses to make something that doesn’t exist.

I this were the origin of the Christmas Tree, why did no Christian use one till the 1500’s? Why did the custom spread organically from Germany?

This is especially troublesome given that Jeremiah wrote these words from the Middle East, not Europe.

[–] All_Seeing_Fly 14 years ago

It's not about carving idols, it's specifically a decorated tree. And I didn't twist that passage, it's discussed all over the internet in all various forums and Christian discussions. I don't really care myself.

You are only believing specific pro-Christian books. - that make the authors very rich no doubt.

You're dismissing everything else as wrong, which is classic behaviour.

And you seem to agree with the old ideas of the persecution of non-believers so that's not a good sign. I want this conversation stopped please.

[–] ZAROVE 14 years ago

Fly-

It's not about carving idols, it's specifically a decorated tree.

No, its about Idolatry. I’ll show why in a moment. However, if you really want us to believe that this Biblical passage describes a Christmas Tree and proves that today’s Christmas Tree is derived from Pagan Customs, you have a lot of explaining to do. How did this middle Eastern custom from Assyria or Babylon wind p in Europe? As I said earlier, it’d make sense from the Pagan Origins of everything Christian thesis if the firs Christians who celebrated Christmas after stealing the Pagan Holiday also used Christmas Tree’s, then it’d spread by way of the Roman Trade Routes across everywhere that Christianity reached; However, no one used Christmas Tree’s to Celebrate Christmas until the 1500’s in all Christendom. Also, the only people in the 1500’s to use a Christmas Tree were Germans, who were Lutheran. It eventually spread t Austria, and gradually from Austria to other places. Only places with a high level of German settlement or Immigration actually used the custom though till the 20th Centaury, other than Britain which adopted it based on the Royal Families Germanic connections. If we use the passage from Jeremiah as proof that the Christmas Tree itself had Pagan Origins, then we’d have to accept that those same Pagans continued that Custom into the 1500’s where they somehow managed to sell it to the German protestants.

Exactly how did that happen?

Why didn’t Christians use the Christmas Tree for the whole time? And why would Lutherans adopt a Middle eastern Pagan Idea? And wasn’t Babylon at the time mainly Muslim?

I’m afraid the whoel of it is absurd, and if you read the passage in Jeremiah, you learn that it most assuredly was about Idolatry.

2. Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.
3. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.
4. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.

{One does not nail down a Christmas Tree. These “Tree‘s“ were meant to be permanent fixtures, not temporary decorations.}

5. They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.

{Does anyone speak of Christmas Trees this way? Does anyone tell anyone else not to be afraid of a Christmas Tree, for it can ot do good or ill, or move itself? This makes more sense if this is a carved statue of a god that Jeremiah is discussing, not simply a decorated Tree.}

6. Forasmuch as there is none like unto thee, O Lord; thou art great, and thy name is great in might.
7. Who would not fear thee, O King of nations? for to thee doth it appertain: forasmuch as among all the wise men of the nations, and in all their kingdoms, there is none like unto thee.

{Now Jeremiah compares a decorated Tree to the Lord. Doesn‘t it seem odd he‘d do this for a mere decorated Tree?}

8. But they are altogether brutish and foolish: the stock is a doctrine of vanities.
9. Silver spread into plates is brought from Tarshish, and gold from Uphaz, the work of the workman, and of the hands of the founder: blue and purple is their clothing: they are all the work of cunning men.
10. But the Lord is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation.

{Again, he is contrasting the “Christmas Tree’s” to God himself and saying that the “Christmas Tree’s” wear jewellery and fine clothing, but aren’t real gods, and only God is True. This seems odd… how do you dress a Christmas Tree in purple clothing?}

11. Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens.

{And here is the Money Verse. This explicitly mentions that he is discussing other gods, not merely decorated trees. It‘s just a few verses down from your proof text.}

And I didn't twist that passage, it's discussed all over the internet in all various forums and Christian discussions. I don't really care myself.

You do know that it being discussed all over the Internet doesn’t mean anything, right? Plenty of things are discussed all over the Internet which are abject nonsense.

Jeremiah was discussing Idol Worship and how they carved pieces of wood and worshipped them. Its similar to Isaiah Chapter 44 when Isaiah says that the worker carves wood into tools, uses some for Fire wood, then with what’s left makes a god out of it, and say’s the god is no different than the firewood that is consumed, and is powerless. It’s the same general Imagery from the same Culture and same general time period. Its simply a stretch to claim this is a Christmas Tree or its origins given the context. What you are doing is simply looking for nay parallel and using it as vindication of something. People do this all the time, but it doesn’t really work.

You are only believing specific pro-Christian books. - that make the authors very rich no doubt.

No I’m not. I often use Secular Scholars in these debates to prove that my claims aren’t simply Christian Apologetics. The Two Authors I mentioned above aren’t writing from a specifically Christian perspective but are respected Historians. I also often use the Atheists Bart Ehrman when dismissing the Christ Myth Theory.

So, please stop making wild accusations about me in a cheap attempt to depict me as some sort of mindless fool only out to defend Christianity by using only Christian Books, which are thus implied to be dishonest, as opposed to looking at the real facts.

You're dismissing everything else as wrong, which is classic behaviour.

I’m dismissing things that are wrong as wrong, not “Everything that is not Pro-Christian”. On the other hand, anything that contradicts your perspective somehow is dismissed as “Pro-Christian Propaganda” as opposed to real scholarly Truth.

If you don’t’ see your own Hypocrisy in this it is still present.

And you seem to agree with the old ideas of the persecution of non-believers so that's not a good sign. I want this conversation stopped please.

If you refer to the Inquisition and Crusades, then you clearly don’t know anything about them. They really weren’t about persecution of the Non-Believers. But this sort of assumption does render proof to what I mean about how you project stereotypes onto people rather than look at he facts of History or what they have said.

The Inquisition was not about persecuting the Non-Believers and forcing them to convert. I’ve seen this claim often on the net and its utter foolishness. The Inquisition was actually an internal affairs court that had no jurisdiction over people who weren’t Christians already. The Inquisitional Courts were designed to root out Heresy, as such could only Try Baptised members of the Church.

A Pagan that lived in the Village (Assuming there were any) would have been immune from the Inquisition, because they weren’t Christians.

The Inquisition was not about forcing converts, or killing those who refused to convert, it was about maintaining the Doctrine of the Church amongst the already professed Christians.

The Crusades were Wars that served to defend Europe form Invasion by Ottoman Forces, and later expanded to reclaim the Holy Land the Muslims had conquered by force, and to then establish safe passage for Christian Pilgrims who had been Harassed.

The actual Crusader States, such as the Kingdom of Jerusalem, did not actually impose any penalties on people of other Religions, nor were the Subjects within the Crusader States made to convert. In fact, the Muslims and Jews had it better under the Christian Knights as overlords than the Christians and Jews had it under the Ottoman Rulers.

Still, the Crusaders were there to maintain Security for the Travellers into the Holy Land, NOT to force conversion. They allowed Muslims to worship freely in their own Religion.

So exactly how is this “Persecution of the Non-Believers”?

That’s the whole point, the History you rely on is mainly the product of 18th and 19th Century Anti-Christian Propaganda from the Enlightenment thinkers and later Humanists. it’s a sort of Pseudo-History that demonises Christianity by depicting its spread as Violent and Oppressive, and that speaks of Pagan Roots and stolen ideas and repression of the individual, in order to justify the overthrow of Christianity in Favour of Reason and Liberty; which is of course translated to mean the Enlightenments own Philosophical Ideals about society, morality, and the nature of the world.

Large parts of this Pseudo-History is older than the Enlightenment though, and is based on Protestants simply trig to blacken the name of the Catholic Church to justify the Reformation and break form it, as well as the standard Anti-Catholicism that was common currency from the 1500’s to the early 20th Century.

But none of this is what is considered valid by real Historians of the Modern Era, and the watered down, vague Historical Outline is further muddied by repetitions and “Matter-of-fact” acceptance from people like you who think they are reporting “The Real Truth‘ but never track down much by way of the primary sources.

[–] All_Seeing_Fly 14 years ago

I only said there existed a decorated tree. The bible said it was a false idol. That's all.
I don't care whether it was used for Saturnalia or even a tradition that spread because people simply liked it, no matter where it came from. Most people don't question things, they simply copy from their own upbringing and traditions.

Edward Peters' “Inquisition” states:
"...the Spanish Inquisition was not permitted to sentence anyone to death."
A revisionists version of history. Mr Peters' credibility is a little unstable, but he is a Catholic spin-doctor after all.

Your bit about Caesar made us laugh. He had busts made of him, the were things written about him while he lived, and he had his face on a coin! There's plenty of evidence if his existence.
Show me a bust or drawing of Jesus made at the time he was alive, and that would be great news!

Anyway, your propagandist work has been fun to watch, you certainly seem to have a lot of time on your hands.
.
.
.

[–] ZAROVE 14 years ago

Fly, you now demonstrate two great problems in debating the Anti-Christian version of History that’s so commonly held by people like you, the fact that people simply refuse to accept they were wrong or admit it, and then move the goal posts, or cast aspersions.

I only said there existed a decorated tree. The bible said it was a false idol. That's all.

No that is not all. You specifically said that the Christmas Tree as a Pagan Custom that was carried over into Christianity. It wasn’t. The superficial similarities between decorating a Tree for Christmas and the passage in Jeremiah doesn’t illustrate how Christians continued a Pagan Custom at all.

The Christmas Tree is a uniquely Christian and specifically German protestant Innovation that came about in the 1500’s, and while it has spread past Germany to become a general Holiday Custom, it was still originally German, NOT Middle Eastern, and Christian, NOT Pagan in origins. That’s what we were specifically discussing.

I don't care whether it was used for Saturnalia or even a tradition that spread because people simply liked it, no matter where it came from. Most people don't question things, they simply copy from their own upbringing and traditions.

But you did claim it was a Holdover from Pagan Times that was adopted by Christians, which was clearly wrong.

You did care about it when it was evidence of Paganism in Christianity, and now don’t care about it because it no longer fulfils your need to illustrate how Christians borrowed from pagans.

Edward Peters' “Inquisition” states:
"...the Spanish Inquisition was not permitted to sentence anyone to death."
A revisionists version of history. Mr Peters' credibility is a little unstable, but he is a Catholic spin-doctor after all.

How is this revisionist History? Do you have evidence that the Inquisition did sentence people to death? Because the real Histories I’ve read said that the Secular Authorities, not the Inquisition, dd all the actual Sentencing, the Inquisitional Courts were only able to pronounce you Guilty or Innocent.

The Irony is that your accusing him of revisionist History on the basis of Revisionist History of your own. All sources on the Inquisition will tell you that the Inquisitional Courts had no actual power to sentence anyone, they could only find you Guilty or Innocent. The idea that the Inquisition sentenced people, and inevitably that sentence was to Death, is a modern Myth. The only places you will find it said that the Inquisition itself sentenced people to death will be from those sources which are attacking specifically the Catholic Church and in some cases all of Christianity, or all Religion. But that doesn’t change the fact that the Inquisition never actually sentenced anyone.

Just because you want to believe it did, to fit into your general view of the bloodstained and violent History of Christianity, doesn’t mean it magically becomes Historical reality.

Your bit about Caesar made us laugh. He had busts made of him, the were things written about him while he lived, and he had his face on a coin! There's plenty of evidence if his existence.

Actually none of the writings we have of Caesar are form his lifetime, they are all copies of copies of copies.

Besides, the point you made was specifically that I can’t prove that Jesus existed by quoting the New Testament. If this is so, then you can’t prove that Julius Caesar existed by Quoting Roman Sources. If Christians are not reliable because they are Christian thus Bias in favour of their own beliefs, then the Romans can’t be Trusted because they are Biased too. Maybe Caesar was a Myth who nonetheless got busts and coins made of his face in order to inspire the masses.

After all, Jesus is depicted in Mosaics and other art forms in the First and Second Century, too. None of that art really proves Jesus existed, so why would a coin prove Julius Caesar existed? If a coin proves Julius Caesar lived, then we must also conclude that Apollo, Mars, and Jupiter existed, for the Romans minted coins with them as well.

Show me a bust or drawing of Jesus made at the time he was alive, and that would be great news!

OK.

http://www.religionfacts.com/jesus/image_gallery.htm

Specifically, the Mandylion of Edessa was done in Jesus’ Earthy Ministry or very shortly after.

Anyway, your propagandist work has been fun to watch, you certainly seem to have a lot of time on your hands.

Why is it that I’m called a propagandist just because I contradict the well worn “history’ that is often given online about how uncertain Jesus’ existence was or how bloody Christianity’s past is? In another thread I was called narrow minded and arrogant for contradicting a Neo-Pagan about witches being seen as good in the Middle Ages.
It seems that, unless you accept the “Truth” that Christianity has had a bloody past of persecution those who did not concert, trying to dominate others, destroying knowledge and holding us back, and as well as the possibility that Jesus never existed, you are somehow just issuing Propaganda.

But the thing is, its not Propaganda. Its propaganda to say we can’t know Jesus existed. Hogwash, Historians accept him as real and threes more evidence for him than most Ancient Figures. No Historian in the world would say the Inquisition had the power to sentence anyone, much less issue a Death Sentence, no matter what the pop culture image of the Inquisition is. The Crusaders didn’t just go done to kill indiscriminately the Muslims because they didn’t believe in him. Christmas Trees and Easter Eggs aren’t pagan.

That’s propaganda, not what I’m doing.

Why don’t you try providing real evidence for your claims, and stop just dismissing what I say as propaganda, or my sources as spin doctors. What credible sources do you have of anything you claim?

Or is this all about just proving Christianity is a patchwork of pagan ideas spread by oppression and villainy for you?

[–] All_Seeing_Fly 14 years ago

Just believe what ever you want about a decorated tree, be it similarities or not.

"people simply refuse to accept they were wrong or admit it"

Really? Not you of course.
I'm not against Christians, I'm sure they've helped many people get through their days.

You are really clutching at straws by actually presenting a web site whose first line states:
"What did Jesus look like? No one knows for sure. The New Testament provides almost no physical descriptions and the earliest surviving portraits of Jesus date from about two centuries after his lifetime."

This is your proof? *pfft*

Your Caesar argument is just getting weaker also, you just keep tripping over yourself.

What you're doing on this Zeitgeist forum is basic propaganda, in it's clearest form. You should be happy in your own faith, and not push it down other people's throats.

[–] ZAROVE 14 years ago

Fly-

Just believe what ever you want about a decorated tree, be it similarities or not.

It’s not a matter of what I want, but what can be demonstrated. It can be demonstrated that Christians did not use a Decorated Tree to Celebrate Christmas till the 1500’s, and the custom started in Germany. This rules out the idea that the Christmas Tree was a Pagan Custom that survived and was integrated into Christianity.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"people simply refuse to accept they were wrong or admit it"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? Not you of course.

Unlike you I have admitted errors in the past.

I'm not against Christians, I'm sure they've helped many people get through their days.

That’s nice, but that doesn’t prevent you from believing the biased view of History that says a lot of Christianity is borrowed form paganism, or that Christianity has a long bloody History of persecuting those who refuse to convert. The problem I have with this is that your Historical assertions are wrong.

You are really clutching at straws by actually presenting a web site whose first line states:
"What did Jesus look like? No one knows for sure. The New Testament provides almost no physical descriptions and the earliest surviving portraits of Jesus date from about two centuries after his lifetime."

This is your proof? *pfft*

But, the specific portrait I mentioned was First century…

I linked you to it so you could see the image of said portrait, which is first or early second century, and thus not itself 200 years after the fact.

Your Caesar argument is just getting weaker also, you just keep tripping over yourself.

No, my Caesar argument is the same one you use for Jesus and is intend to be weak. The whole point is, if someone wanted to argue Julius Caesar never lived in the same way a Christ Myther does, they can use the same rationalisations to contradict the evidence that said he did.

Doesn’t it strike you as odd that no one in academic studies of History actually bothers to support the Christ Myth Theory and its always either fringe figures or none pets with a vested interest?

What you're doing on this Zeitgeist forum is basic propaganda, in it's clearest form. You should be happy in your own faith, and not push it down other people's throats.

No, what I’m doing is revealing the false information in the film Zeitgeist, and stating how its claims are entirely false. That is not Propaganda, and the claim that I’m pushing my faith down other peoples throats is simply a cheap way to make me into some sort of villain that fit’s a cultural stereotype.

Just because you don't like the real facts and want to believe his gibberish doesn't mean others have to be silent when you declare t as unquestionable fact.

[–] All_Seeing_Fly 14 years ago

No, what I’m doing is revealing the false information in the film Zeitgeist, and stating how its claims are entirely false. That is not Propaganda, and the claim that I’m pushing my faith down other peoples throats is simply a cheap way to make me into some sort of villain that fit’s a cultural stereotype.

That's exactly what you are doing, you are 'Righting the Wrongs,' in other words trying to persuade people that you are correct, instead of accepting other people beliefs. You not a villain, who said that? You simply push your own beliefs, and that's all they are - beliefs. You've posted huge diatribes on this forum, and for what end? It's just some film, people are clearly looking for something else.

Why not toddle off to see the silly pagan-hatted fellow, you know the one, makes a lot of money, likes to exclude women and surrounds himself with some dodgy allegations, you know - Bishop. And tell him what you've been doing on some Zeitgeist film forum? You might be surprised at his answer.

[–] ZAROVE 14 years ago

Fly, you now reply on more stereotypes and false information...

That’s why I do this, by the way. I know people like you won't change your beliefs, because you want to believe that Christianity is somehow dark and sinister, with a Violent and oppressive past, and all its ideas stolen from paganism, but these claims are not only false, but also cause prejudice to develop against Christians. It serves no good end to allow Bigotry and hatred, and these claims only promote this as they are used as a Justification to hate Christianity by people who really just wan tot undermine it in favour of their own beliefs.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, what I'm doing is revealing the false information in the film Zeitgeist, and stating how its claims are entirely false. That is not Propaganda, and the claim that I'm pushing my faith down other peoples throats is simply a cheap way to make me into some sort of villain that fit's a cultural stereotype.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's exactly what you are doing, you are 'Righting the Wrongs,' in other words trying to persuade people that you are correct, instead of accepting other people beliefs.

The Irony is, this is also what Zeitgeist does. EG, the entirely of Part one is about undermining the Christian Faith by claiming Jesus never existed and is simply the latest retelling of an old story that had been known for Ages, and that Jesus’ life is near identical to other gods like Mithras, Dionysus, or Horus. In goes further and claims its actually an allegory for the Suns course through the Sky. So Zeitgeist starts off by criticising other peoples beliefs and trying to right the wrongs of the past.

Also, Zeitgeist goes further than just saying that Christianity is really a lie, stolen from earlier Pagan ideas, it also says that Theistic beliefs divide us from nature and each other, are the Lie of the Sages, and are the cause of hardship and oppression. It doesn’t say that it can lead to these, but always does.

Zeitgeists entire first segment is about righting the wrongs of the past and forever ending theism, specially Christianity, condemning I for all the evil it generates and how it traps people in a false system that causes wars and prevents individuals form living in liberty and achieving their full potential, holding then back in ignorance and fear.

Given this, don’t you think it hypocritical to condemn me for simply saying why the information in Zeitgeist itself is wrong?

You not a villain, who said that? You simply push your own beliefs, and that's all they are - beliefs.

No, I simply present factual information backed up by real sources. This information I present is easily verified by anyone willing to do the least amount of research. The thing is, you and others how want to beleive Zestiest is telling the Truth don’t do that research, and refuse to accept anything that contradicts the Films presentation of matters.

Mine aren’t simply beliefs, but proven facts. Your are disproven nonsense. That’s the difference.

You've posted huge diatribes on this forum, and for what end? It's just some film, people are clearly looking for something else.

I present factual information so the causal reader won’t be deceived Into thinking this rubbish is credible.

It’s not really about convincing you, as I know you don’t wan tot be convinced. You prefer to believe that Christianity got all its ideas form Paganism and has a long, blood-soaked history of oppression and cruelty. The fact that the Historical Record doesn’t bare any of this out means nothing to you.

You’re not different than the Glenn Beck fans who buy Into the Historical retellings he offers. He always says never to take his word for it and look it up yourself, knowing his fans won’t. They just prefer to believe his version of History over the real thing as it supports what they prefer to believe and their present Ideology.

There is no real difference.

Why not toddle off to see the silly pagan-hatted fellow,

You know, the Bishops Mitre is not really a Pagan Hat. The claim teat it came off the Dagon Fish Head is a silly little Nonsense created by Alexander Hislop in the 19th Century.

While I don’t expect you to believe me, and fully expect to hear about the Priests of Dagon or Poseidon or whoever and how the Hat represents a Fishes head and older Pagan customs the Church stole, the truth is that the Mitres Historical Origins are well documented and as follows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitre

Please don’t say I’m being an apologist here, this is an Encyclopaedia, not an Apologetics site. The Mitre is simply a hat created to show that one is official, and the modern Mitre that consists of two pointed folds sewn together dates back to Roman Civil Law, and the superficial similarities to a Fish Head is really unintentional.
Please stop repeating every little piece of Rot you read that says something was taken form Paganism by Christians and pick up a real History Book. The Pagan Hat claim is just nonsense.

you know the one, makes a lot of money,

The average Salary for a Roman Catholic Bishop in the United States is $45‘000-$50‘000, which is actually about $10’000-$15’000 less than the average for a man of roughly equivalent education and training, as well as responsibilities. This assumes he is a Salaried Diocesan bishop and not part of a Religious Order, in which case he has taken a Vow of Poverty and receives no Salary, and gains only his necessities,such as his Home and food, from the Church.

Bishops do not really make a lot of Money.

likes to exclude women

You know, learning the facts about issues before spouting off may held. Catholic Bishops don’t exclude women. You of course mean they are mean and won’t ordain them; however, this is not because of sexism. The reason women aren’t ordained is because it’s a Theological impossibility to ordain them in Catholic teaching. Jesus was himself a man and a Catholic Priest acts Ex Peresona Christi. He actually embodies the Christ as he performs the Sacrament so that Jesus, not the Priest, is the real administrator of them, with the Pres as only his Vehicle. That is why women are not ordained.

If you can accept that a Film maker doing s movie about the life of Jesus Christ would not hire a woman, and would acc4pt that he is not sexist, simply hiring a man because Jesus was a man, the same ought to apply here. The Irony is that you’d not even complain that they only consider male actors to play Jesus yet you want the entire Catholic Church to undermine its own Theology just out of political correctness and accuse them of excluding women if they don’t. The Sacraments are however more important to a Catholic than any movie role ever will be, even if the role is Jesus.

But as I said, this is about attacking Christians, and in this case specifically Catholics, so getting the facts straight is not really important to you. Yu want to say they exclude women as another mark again them, and never consider why they do as they do.

This isn’t about understanding, its about demonising them.

and surrounds himself with some dodgy allegations,

The Paedophile Priests scandal is old news, and really just a cheap shot now. Less than 2% of all Priest were even accused of anything untoward, fewer than 0.5% of the Bishops were blames, and the Truth is that sexual abuse of Children is much more common amongst family members than the Catholic Clergy. In fact, School teachers are more likely. Catholic Clergy are statistically at the bottom of likely perpetrators.

But the media loves sensationalism, and people like you love to tar the name of Christians everywhere so just keep pushing this. Who cares about being fair or checking hr facts when the Paedophile Priest scandal can just be used as a club to beat people up with?

you know - Bishop.

No, I don’t know. Everything you said it just a Bigoted stereotype that doesn’t really address the real world. Its simply further proof that you just want to attack Christianity.

And tell him what you've been doing on some Zeitgeist film forum? You might be surprised at his answer.

Actually a Catholic Bishop would agree with what I’ve said here.

He may be surprised though as to why I would come to tell him, given that I’m not Catholic.

[–] All_Seeing_Fly 14 years ago

The thing about the priests, it was covered up by the church, so we don't really know how many. It's sad that you even seem to think something hideous like that was a 'cheap shot' and old news - not really old either is it.

UK Archbishops get about £60K GBP, with nice property, and good pension contributions. I don't know how to find out anything more. Bishops certainly get less, but with the same perks. They are 'comfortable,' but I don't really care.

I also don't care if Jesus was a black African woman! It's a male centric religion, you can't just use the Bible to say it's OK.

That Pagan hat is similar, right. There's no proof of it being intentional or not. You can't just say not for you own convenience, you have no proof.

No-one can prove Jesus existed, which annoys me immensely, I have to say.

We clearly have different views, so what, can we stop this, as it's an age old problem the world over.
.
.

[–] ZAROVE 14 years ago

Fly, repeating media sensationalism is not the same as understanding a situation, not that it matters as you’ve deviated well past the original claims you made about how Christianity owes at least some of its origins to paganism and onto the tired old claims of how evil the Christian Church has been. After having discussed the Inquisition and Crusades as tired old troupes, being told by me the weren’t as bad as depicted then accustom me of wanting to torture nonbelievers, you now turn your attention to the Paedophile Priest Scandal and bring up the usual troupes about that. Is it too much to ask that you do a bit of research into the topic, rather than just repeat the claim that best suits your prejudices?

The thing about the priests, it was covered up by the church, so we don't really know how many.

The real thing about it is, it was covered up by specific Bishops, not the whole of the Catholic Church. Also, the “we don’t know how many’ claim falls flat when you realise that we also don’t know how many of the accused Priests were innocent, an simply targeted because people were greedy and saw this as a way to make a lot of quick cash.

Before you say I’m being callous in that, there have been a lot of cases in which the Priest was actually exonerated after being accused. The funny thing is, while the Media will swarm around the accused Paedophile Priest, and his name will make the papers, if it is determined that he is innocent, the papers don’t bother covering it. So he now has to live with a stigma, frequently fot the rest of his life, thanks to a false accusation made by greedy people out for money.

Is there any compassion from you for those Priest who were falsely accused? Of course not, you don’t even think of them, and just assume that if a Priest was accused he must be guilty. That fits your need to see the Christian Church as a whole as an entity that has committed great crimes throughout he centuries and continues to to this day.

Now, am I saying no sex abuse occurred? You will no doubt accuse me of such, but I didn’t. However, the question is, is the Catholic Church itself entirely guilty?

The short answer is, no. Only those actually involved.

Worse still is the fact that most of the abuse cases, be they real or imagined, occurred over 30 years ago, with some going back to even 60 years ago. Why does this matter? Because you have to accommodate Historical realities when discussing Historical events. Had the Catholic Church concealed the paedophilia, but been alone as an institution that did this, then there would be something to complain about, but the Truth is that every organisation or institution covered scandals up.

They did his because they feared that exposure of something untoward would harm the image of the institution as a whole. This fear, it seems, is not wholly unjustified given your own use of Paedophile Priests.

Go on and doubt me, but if a school had a teacher who sexually abused his Children under his care, he’d be dressed down, in the hopes that he’d stop, and perhaps reassigned to another school. The School would not go to the Police and turn him in, because they would fear that such a breach of Propriety would reflect badly on the School.

Public reputation was a good deal more important in the past than it is now, and the general mentality was that those who ran the institutions wanted to avoid Scandal. The best way to do that is to put on a Public Face that never revealed any problems, and should problems occur, to conceal them, rather than expose them.

In that light, the Catholic Church (really just select Diocesan Bishops) actions make far more sense. They didn’t act out of the normal, expected course that one would have anticipated in the past. Yet somehow, we want to pretend that the past is exactly like today, had the same values, and the people acted along the same general civic understanding.

We pretend that Government Institutions or private Charities or Businesses would have reported this to the Police ASAP, and only the Catholic Church hid such problems, out of some dastardly support for it.

That sort of mentality we use to demonise the whole of the Catholic Church, and thus by extension all Christendom, somehow, is flagrantly dishonest. What it amounts to is that we expect people to live by our standards today, as opposed to the ones the society held to when they were performing such acts.

And when you confront the reality that not all accused Priests are Guilty, combine that with who the Media is quick to report the accusation of a Paedophile Priest but seldom to never reports when they are acquitted, and how in the whole Catholic Church is blamed for the actions of a handful of men, you really begin to see that this is much less about real concern for the Victims of Child Abuse, and more about tying to defame Catholicism, and in your case all Christianity.

It's sad that you even seem to think something hideous like that was a 'cheap shot' and old news - not really old either is it.

It is old. The abuse cases for the most part are over 30 years old, need to be understood in Historical context, and often are fabricated.

Even the genuine ones are really not more numerous than those in other professions, its just that the Paedophile Priest image has become a Media Darling so any priest who abuses any Child immediately becomes news worldwide, whereas the routine abuse that happens far more often in homes is ignored by and large.

Why should I focus on the Paedophile Priest when the Scientifically proven reality is that far more sexual abuse happens in Homes, not in Churches? Why should I focus on how horrible the Catholic Church is when I can note how other Institutions acted similarly in the same time period?> Why should I focus on Paedophile Priests when the Truth is that, setting aside the abuse Children receive at Home, the most common professions to contain Paedophiles are School teachers or Day Care providers, not the priesthood in Catholicism? Why should I focus a lot of attention on the Paedophile Priests when Catholic Clergy are statistically far Less likely to abuse Children than most other Professions?

Exactly why should this be proof of some massive evil in Catholicism when the actual problem of Paedophilia is much more common elsewhere, and its just as frequently covered up?

UK Archbishops get about £60K GBP,

60 thousand Pounds is not a lot, given the years of actual study, the responsibilities they hold to, and the fact that the Cost of Living in the UK is generally higher than in the US.

Do you really see 60 Thousand as a huge sum? Most men with their level of Education make about twice that.

with nice property,

Excuse me but, since when did the Church give the Bishops property? Typically a Bishop lives on Church owned property.

and good pension contributions.

Which is wrong why?

Its still not like they are given incredible wealth.

I don't know how to find out anything more. Bishops certainly get less, but with the same perks. They are 'comfortable,' but I don't really care.

If you don’t really care, then why did you bring it up?

It seems that somehow it was important when we were presented with the Image of Bishops gaining incredible wealth, with the implication that they were in their jobs for the money and were just greedy for personal Gain, but now somehow you don’t care.

Maybe that’s because know that your claim isn’t going to be bought.

I also don't care if Jesus was a black African woman! It's a male centric religion, you can't just use the Bible to say it's OK.

No, it’s not a Male Centric religion. Its pretty well God centred. Bythe way, before you pull the troupe that God is male, please read a decent book on Theology by a real Theologian.

That Pagan hat is similar, right.

The Mitre is not a Pagan Hat. Its actually a Roman Civic Hat, designed for Secular Use originally, to designate one with some sort of Authority.

It never really had direct Pagan Connotations, it was a product of Secular society at the time. Its now used by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches out of Tradition, but is not Central to their Respective Faiths. Its also not really employed by all members of said Faiths, and was not used by the Catholic or Orthodox Churches till centuries after they were founded, further eroding its use as evidence of Pagan Borrowing.

There's no proof of it being intentional or not. You can't just say not for you own convenience, you have no proof.

Yes I do. The History of the Mitre is pretty well established. Meanwhile, nothing cooberates the “pagan hat” claim at all.

No-one can prove Jesus existed, which annoys me immensely, I have to say.

Actually Jesus’ existence is already a proven fact. That’s why you won’t find a single actual Historian who denies it, or even entertains doubts. The Christ Myth theory mainly lives on the Internet amongst Militant Atheists who want to use it o discredit Christianity.

The Theory has no Value Academically and is fringe lunatic nonsense.

We clearly have different views, so what, can we stop this, as it's an age old problem the world over.

But its not an age old problem the world over. No one in Antiquity ever doubted Jesus existed. In fact, it wasn’t until the 18th Century that anyone ever did. Those how did usually had a Vested Interest in discrediting the Christian Faith, EG, Enlightenment Era Philosophers or later members of the “Freethought” movement base don the Enlightenment, or later Humanist Philosophers who in turn took their Cues from the Freethought Movement. No one, even the most hard core Atheists, actually buys the theory nowadays though, not in Mainstream Academic Circles anyway.

The best you get is Robert Price, and his works on the subject aren’t peer reviewed, or taken seriously.

[–] All_Seeing_Fly 14 years ago

Read a book on theology? To get the truth? Your obfuscations are not impressive.
These guys make a lot of money promoting, well, what ever they like.
And peer reviewed by whom, people that agree, or the power hungry? What basis of the fundamental truth are you suggesting?
£60K is not a lot? What would Jesus say.

No, it’s not a Male Centric religion. Its pretty well God centred. Bythe way, before you pull the troupe that God is male, please read a decent book on Theology by a real Theologian.

God? Yours I presume, proof non existent. Male centric, yes.
A real Theologian, who makes money selling what book again?
I don't care if your god is from the planet zargoz, if you want someone who's standing in a ray of sun, with a long flowing beard then go for it. Although I'm sure you'll dig up something about artists of the time. You did so with that supposed picture from 40AD that you mistakenly believed was made while he was alive.

You seem to not care when I said that Christianity has been around for 1% of existence of humans. So..
I'm more interested to know what you think of people who say that the world is only 4000 (give or take strangely varying amounts of thou.) years old? And that being taught in schools.

I more interested in the sociology, BTW.

[–] ZAROVE 14 years ago

Fly-

Read a book on theology? To get the truth? Your obfuscations are not impressive.
These guys make a lot of money promoting, well, what ever they like.
And peer reviewed by whom, people that agree, or the power hungry? What basis of the fundamental truth are you suggesting?

You know, we are discussing, amongst other things, Theology, so just dismissing it as a NonTopic and not a source for Truth really doesn’t pan out. You are making specific proclamations about what people believe in, its origins, and the nature of a specific Theological System. It would behoove you to actually know what the Theologians actually say since then you’d be able to actually address their real beliefs, and not the Pseudo-Intellectual Claims you read off the Internet or get from Zeitgeist.

That said, Theologians don’t typically make a lot of money, and the whole claim that they are power hungry is asinine at this point. Do you have any real evidence that those who work in Theology are driven by Greed and a desire for power? Exactly why should I believe this? Why do you believe this?

Also, you must realise by now that Academics is a controlled environment. The Peer Review process is he same, and the Peers who review your work do not always share your beliefs, and even Atheist professors can peer Review a Theological Paper.

Unless you have some viable evidence to suggest this process really has been corrupted, and specifically by power hungry people who want lots of money, then your dismissal is simply further evidence that you just want to promote a negative view of Christianity and perhaps your shallow understanding of Religion in General in order to justify your own beliefs. This is about conforming things to your prejudices, not getting facts, and when you do this you start simply forcing the facts around your thesis, not letting the facts inform you of how the world really is. You discount anything that contradicts your preferred beliefs.

£60K is not a lot? What would Jesus say.

Jesus never said we had to live in abject poverty, and 60’000 Pounds Sterling really isn’t a lot of money. Again, the Bishops are not Fabulously wealthy. Not that it matters, as not all Theologians or Ministers are Catholic. What about a Church of Christ Minister who receives no pay at all? Or a Baptist who works a regular 9-5 Job and preaches for only 200 Pounds as a supplement?

Would you say they are power hungry and out for lots of money too?

You must, as you dismissed Theology in those very terms.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it's not a Male Centric religion. Its pretty well God centred. Bythe way, before you pull the troupe that God is male, please read a decent book on Theology by a real Theologian.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

God? Yours I presume, proof non existent.

Actually there is evidence that makes belief in God rationally warranted, but that’s for another Thread.

Male centric, yes.

And we know this because you said so.

A real Theologian, who makes money selling what book again?

Some make no money at all, or make very little, and not all sell any books. So , your claim is meaningless here.

I don't care if your god is from the planet zargoz, if you want someone who's standing in a ray of sun, with a long flowing beard then go for it. Although I'm sure you'll dig up something about artists of the time. You did so with that supposed picture from 40AD that you mistakenly believed was made while he was alive.

I didn’t make a mistake. I was quiet honest with my sources. By the way, you still missed the point.

Also, you obviously do care where my god is from and what he looks like and such else why even talk about it?

You seem to not care when I said that Christianity has been around for 1% of existence of humans. So..

Because that’s irrelevant. Evolutionary Theory has been around a lot fewer years, and Relativity is younger than Evolution.

This means those two things are worthless?

Why does it matter how old Christianity is?

I'm more interested to know what you think of people who say that the world is only 4000 (give or take strangely varying amounts of thou.) years old? And that being taught in schools.

No one I know of says its 4000 years old. If you want to criticise Creationism, please get your facts about it right.

There are three general types of Creationists in terms of the Age of the Earth. There are Young Earth Creationists, whom you address here, who generally hold the Earth to be between 6000 and 30’000 years old. That’s, at minimum, still 2000 years older than you claimed. Then there are Old Earth Creationists who are perfectly comfortable with the Earth being 4.5-6 Billion years old. There is also the now much more rare Recreational Creationists who think the Earth was created an unspecified amount of time ago, say 6 Billion years ago, then destroyed for some reason, and God started over more recently, say about 6000 years ago. These are the three general views of Creationism.

Not all Creationists are Young Earthers.

As to this being Taught in Schools, exactly where?

I more interested in the sociology, BTW.

No your not. You obviously don’t know anything about Social Demographics, and you spend your time coming here to criticise Christianity. Its obvious where your interests really lie.

[–] All_Seeing_Fly 14 years ago

A picture from 40AD? (which inherently means nothing anyway) I thought Jesus was supposed to have died in his thirties? I must have got that wrong.

I was just asking you a question about what you thought of the Creationists ideas, stop presuming I'm criticising, I was just asking you what you thought of it, but you appear not to have an opinion.
I put it there as a demonstration of the extent with which people use 'truth.'

Maybe just try:-
http://lmgtfy.com/?q= creationism+taught+in+schools
I was more interested in the UKs practices.

You know exactly what I meant about male-centric, but you insist on playing a child about it. It's not male-centric because of its content, it's male centric because it was designed that way - by men. I haven't got time to be more eloquent about it.

It's obvious where your interests lie, trying to mush over the Zeitgeist film with your own propaganda, rather than just let people believe what they want to believe.
Why can't you see that it's JUST your own BELIEFS.

I won't dignify your other repugnant statements with a reply.

[–] ZAROVE 14 years ago

It is quaint that you call my statements repugnant, say my posts are Propaganda, and I have some vested interest, and that I’m just here to push my beliefs onto others. Keep in mind that this claim is one you made before. Its really just a way to shift the blame and make me seem like the aggressor. However, I will remind you that Zeitgeist doesn’t simply present beliefs of its own and ask you to believe them, it attacks Christianity in its first part, whilst attacking the United States Government and Global Banking systems in its remaining two parts. I’m just as critical of its 9-11 Nonsense and its bashing of the Banking system, and am equally critical of its claims regarding the United States Government. This is because what Zeitgeist says is not True, not because I have some personal interest in this. In fact, I’ve been highly Critical of the United States Government, and have very low regard for many of its actions. Still, that doesn’t mean what Zeitgeist says is True.

The same applies to Christianity. Its easy to prove that Zeitgeist is absolute Tosh. Anyone willing to do the least amount of research and who is willing to follow that evidence wherever it leads will inevitably be lead to the conclusion that Zeitgeist is rubbish.

There is no escaping this conclusion, in fact. Zeitgeist can’t be true. Horus didn’t lead a life that was similar to near identical to Jesus‘. He wasn’t born of a Virgin, didn’t have 12 Disciples, didn’t preach at 12 at the Temple, and was never crucified and resurrected. Nor were any of the other supposed earlier Saviours.

Further, the connection between Jesus’ life and the Suns course through the Sky each year is untenable to anyone who tries to map it out.

Its not that I want to push my beliefs onto others, its that this film outright lies about its subject matters, such as Christianity.

Its also stupid to entertain the idea that Jesus may have never existed when no one in Historical Circles gives this theory the time of day, and the amount of Evidence for Jesus having lived as a man is overwhelming. We have more on him than most other Ancient Figures. There is really no question to the fact hat he lived as a man.

The Myth theory makes no sense.

The only reason people buy into the idea that Jesus never existed, or the Pagan Parallels, is because they want to undermine the credibility of Christianity. Its not because they have examined the evidence and seen the facts, its because they want Christianity to not be True, and want to fit the Image of Christianity they have into the facts. That depiction is a Negative one, always.

You do this yourself. You have a sort of emotional reaction to thoughts regarding Christianity. Its an untrustworthy Religion that lacks credibility and created the Dark Ages. Its held us back as a species, and practiced Violence and oppression. Its base don primitive superstition and fear. You then buy into the version of History that justifies all of this rather than learn the Facts. That way you can feel superior, because you have risen above the errors of the past, and seen the Truth through reason. You have veiled past the need or Christianity and can honestly examine its tenets absent History and reason and see who it was constructed. It must make you feel very advanced. It certainly fits into your worldview. But when this view is contradicted you immediately cast aspersions onto the ones challenging it.

Everything form the idea that Jesus never lived and his life was borrowed form earlier pagan spruces, to all Christian Holidays being Pagan, to the Holiday customs being Pagan, to the Pagan hat Bishops wear, to how just Awful the Crusades and Inquisition were and how they existed to kill Nonbelievers, its all part of the overall narrative of how Primitive, Superstitious Christians prevented us from advancing because of their silly beliefs, brought pain, suffering, ad misery to the world because of their backwards ways, and ultimately prevented Real Progress until Reason began to break the Chains of Bondage our Instance and false beliefs brought us and lead to what you believe today.

That’s the real reason you buy into these claims, because you need them to be True. It show you make sense of the world around you, it’s the world you live in, and you can’t bare the thought that your image of how things work isn’t reality. Besides, to makes it feel good that you have advanced past the crippling effects of Religion and can se the world with reason, and can honestly assess the Truth those primitive Christians can’t because their Faith Blinds them.

So you just read up on whatever happens to support your pre-arranged vision of History. You seek confirmation that your beleifs are true and try to dismiss anything that contradicts this.

To examine the History honestly, to set aside the prejudices you have and look critically at all those claims you hold to as absolute Truth, threatens to shatter your whole world, and you may have to admit you were mistaken, may have to revise it, may have to completely abandon it. That must be scary, to loose the world as you know it… and to loose that sense of Superiority that comes with the above Narrative.

So you just call people who call you out on this Propagandists, and claim they are nasty to you.

You will continue to say Bishops wear Pagan Hats, and that Easer Eggs and Christmas Trees are Pagan Customs form pre-Christian times. You will continue to claim there is no evidence for Jesus’s Existence, and will continue to claim that the Christian Church went about persecuting Pagans. It doesn’t matter if this isn’t True, you need it to be True so will insist it is, and forever bind yourself to these beliefs, which Ironically chain you, leaving you in Darkness and bondage, the very Darkness and Bondage you think all those Christians are in, and you have escaped form. But this a comfortable Bondage, one of warm reassurance, of security, and of a self assured smug superiority. It makes you feel safe, and I must have threatened you with the Key to unlock you, because Liberty is frightening when you want to hide form the real world.

Still, a Great Man once said that we should know the Truth, and the Truth shall make us Free.

I offer you the liberty o Truth, and hope you will accept it.

[–] All_Seeing_Fly 14 years ago

Yep, all of that rant was hateful and repugnant. Trying to convert me are you?
I know light, and you are wallowing in the complexity and conformity of others, buried in too many words to grasp any true single root of clarity.
You think the church needs 'moving forward' from 'suffering' and the only way to do that is make it all lightness and beauty, by all agreeing to give it a more rosy history.
But that's certainly interesting, I didn't know that was going on with you guys.

So you just read up on whatever happens to support your pre-arranged vision of History. You seek confirmation that your beleifs are true and try to dismiss anything that contradicts this.

- Clearly talking about yourself.

I've already stated I don't mind Christianity and I'm sure it helps some people through life, but you ignored that, only to spit and rage at me like some rude street mad-man.

'Darkness and bondage' are words that belong to your faith. Meaningless to myself, and I don't believe in opposing spiritual forces either, so that 'Satan' only exists to you. Keep him, I hope he helps you in some way.

I've already stated I don't care what you believe in - go for it.
But you must learn to accept that others should be tolerated. But that seems a tall order in this world.

And hey, it's only some media event film!!

I didn't like the next two films BTW, I tried to watch the last one three times, what rubbish that was.

[–] ZAROVE 14 years ago

Fly-

Yep, all of that rant was hateful and repugnant. Trying to convert me are you?

Nothing I’ve said was hateful or repugnant. To be hateful one has to show hatred, and asking you to open your eyes and see the Truth is not hatred by anyone’s definition.

As to converting you, all I’ve asked thusfar is that you look at the evidence for why the Film Zeitgeists claims (In all three parts) are not valid, and to cease in your attempt at supporting a popular image of the past in regards to Christianity, in favour of the realities of the actual Historical record. One need not be a Christian to learn real History.

I know light, and you are wallowing in the complexity and conformity of others, buried in too many words to grasp any true single root of clarity.

No, I am presenting you with Historically factual information that is incontestable if one looks.

You think the church needs 'moving forward' from 'suffering' and the only way to do that is make it all lightness and beauty, by all agreeing to give it a more rosy history.

I never said History was all rosy, but the claims you make specifically about History are false. There is a distinction.

But that's certainly interesting, I didn't know that was going on with you guys.

It’s a little something called “Historical literacy”. And again, one need not be a Christian to actually read and understand valid History, which is all I asked of you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you just read up on whatever happens to support your pre-arranged vision of History. You seek confirmation that your beleifs are true and try to dismiss anything that contradicts this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Clearly talking about yourself.

Now you display lack of reading comprehension, because I was clearly speaking of you.

I've already stated I don't mind Christianity and I'm sure it helps some people through life, but you ignored that, only to spit and rage at me like some rude street mad-man.

I’m not raging though. Calling my posts rants and imagining that I’m frothing at the mouth really doesn’t prove a lot either.

'Darkness and bondage' are words that belong to your faith.

I’m pretty sure they are Universal. Plato used them when discussing how people see only shadows, not the real world, for example.

Meaningless to myself, and I don't believe in opposing spiritual forces either, so that 'Satan' only exists to you. Keep him, I hope he helps you in some way.

Do you have any idea how metaphor and Allegory work? I wasn’t talking about opposing Spiritual Forces and Satan, I was talking about the Darkness of Ignorance and the light of Wisdom and Understanding.

I've already stated I don't care what you believe in - go for it.
But you must learn to accept that others should be tolerated. But that seems a tall order in this world.

You keep repeating this. However, simply saying I am intolerant of people who don’t share my specific beliefs doesn’t really address the realities of what I’ve said. My complaints about Zeitgeist isn’t that the people who made it, and its subsequent followers such as yourself, aren’t Christian and don’t believe the same things I do, its that Zeitgeist is a very obvious Fraud, and the claims are all too easy to discredit.

The real irony is that if I went on an actual rant and started to attack peoples beliefs, you’d then use that as evidence that I’m intolerant, but seem oblivious to the fact that Zeitgeist attacked the Christian Faith.

How exactly is part one tolerant?

More importantly, how exactly is it suppose to be accepted and tolerated by anyone else who bothers to check its facts and finds that the Film lied to them? That should be much more important, don’t you think?

And hey, it's only some media event film!!

Which people like you believe in.

Hey, I do this with Glenn Beck fans to, and he wants to take America back for God. That doesn’t excuse his false History. Or that of Joseph Farah or any other John Bercher.

I didn't like the next two films BTW, I tried to watch the last one three times, what rubbish that was.

Then you prove my point. The principle reason you like Zeitgeist is because it feeds into your prejudices against Christianity and reinforces your belief that Christianity is based on lies and subterfuge and was created by people who wanted to control others, and who stole everything from Pagan Cultures.

It has nothing to do with the information actually being True, you just want to believe it as it fits with how you’d prefer History to be understood. That’s really all this is about.

[–] All_Seeing_Fly 14 years ago

Nothing I’ve said was hateful or repugnant. To be hateful one has to show hatred, and asking you to open your eyes and see the Truth is not hatred by anyone’s definition.

Wanting me to see your "Truth" (capital 'T') I find seriously repugnant.
OK, maybe you should 'open your eyes' and see that your religion and all it's little symbols is just a small thread of a greater understanding, but instead you hide in it, protected by mountains of books. Without your religion you'll be lost, like a lamb at sea.

No, I am presenting you with Historically factual information that is incontestable if one looks.

You're trying to re-enforce your lies, by looking it up in a book. Religion and the written word are rarely joined in truth.

I never said History was all rosy, but the claims you make specifically about History are false. There is a distinction.

You've been saying it all along.

but seem oblivious to the fact that Zeitgeist attacked the Christian Faith.

It's not obvious at all, in fact it toys with the idea that ALL religions have cultural descendants and ponders how far back do they actually go.

My complaints about Zeitgeist isn’t that the people who made it, and its subsequent followers such as yourself, aren’t Christian and don’t believe the same things I do, its that Zeitgeist is a very obvious Fraud, and the claims are all too easy to discredit.

I'm not a 'follower' of this film, your just twisting things again. The existence of Jesus is not proven, nor are any of the dates in the film, it just makes people think. You can't stop that, unlucky for you.

Do you have any idea how metaphor and Allegory work? I wasn’t talking about opposing Spiritual Forces and Satan, I was talking about the Darkness of Ignorance and the light of Wisdom and Understanding.

I didn't say you were talking about Satan, stop lying, I was just saying I don't have 'him.' he exists in your world only.

Hey, I do this with Glenn Beck fans to, and he wants to take America back for God. That doesn’t excuse his false History. Or that of Joseph Farah or any other John Bercher.

By WHY do you do it, just tolerate it. It's only your own belief, and not the truth.

[–] ZAROVE 14 years ago

Fly-

Nothing I've said was hateful or repugnant. To be hateful one has to show hatred, and asking you to open your eyes and see the Truth is not hatred by anyone's definition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wanting me to see your "Truth" (capital 'T') I find seriously repugnant.

Yet you don’t find Zeitgeist Repugnant even though it does the same thing. But here’s the difference. I’ve made it policy here not to really promote Christianity and my comments are based around Secular studies of History and Religion, and what I present is a consensus view amongst respectable sources. You want to promote and defend a Propaganda piece that peddles Conspiracy Theories.

The Film Zeitgeist see’s its claims as Truth with a Capital T and its followers have he same mentality.

Those who come here to post how Zeitgeist is at least feasibly True with a Capital T are thus not in a position to complain, and the only reason you do is because I shoot it down.

Oh, and for the record, I sue an Archaic Stylus for my writing, I capitalise many General Nouns if you pay attention.

OK, maybe you should 'open your eyes' and see that your religion and all it's little symbols is just a small thread of a greater understanding, but instead you hide in it, protected by mountains of books. Without your religion you'll be lost, like a lamb at sea.

You do know that your claim abut my Religion is ultimately meaningless right? I can just as readily say the same about you in your Religion. You may say you aren’t Religious as a retort, but hat will only prove you don’t really see what angle I’m coming from.

Religion is simply our beliefs about our existence, the Foundational understanding we form about the nature of our existence is the subject of Religion. Religion is not the same thing as Theism, and is not all about Mysticism. Its simply an intellectual Framework that informs one of how the world around him works, its meaning, and how one ought to approach it, and lead ones life.

So saying without my Religion I’d be lost is really an odd statement, what you are saying is that without my understanding of existence I’d be lost. Well of course that’s True, but tis equally True for you.

That said, I agree with the Church Fathers, and with C. S. Lewis, and many others in that I don’t think Christianity is True into itself, but True because it accurately reflects the Real World. I also don’t think one Religion is 100% True and all others 100% false. We all live in the same world and will make the same observations and have the same experiences. As Religion really is just the Framework we build in our attempt to understand the world around us, I would argue that the same principles and ideals will eventually find expression in other human Cultures, and even had Christianity never come not being, the same principles which emerge out of Natural Law and Human Nature would find expression in some other Faith. Though the Rituals and specific Language may differ to fit the alternate Culture, the basic problems or questions Christianity asks would be asked by others, and the Truth would win out in the end with their Answers.

I know you think I’m just some fervent Christian who, as in your Stereotypical view of what a Christian is, would hate all other Religions or see them as utterly False, and tat Christianity is THE TRUTH!, but that’s never been my position.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I am presenting you with Historically factual information that is incontestable if one looks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're trying to re-enforce your lies, by looking it up in a book. Religion and the written word are rarely joined in truth.

Simply saying I am lying is not evidence that I am lying, nor does it support your allegations.

If you want to prove that Christianity took ideas from Paganism, like the ones we discussed, then it would behoove you to present actual evidence to support your specific claims. EG, that Easter was really a Pagan Holiday regarding the goddess Oestare, and the Easter bunny and Easter Eggs are really Pagan Fertility Symbols that held over.

This claim is a common one seen round the net, and is generally accepted in Pop Culture, but to date no one, including you, seem to have any real tangible evidence to back this claim.

Or the bit about the Christmas Tree being Pagan.

Come on lad, give us some evidence that’s viable.

While your at it, why not present us with a reasonable explanation of why we should take the idea that Jesus never existed seriously?

Anything?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said History was all rosy, but the claims you make specifically about History are false. There is a distinction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You've been saying it all along.

Quote me as saying that History is just Rosy.. Because I quoted you below. I want to see actual evidence that I made this claim.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but seem oblivious to the fact that Zeitgeist attacked the Christian Faith.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's not obvious at all, in fact it toys with the idea that ALL religions have cultural descendants and ponders how far back do they actually go.

No, it claims that all Religions are based on Sun Worship, and somehow reflect the Cycle the Sun goes through in the course of a Year.

This claim is absurd on its face and assumes a common decent for all Religions, which is silly.

The claim is very clearly about Christianity, and later Judeo-Christian Religions in general, as its sole point fi Reference is the Bible, the Life of Jesus, and other Biblical notables like Moses, whom are compared then to Pagan Deities or Heroes.
Saying that this is not meant as an attack on Christianity is foolish, specially as I’ve not attacked you but simply debunked the films claims, yet you claim I am some sort of aggressor.

By the way, Some Religions aren’t related to other Religions at all, and despite some people thinking Religion was created at a specific time, before which no one was Religious, and some today still aren’t, or have left Religion, the Truth is that what we call Religion really is just the beliefs people had about their world and how life worked.

Religion wasn’t created at a specific time by one guy or a group of people, its innate to the human Condition as we’ve always striven to understand our existence.

Conversely, not all Cultures share the same root, nor do all Religions descend form one Common Religion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My complaints about Zeitgeist isn't that the people who made it, and its subsequent followers such as yourself, aren't Christian and don't believe the same things I do, its that Zeitgeist is a very obvious Fraud, and the claims are all too easy to discredit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not a 'follower' of this film, your just twisting things again.

Am I?

The existence of Jesus is not proven,

Actually it is.

Again, the Christ Myth theory is not accepted in Mainstream Academia, and thrives only on the Internet amongst nonexperts who obviously have their own partisan reasons for desiring to promote such a claim.

Using standard Historical Method, one can conclude nothing else than Jesus existed as a man in History. To claim this not Proven is the Equivalent to denying that man Landed on the Moon.

nor are any of the dates in the film, it just makes people think. You can't stop that, unlucky for you.

Why is it that you now fall on the very demeaning stereotype that I am A Christian who wants you to shut off your ability to think and just blindly believe? This sort of arrogant statement form you is all too common, and is simply not warranted.

Its also dishonest to say Zeitgeist wants you to think. No, Zeitgeist wants you to swallow its claims whole and just accept what it claims as True.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you have any idea how metaphor and Allegory work? I wasn't talking about opposing Spiritual Forces and Satan, I was talking about the Darkness of Ignorance and the light of Wisdom and Understanding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't say you were talking about Satan, stop lying, I was just saying I don't have 'him.' he exists in your world only.

Actually Satan’s Material existence is not limited to hose who believe. If Satan exists, he exists in both our world as we have a shared one, Conversely, if he dos not exist, he is nonexistent to the both of us.

That said, I’d be careful of the accusation that I am lying given that the text you wrote above bares me out.

“'Darkness and bondage' are words that belong to your faith. Meaningless to myself, and I don't believe in opposing spiritual forces either, so that 'Satan' only exists to you. Keep him, I hope he helps you in some way. ”

This does impute on me a meaning about Opposing Spiritual Forces and Satan, regardless of how you will now try to spin it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey, I do this with Glenn Beck fans to, and he wants to take America back for God. That doesn't excuse his false History. Or that of Joseph Farah or any other John Bercher.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By WHY do you do it, just tolerate it. It's only your own belief, and not the truth.

I do it because it’s not the Truth, and can be demonstrated as such.

If it were merely a difference of belief, I would not be so inclined. I don’t go to Muslim Message Boards to try to convince them they are wrong, because there is just as much evidence for Islam as for Christianity. This is not to say none exist before you jump to this conclusion, only that one can be Rational, look at all the evidence, and decide to be a Muslim.

But the same is not True of the Claims of this film, which are false, and easily demonstrated as such.

Likewise, one can be a Jew or a Muslim or a Mormon and never say a disparaging word about another Faith. One can be an Atheist and never attack anyone else’s Religion either. But when you make it your principle point to disparage another, then you invite others to challenge your assertions as well, and loose any ability to claim The other Party is Intolerant towards you.

If I were to sit here and start saying that Muslim do not worship the same God as Christians and Jews, but a moon god named Allah, that the Koran calls Black people Raisin Heads, and promotes Racism, and that Islam itself is the reason for Terrorism alone, and Islam can be nothing but Violent; If I go out of my way to depict Islam as a Death Cult which does no good in the world and leads to Totalitarianism and abuse, and if I start to claim the Koran promotes Violence and oppression against non-Muslims, and that all Islam is evil, and I then proceed to show how it is a Lie perpetuated by a Con man named Muhammad, and afterward a Muslim comes in and begins to correct my assertions, show how I have misquoted the Koran and Distorted Islamic Teachings, and to show how the History of Islam I presented was False, I have no right to say he should leave me alone and be tolerant of my beliefs. If my central premise is n attack on Islam and its Fundamental nature or its Origins and Teachings, then I have no right to say that a Muslim coming to set the record straight and to correct the errors I spew is being hateful or Repugnant or Intolerant.

That’s something you seem t not want to accept. If you make specific claims about Christianity, then Christians have a right to respond. If said arguments are misleading, or outright False, the Christian has the right to set the record Straight. The Christian is not Intolerant who says Zeitgeist part One is false, he is simply correcting the errors in a film that attacks his Faith. This is done in the interest of Truth and to prevent misunderstandings about Christianity from Spreading, something he would have a vested interest in. it’s the same as if the Film made claims about an individual which weren’t true and said Individual complained and wanted to set the record straight.

By the way, Christians are not the only ones who have criticised this film, nor the only ones to specifically Criticise Part One. We’ve had Atheists here critical of it.

[–] ZAROVE 14 years ago

You may also want to go here.

http://westarinstitute.org/

The Westar Institute is no friend to Orthodox Christian beliefs, but even they don’t put much stock in the Christ Myth Theory.

Yes Price is a member.\

However, most in the Jesus Seminar simply don’t take this seriously.

[–] All_Seeing_Fly 14 years ago

I'm not really that interested. You must be fun at parties.

[–] ZAROVE 14 years ago

You'd be surprised.

I take it that you are quitting because you know you can't win? Thouhg I doyubt you'll admist as much. Six Monhs form now you will be on anoher message board insistign that there is no evidence that Jesus existed, and discussign all the Pagan Parralllels, and how the Christian Churhc took things out of Paganism like the Christmas Tree or Easter Egg.

You won't listen to me, of course. You won't look up the informaiton to see if its True, either. You'll just repeat the claims abouyt how Christianity took this or that Pagan custom, and how everyhign n Christianity is Pagan. You'll also toss in critisism of the Cahtolic Chruch and a refefnece to Paedophile Prietss for good measure, wilst discussing the Historical evils of the Inquisition and Crusades as they mercilessly killed nonbeleivers.

To you, this really is abotu supporitng yoru specific view of History, regardless of if its true or not, in order to support yoru beleifs in general.

[–] All_Seeing_Fly 14 years ago

I expected you to think you've 'won' of course, people like you always do. Like I said ages ago, they just don't bother replying to you.

I'm not fanatical about any of this, AT ALL. I've had my beliefs for 20+ years, and I very comfortable with them. And I'm not going to say what they are to anyone, I don't feel the need to.

I was just playing your game with you, and I'm bored with it going in circles, as expected.
You believe things you read in books about Christianity by men. And people write other books about those books, and so on and so on. So what, it tells me nothing.

I've said I don't care really, and I've said I don't mind Christians, at least twice. What does it matter, as long as they believe in something.

People can believe in Xemu, and his Galactic Confederacy for all I care... .. .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology

And stop taking what ever it is you're on that makes you type all stargnely.

[–] ZAROVE 14 years ago

Fly, you really need to think about this for a moment. You accuse m of only believing what books say that are written by men, but where do you get your ideas form but books or movies or similar sources. At least mine are accurate and based on substantial evidence.

Thats the whole thing, your claims are false, and demonstratively so.

This isn't about mere beliefs, but actual objective evidence.

[–] All_Seeing_Fly 14 years ago

Books, by men. Over time.
Never mind.

[–] All_Seeing_Fly 14 years ago

Anyhoo, this has gone seriously off topic. What do you think of this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12244279
I'm not sure it will work as they intend.

[–] ZAROVE 14 years ago

Typical BBC Drivel. Centuries of distrust between Scienxe snd Religion? COme on, the Vatican has funded Observatioes, Hospitals, and laboritieies which are sen as amongst the best in the world, and yet somehow there is a rift between Science and Religion?

This really is not News, the Varican has always pursuied Science.

[–] ZAROVE 14 years ago

You say mien are books by men over time, but aren’t your own sources Books by Men over time? Heck the Goddess Oestara was first mentioned by the Brothers Grim…

[–] All_Seeing_Fly 14 years ago

I thought the Grimm's used heavy amounts of folk lore, and orally handed down tales. But those tales are constructs in themselves, probably seeped in centuries of Gods, monsters and sea creatures, and lets hope, wonderful cautionary tales.

Look at the Norse Mythology, nobody can decipher what's fact or fiction, they can only get hints. Maybe settlers from the East made them stop celebrating Sunna, but we don't really know. We do get the hints that Christianity spread rapidly.

It's all just a mush, and historians can only guess. And historians lean in different directions, piously or not - they get plagiarised by others who like to think it's the truth; and that spreads across books, the Internet and video.
Historians, and the like, SAY they are purely knowledge based, but having preference is instinctual. Also, unfortunately, people find it easier to get at the 'truth' when they have only a couple of documents sourced, which isn't quite right either, it doesn't work that way.
And others seize on these ideas and trends for profit or power, sadly.
Best selling authors like this nice chap:-
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0964261081/defendeofthecath

Unfortunately this can be applied to ANY religion AND this film.
Maybe that was the point of it, who knows, I haven't seen it for 4 years. Perhaps I'll actually ask the film maker. Apparently it wasn't originally meant for distribution... probably :)

[–] ZAROVE 14 years ago

In the case of Oestara, The Brothers Grimm took a passage form the Venerable Bede who said that the 4th Month was named after Eostre, and then sough to reconstruct what this goddess was. They did not use pre-existing folklore, they had only a name, and assumed because the Month named for her was Spring she must have had something to do with that.

[–] kurgan-10 14 years ago

Interesting. Where can I read more about this?

http://www.historyversusthedavincicode.com/
History vs. the Da Vinci Code

[–] ZAROVE 14 years ago

Ask and ye shall receive…

Below are a few links.

1:

http://www.fact-index.com/e/eo/eostre.html

2:

http://www.fact-index.com/e/eo/eostre.html

3:

http://www.manygods.org.uk/articles/essays/Eostre.shtml

4:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostara

5:

http://www.suite101.com/content/easter-eostre-or-ostara-a108514

6:

http://english.turkcebilgi.com/Ostara

7:

http://www.aboutsociology.com/sociology/Eostre

8:

http://www.gnome-at-large.com/ANGSAX/EOSTRE.html

I hope that’s enough for right now.

EDIT: I'll add one more for good measure.

http://www.godchecker.com/pantheon/norse-mythology.php?deity=OSTARA

Thouhg it gives less information.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JamesJT67 14 years ago

Great convo guys. I have read through all your replys can it was a great read, lots of information/opinions. I think All_Seeing_Fly you trailed off a bit at the end, just from reading, kind of tried to poke holes in ZAROVE rather that what he was trying to state.

But overall great read, and as stated - try and find out what are facts and what are not, yourself.

JT

[–] jillysteve 8 years ago

PUBLIC HEALTH WARNING

This response is very lengthy (in several parts) and may bore some of a nervous disposition

To quote one of the contributors here, “I am a man of science, and religion simply doesn't tally up with that. Physics, geology, evolution.....”

I would like to apply that reasoning to all that has been discussed here, if I may.

Regarding the historicity of Jesus, please see the following quotes, quotes which the documentary alludes to but does not explicitly refer, for obvious reasons;

“The name [Christian] is derived from Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius.” - Cornelius Tacitus, respected first-century Roman historian

How many “Christs” did Pilate (who until recently was denied as being a historical figure) have executed during the reign of Tiberius?

“That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels.” - Historian Will Durant – Author of “A History of The World.”

“A man’s greatness can be measured by what he leaves, and whether he started others to think along fresh lines with a vigour that persisted after him. By this test Jesus stands first.” - Historian H.G Wells

“[Jesus’] life is the most influential ever lived on this planet and its effect continues to mount.” - Kenneth Scott Latourette, American historian and author.

“Shall we suppose the evangelic history a mere fiction? Indeed, my friend, it bears not the marks of fiction. On the contrary, the history of Socrates, which nobody presumes to doubt, is not so well attested as that of Jesus Christ.” - Jean-Jacques Rousseau, French philosopher.

“Shall we be told such a man never lived, the whole story is a lie? Suppose that Plato and Newton never lived. But who did their works, and thought their thoughts? It takes a Newton to forge a Newton. What man could have fabricated a Jesus? None but Jesus.” - American scholar Theodore Parker

The reference work The Historians’ History of the World observed: “The historical result of [Jesus’] activities was more momentous, even from a strictly secular standpoint, than the deeds of any other character of history. A new era, recognized by the chief civilizations of the world, dates from his birth.”

“If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.” - Michael Grant - Historian

The New Encyclopædia Britannica thus concludes: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”

Regarding the historical integrity of the Bible itself;

“Luke is a historian of the first rank: not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense ... This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.” - William Ramsay - Archaeologist

“I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatever.” - Sir Isaac Newton, British scientist

Others have already established the embellishment of facts in the documentary. Suffice to say that any serious journalistic source that is found manipulating facts should not be given further reporting credibility. But, for the record, referencing the few connections that still remain between Christianity and mythology, the facts once again speak for themselves;

Similarities in accounts are not evidence of forgery or plagiarism. One historical character may share many features of social customs and rituals with another character but, this is not indicative of collusion or imitation. Regarding the implied connections between the gospel accounts and astrology, the Biblical texts themselves dismiss this possibility;

Astrology was a pagan, polytheistic practice which was condemned by the monotheistic (the only ancient singular) God of the Bible. It simply states that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” allowing no room for worshipping or interpreting the heavens.

“There should not be found in you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, anyone who employs divination, anyone practising magic, anyone who looks for omens, a sorcerer, anyone binding others with a spell, anyone who consults a spirit medium or a fortune-teller, or anyone who inquires of the dead. For whoever does these things is detestable to Jehovah (God).” - Deuteronomy 18.10-12

It would have been bizarre and inconsistent for the son of God to practice and encourage astrology when God himself banned it's use.

The “Three wise men” were, in fact, nothing of the sort but were Astrologers (Magi). There was no celestial phenomenon or divine star that led them to the infant Jesus. The “Star” not only moved but, led them to Herod who was trying to murder the baby Messiah. God would hardly have arranged that.

Had the documentary writers simply read the Bible, instead of setting out to discredit it, they might have saved themselves the trouble of wading thorough irrelevant pagan records.

Regarding the often cited similarities between the Biblical flood and the “Epic of Gilgamesh,” once again the similarities do not mean that the Biblical narrative was copied from the legends. The oldest known non-Biblical Flood account is found in a Sumerian narration. Fragments of that narration on a broken clay tablet were found at Nippur in southern Mesopotamia. Some (and it should be emphasised that it is some), experts believe that it was written between the 21st and 18th centuries B.C.E. Regarding the dates of these two accounts of a global flood, although the Biblical Genesis account was written in the 16th century BCE (despite some historians claiming a much later date of the 2nd century BCE), the events recorded in the book of Genesis are chronologically listed, along with events and time periods, as occurring between, approximately 4,000 BCE (not the creation of the earth) and the departure of the Israelites from Egypt (1657 BCE). That the book of Genesis was not written in the 2nd century BCE is proven by the many references to Moses and Genesis in the other books of the Bible which are known to have been written in the 8th, 7th and 6th centuries BCE (Psalm 29.10, Isaiah 54.9, Ezekiel 14.14).

The universal theme of a flood in almost all civilizations, all around the globe, actually lends much historical validity to it. In almost all cultures around the globe there is a flood legend. This is true even in areas far from water, areas of elevation and isolation. It is an enigma that a society existing in a mountainous region, far from any major body of water, and unaffected by the threat of flooding, should have as it's pivotal legendary event, a worldwide deluge. One would have thought that such people would have opted for a more familiar disaster such as fire or earthquake, but they didn't.

A popular (and fair) criticism aimed at the Bible is that of the “Creationists” claim that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Unfortunately, this interpretation is erroneous and does not reflect the actual teaching of the Bible. The description of “days” over which creation was done by God has often been cited as an embarrassing error in the Bible, but this is not the case. The Hebrew word for “day” (yohm) is indefinite and can mean any specific period of time, from a period of daylight, to thousands of years. This is shown by the many various uses and contexts that the word “day” is written in the Bible. The first six days of creation are concluded one by one, but when it comes to the the seventh day, it does not have this ending, indicating that this period, during which God has been resting from his creative works toward the earth, continued on. At Hebrews 4:1-10 the apostle Paul indicated that God’s rest day was still continuing in his generation, and that was more than 4,000 years after that seventh-day rest period began. This makes it evident that each creative day, or work period, was at least thousands of years in length. At the end of the creative period Genesis says “This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.” Here the book of Genesis refers to the whole creative period as a “day.”

When God warns Adam not to eat from the tree, He uses an interesting phrase. Genesis records that God says “In the day that you eat from the tree, you will surely die.” Notice that it does not say “on” the day but, “IN”. That word changes the whole context of that statement. When we describe a particular day we always use the preposition “on” (on Monday etc.), yet when it comes to a longer period of time, we change to an adverb (“in January, in 1988”). Adam did not die on the same day that he disobeyed his creator, in fact, he went on to live for hundreds of years and had many children. The Bible was not referring to a 24 hour period, neither were the creative days 24 hour periods. Elsewhere in the Bible it tells us that God uses “a day for a year” when making certain prophecies (Ezekiel 4.6). Finally, Peter tells us that “one day is as a thousand years to God” (2 Peter 3). Sometimes a lifetime is described by the word “day” (“in Noah's day”).

Regarding the comment about religion being "Set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit," few could disagree with that assessment. However, religion, particularly Christendom, have done this because they abandoned the original teachings of Jesus and brought in their own philosophies and doctrines. The Bible does not teach hellfire, immortality of the soul, the “Trinity”, ghosts or political domination yet, the churches (and other religions) happily embrace these man-made doctrines and have persecuted and executed all who oppose them. Jesus himself predicted that this would happen after his death. At John 16.2 He warns “The hour is coming when everyone that kills you will imagine he has rendered a sacred service to God” yet, Jesus goes on to say of such persecutors and killers; “they will do these things because they have not come to know either the Father or me.”

Jesus further warned of men who “Teach commands of men as doctrines” (Matthew 15.9).

For the record, atrocities and persecutions in history have been perpetrated by religious and non-religious people alike. Hitler himself was a great believer in the literal application of Darwin's philosophies to the human race.

On to the claim that the advent of biological life is “One area where the evidence 100% categorically goes against what is said in the Bible,” once again, the scientific and historical facts do not support this bold claim.

Most reasonable people would agree that there are only two possible explanations for life on earth and that these explanations are opposed to each other, evolution or creation. If the one is impossible, then the other must not only be possible but, it must be the scientific explanation.

“Abiogenesis” – the formation of biological cells from non-organic matter, is, according to the laws of physics, impossible.

Professor of Biology Dean H. Kenyon co-authored “Biochemical Predestination.” But more recently he concluded that it is “Fundamentally implausible that unassisted matter and energy organized themselves into living systems.”

Leslie Orgel writes: “Modern cell membranes include channels and pumps which specifically control the influx and efflux of nutrients, waste products, metal ions and so on. These specialised channels involve highly specific proteins, molecules that could not have been present at the very beginning of the evolution of life.”

Bryant Lecomte du Nouy, the first scientist to apply mathematical formulae successfully to the statement of biological laws, gives mathematical formulae to show that “Inorganic matter acting in accordance with it’s laws could not have created even a single molecule of protein, let alone a living organism with powers of reproduction.”

“One has to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.” (Professor Wald of Harvard University)

“The now discredited theory (Abiogenesis) that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.” - “Dictionary,com”

Regarding “Evolution,” the evidence says exactly the same;

An extensive study by the “Geological Society of London” and the “Palaeontological Association of England”. Professor of natural science John N. Moore reported on the results: "Some 120 scientists, all specialists, prepared 30 chapters in a monumental work of over 800 pages to present the fossil record for plants and animals divided into about 2,500 groups. ... Each major form or kind of plant and animal is shown to have a separate and distinct history from all the other forms or kinds! Groups of both plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record. ... Whales, bats, horses, primates, elephants, hares, squirrels, etc., all are as distinct at their first appearance as they are now. There is not a trace of a common ancestor, much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor.” Moore added:“No transitional forms have been found in the fossil record very probably because no transitional forms exist in fossil stage at all. Very likely, transitions between animal kinds and/or transitions between plant kinds have never occurred.”

Zoologist Harold Coffin concluded: "If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”

“Evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.” (Physicist H.S.Lipson)

Bertrand Russell was neither a scientist nor historian and so is an irrelevant source in this discussion. Occam's razor points to the less complex theory – design, something that is supported by all the sciences.

Despite the unfounded claims of the supporters of evolution, science actually confirms the existence of God. For the record, Newton, Braunn, Einstein and, even Darwin, believed in God, so do the majority of scientists. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, “Today at least 80% of the scientists who deal with biology would probably admit that biology and life are regulated by some higher power.” Furthermore, according to the science journal “Nature”, “Almost 40% of biologists, physicists and mathematicians surveyed, believe in a God who not only exists, but also listens to and answers prayers.”

The following letter was published in “The Times” of London and signed by a number of scientists, It reads:

“It is not logically valid to use science as an argument against miracles. To believe that miracles cannot happen is as much an act of faith as to believe that they can happen. Miracles are unprecedented events. Whatever the current fashions in philosophy or the revelations of opinion polls may suggest, it is important to affirm that science (based as it is upon the observation of precedents) can have nothing to say on the subject. Its ‘laws’ are only generalizations of our experience. Faith rests on other grounds.”

The letter was signed by 14 professors of science in British universities. They went on to write “We gladly accept the virgin birth, the Gospel miracles, and the resurrection of Christ as historical events.”

http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/sciandf/fellow/readings30.html

Finally, to the Bible itself. One contributor echoed the thoughts of many critics by stating that “If this is all true, there should be evidence. But there is none,” and that “Ultimately, there is no irrefutable evidence to suggest that the Bible is historically accurate.”

There is an abundance of corroborative evidence supporting the Bible and it's claims. Just a few examples are;

The opening statement in the Bible that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” was ridiculed for centuries because scientists believed that the universe was infinite in size and age, with no beginning. Only in the mid 20th century was it finally established as a fact that the universe did in fact have a physical beginning.

It is generally accepted now that the earth was in darkness at the outset and the surface was liquid, just as the Bible says (Genesis 1.2). The Bible then goes on to state that the waters were brought together and land appeared. This is further explained in the 104th Psalm, verse 6 where it says “the waters were standing above the very mountains”. Then in verse 8 it tells us that “mountains proceeded to ascend”. We know from geologic studies that mountains did, in fact “ascend” in the past, due to tectonic plate movements in the earth’s crust. The correct order of life’s various elements requires light, an atmosphere, land, plants, sea life, land animals and, finally, mankind. This is the order that Genesis lists creation. It has been estimated that to simply guess this order, without the scientific knowledge to refer to, would be against odds of 1 in 3,628,080 yet, the Bible writer Moses correctly lists these stages. How?

The Bible states that life is formed from the “dust” (the chemicals found in the soil), this is while contemporary sources tell of mythological gods being split apart, turtles carrying planets on their backs and mankind being made from blood clots.

The laws of physics testify to the existence of a lawmaker, a designer. For example, the 1st law of physics is “matter can be neither created nor destroyed”. We know from Einstein’s formulae (E=MC2) that energy can be converted into matter and vice versa. But matter cannot be created by any known phenomenon. This is, in all reality, a miracle, beyond the ability of science to explain.

Going back to the origin of the universe and Einstein’s formulae, the Bible states at Isaiah 40.26 that God creates things “due to the abundance of dynamic energy” (remember energy = mass times the speed of light squared and, in reverse, energy is the productive agent for the material universe).

The Bible refers to the shape of the earth being a “circle” or “sphere” (Isaiah 40.22). It describes the water cycle in great detail, long before it was known (Ecclesiastes 1.7). The Bible acknowledges that the earth is “hanging upon nothing” (Job 26.7)

Regarding the historical integrity of the Bible;

Professor F. F. Bruce makes the observation: “It can have been by no means so easy as some writers seem to think to invent words and deeds of Jesus in those early years, when so many of His disciples were about, who could remember what had and had not happened. ... The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies (not to speak of wilful manipulation of the facts), which would at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so. On the contrary, one of the strong points in the original apostolic preaching is the confident appeal to the knowledge of the hearers; they not only said, ‘We are witnesses of these things,’ but also, ‘As you yo

[–] jillysteve 8 years ago

CONTINUED

also know.”

Sir Frederic Kenyon (Former Director of the British Museum) testified: “It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain. Especially is this the case with the New Testament. The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world.”

There is so much more evidence, so much, in fact that it would not be practicable to include it here but, if anyone is interested in more information, I would be happy to provide it.

Finally, one contributor accused those who go to great lengths to defend ideas of being desperate to prove themselves right. Can the same not be said for the many scientists, journalists, explorers and others who make it a lifetimes work to produce written accounts? While it may be true of many naive religious readers to sift through evidence to support their ideas, the same can be said of any group of people, atheists, evolutionist etc. One wonders why such groups go to such lengths to prove what they already insist has already been abundantly and indisputably proven? Could it be an insecurity or a lack of perspective? I have read and studied many works including scientific journals, evolution papers, the Bible and many others and have both sides of the story in full. How many of us can make such a claim? Readers here should take the wise advice of the Bible and “Do not put faith in every word” but, “Keep testing, keep digging” and to avoid the “Philosophies and empty deceptions of men.”

[–] All_Seeing_Fly 14 years ago

The reason was because you explicitly said this of Emperor Theoditus, remember? Obviously you can’t take what I said about him and expand it to all situations that ever existed in History.

I wasn't explicit about him, that was just an example. And what's the point in being nasty like that?

[–] KnifeMcBarrett 13 years ago

lol @ you calling him nasty.

I appreciate your point of view, but you sound childish when you project your own emotions on to him, and do your own argument a disservice. He's actually been very respectful; you're the one casting stones.

[–] All_Seeing_Fly 13 years ago

Casting stones? Where did you get such a phrase? Oh a book written by men a few centuries ago.
Brilliant.

[–] bsu_oak530 13 years ago

This film was interesting, however, the dates was the least of this films inaccuracies. Most of the deities they said were crucified or born on the 25th, or having disciples or being born of a virgin, were wrong. Mythologies don't include that, especially the main god, Horus. Horus was not born of a virgin, he was not born on the 25th, he was not a teacher, he didn't have 12 apostles, and he was not crucified.

[–] waneagony 11 years ago

Why not? Neither the Inquisition nor the crusades really were as terrible as you or others tend to try to pretend they were. The crusades were launched to protect Christian Europe from invasion and to protect Christian Pilgrims into the Holy Land, and generally were good.

The Inquisition lasted centuries and tended to have a reputation as being more fair than the Secular Courts.

I think you just swollowed all the lies the Christian church wanted to feed its followers (same goes for other religions).
A lot of people see it for what it was: occupational war/power/profit and just pure madness ("fair" to burn people based on fabrications and lies). Or as Steven Weinberg once put it: "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

~(3r:3s:(P(r,s)V(s=g(sub(f2(y))))))
/K.G.