Reply With Quote
Well I figured crackpot is overused these days.
And you need some new material "Tin Hat" is so 2004
Well I figured crackpot is overused these days.
You can't be a rationalist skeptic and a Truther at the same time. Pick one.
And besides, what is the point behind your snark? That Truthism is no less rational than religion?
Last edited by Extra Stout; 01-29-2008 at 07:34 PM.
I believe.
If "Bush being the anit-christ" is the only tenet you got out of it, youre an idiot.
Sorry.
Alright, Im buzzed up from hanging out withe the boss, so forgive the typos.
As it were....
Are you using the Bible as some sort of historical do ent?
The 12 disiples just coincidentally pertains to the MUCH older 12 signs of the zodiac?
The winter solstice and its 3 day "hiatus" of hanging in the sky just so happens to coincide with the biblical death and resurection of Christ?
The correlation of other religion's "saviors" as having been killed then resurected? All spanning 3 days?
All being born of a virgin?
Again, I dont pretend to know the other religions tents/beliefs, but if the other religions beliefs entail...
a) born of a virgin
b) teaching at "young age"
c) death and resurection
...then the similarities are too striking to ignore.
Half the world's popular religion CANNOT have that many similarities withou raising the eyebrow of an objective individual.
I was just responding to Deebo who's whole "blame everybody who disagrees with me a bush lover" as if that's a huge insult, seems like a hallmark of the crowd that thinks Bush is responsible for all of the worlds ills. It had nothing to do with the movie.
The 12 disciples of Jesus pertain more likely pertain to the 12 tribes of Israel, which came 500 years before the Zodiac was divided into 12 portions.
Also, according to the Bible, Jesus probably wasn't born in December or on the winter solstice. This is where the pagan influences in modern day adaptations of Christianity are probably correct; that Christmas was originally a pagan holiday. However it does nothing to dispute the Bible.
And the worst part of the do entary was all of the Horus similarities, basically because they're all blatant falsehoods. Horus was not born of a virgin, he didn't have 12 disciples, he wasn't a savior, he wasn't baptized, and he was never crucified.
That's not to say that there aren't some pagan religious figures who were born of a virgin, were crucified, who were saviors, and who rose from the dead, but I'm not aware of any that encompass all of those traits as Zeitgeist seems to infer.
Times are bad when the only voice for any kind of limited government in a presidential election is supported by those morons.
All I can say is that my boots aren't high enough to walk through this again.
My God... Some of you here are real fools. Believing that bull .
Drop the tin foil
we drop the Bush lover
what is so to hard figure out?
Bring it...................
Why is George Carlin not listed in the sources?
Is he being compensated?
Patently, not even remotely close.
United Monarchy, the 12 descendants of Jacob, formed in or about 1020 BCE. Lets be gracious with that date in reference to the forefather of all Judeo Christianity; Abraham, chalk it up to "record keeping" of the time, and say (very generously) that it was formed in 1200 BCE (Abraham was thought to have been brought to Canaan in or around 2000-1700 BC).
Seeing as Jacob was the grandson of Abraham, he must have been (obviously) younger (after 2000-1700). Therefore, the 12 sons of Jacob....the 12 tribes you refer to in the above comment, couldnt have been granted their kingdoms until after saaaaaaaay....1400? There abouts.
I just cant keep giving slack on the date. All this crap is only referenced in (you guessed it) the Bible/Torah/Qua ran and records kept in Egypt and (afterwords) Alexandria (the famous Library burned to the ground by the conquering Romans).
In conclusion, it can be "guessed at" that the descendants of Jacob (the 12 Tribes) were granted land and le between 1400-1200 BC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Lost_Tribes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Monarchy
The Zodiac (without the 12 constellations, admittedly) was known to have existed with evidence in 2000 BC. It is said the knowledge of the Zodiac though is far older, maybe even 5000 BC, maybe even older than that....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zodiac
The 12 constellations as we know them today, in another total coincidence of history and relation, seemed to have been hurriedly named and assembled when? Between 1300-1000 BC.
Yeah, Im sure the two had NO relationship whatsoever. The existence of the 12 tribes of Israel and the formation of the 12 constellations just-so-happen to exist at the exact same time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...constellations
Nevermind that the only do ents that specifically and categorically identify the existence of Abraham, his offspring and the reality of the 12 sons of Jacob are religious doctrines the entire Middle Eastern and Western world base their entire (popular) religions on.
Another total coincidence, Im sure.
Dont care, really. Doesnt have anything to do with the foundation of or the existence of Jesus Christ or Judeo-Christianity. That is just one of many alterations made to the scripture to indoctrinate new converts more easily.Also, according to the Bible, Jesus probably wasn't born in December or on the winter solstice. This is where the pagan influences in modern day adaptations of Christianity are probably correct; that Christmas was originally a pagan holiday. However it does nothing to dispute the Bible.
What is this obsession with Horus? The do entary/film cited, I dont know....(just for consistency in the use of this number) twelve other deities/religions/saviors ALL using the same, tired script of...And the worst part of the do entary was all of the Horus similarities, basically because they're all blatant falsehoods. Horus was not born of a virgin, he didn't have 12 disciples, he wasn't a savior, he wasn't baptized, and he was never crucified.
1) virgin birth
2) teaching at young age
3) long absence
4) Calling it a comeback of Godlike proportion (gathering followers)
5) Persecution
6) Death ((whether it be crucifixion or otherwise)
7) Resurrection
Now, Im not as dumb as you might think, I'll readily admit the script isnt followed 100% (or even 70%, 50%) in every case.
But the similarities in doctrine across the globe are there. All formed and dated around the exact same time.....the "time" being do ented by the religious doctrines supporting the existence of their Deity. Conflict of interest, much?
---------------------------------------------
Example:
I, Dark Reign, am the Son of God.
I get some hanger-ons to believe in me and spread my W3rd. The Enlightened, over time, do ent my life thru the writing of a text.
Fast forward 3000 years.
I, Duk Rain, am the descendant of Dark Reign, the Son of God.
Here is the proof of my royalty and relationship....this book that was written 2500 years ago called "Dark Reign is the ".
-----------------------
You get my point. All of this "history" is based on books written specifically to support that history.
Fair enough. Like I said, this isnt that important to me. But the coincidence, the parallels, the timelines, the deities, the similarities....its all there. The religious shrug it off because it doesnt fit into their worldview.That's not to say that there aren't some pagan religious figures who were born of a virgin, were crucified, who were saviors, and who rose from the dead, but I'm not aware of any that encompass all of those traits as Zeitgeist seems to infer.
Think what the world would be next year if today it was proven, beyond a fabric of doubt to a rational mind, that the stories of the Bible are only allegorical. That Jesus Christ is an analogy to human suffering and the bonds that bind.
Would it be so bad? No, but it sure would be bad for those who have ac ulated untold wealth, power and influence using those stories to subvert the masses.
But thats just an analogy to prove a point.
If the zodiac isn't tied to the number 12 contemporaneously, I see no sense in tying the Hebrew narrative to the zodiac. If you want to make the tribes into symbols, don't the 12 months of the year make a lot more sense?
When the Babylonians first developed a zodiac, it had 18 signs, not 12. Naming of the constellations is not the same thin as devleoping a 12-sign zodiac. The whittling down to 12 doesn't happen until the 7th century BC at the earliest.
They didn't happen at the same time.
That they are religious do ents does not matter in evaluating their historical validity. You need not take them as inerrant to recognize that yes, Hezekiah actually was king of Judah and Sennacherib really did besiege him in Jerusalem, for example. Places mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures are confirmed by archaeology.
The film deals in distortions. For example, in the Roman myth, Mithra was born out of solid rock. If you really twist your mind around, caves are made of solid rock, and I suppose technically since the rock had never had sex with a man, it was a virgin. In the Iranian myth, Mithra was the result of Ahura-Mazda having sex with his mother. In the Indian version, he was born of Aditi, which means "boundless heaven," but if you wanted to get poetic with the translation, you could also say "virgin dawn."
So if you tie all the various versions together and twist them around, you can arrive at the notion that Mithra was born of a "virgin" in a "cave."
What of December 25th and the shepherds? Well, that Mithra's birth was celebrated on Dec. 25th is a conjecture by scholars, since some think there were parallels between Roman sun worship and Roman Mithraism. So basically these skeptics speculate that Mithraists celebrated this holiday, and together with the speculation that Christianity is warmed-over sun worship, they speculate a parallel. A far likelier explanation is that both Mithraism and Christianity in Rome adapted the festival of Sol Invictus in order to avoid persecution.
The shepherd part of the narrative does not appear in Mithraism until the second century. The Christian Gospels date to the mid-to-late first century A.D. (some of the less scholarly skeptics simply will claim they are second-century works in order to get around this problem). So who is borrowing from whom?
The notion that Mithra was any kind of itinerant teacher is a fabrication. Or do they mean only to say that he was an important leader? Well, I would hope so; does anybody start a religion in order to follow an unremarkable slob?
The notion that Mithra gathered some large number, or even, 12 disciples, also is a fabrication. In the Iranian version he had one companion; in the Roman one, he had two, along with some number of animal companions, but it never added up to 12. There is one carving of Mithra slaying a bull that has 12 faces on it, but there is nothing to suggest the 12 faces represent 12 disciples, and in any event, the carving dates from centuries following the establishment of Christianity.
Mithra was not persecuted or killed like Jesus, rather, it was he who did the killing. Nor was he resurrected. The reference to resurrection comes from Tertullian, who commented on a Mithraic ritual mentioning an "image of a resurrection." Of course, Tertullian dates from after New Testament times.
There are other fun fabrications. Some Mithraic carvings have bunches of grapes on them, so obviously they must have consumed wine to represent Mithra's blood.
It is very easy to make other narratives sound like the Jesus narrative when you tie together the most tenuous of parallels, and fabricate things out of whole cloth to fill in the gaps.
What these guys did, more or less, is regurgitate material from Acharya S's book, The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Told, which is not taken seriously by mainstream biblical scholars. If you actually look into secular (as opposed to Christian) scholarship of the historicity of Jesus, you find that the Jesus myth hypothesis is held only by a tiny minority of scholars, and of those, maybe two or three are even regarded as intellectually honest by their peers (e.g., Robert M. Price).
And reputable scholars shrug it off because the Jesus Myth Hypothesis is dreadful scholarship.
Last edited by Extra Stout; 01-30-2008 at 10:22 AM.
?
So we're all in agreement that the elite wealthy controlled the depression. We all should pay taxes because there is no law stating we should and all the major world wars were nothing more than pawn work for the almighty dollar. Anyone wanna discuss something beyond religion and tin foil hats?
Thats obviously the simplistic version, but...
To a point, yes. I believe all things are controlled for reasons unbeknownst to all, save for the elite.
Again, the parallels that are drawn from the "How to make War and have the Masses Lap it Up" are still excercised everywhere in the world.
This isnt exclusive to the USA.
Think about it for a second...
This is a pretty popular board, yes? Spurstalk I mean.
Really, if it wasnt for NBADan, the political forum would have been dead most of the time I have been here. But some newbs/trolls have ed it up lately. And really, its POTUS election year...bound to be active.
But ultimately, the interest level and participation in political discourse is only excercised by a handful of people on a regular basis.
Most people are either...
a) disinterested/disenfranchised in/by politics (this gets my vote)
b) confused by politics
c) dont care
d) too ignorant and stubborn to think they could learn something
....which is exactly the way this democracy has been tailored to create.
I sincerely believe the forefathers approached the forming of a new nation with good intentions, with keen knowledge of the fact that the populace was an uneducated and dangerous mob, and therefore couldnt run the joint in earnest (representative government, checks and balances, seats by population, etc).
But the total molestation....no, the prison gang-rape of that intention by the subsequent governments that presided over this country, over time thru small and large changes to voting laws, redistricting, transparency law, lobbyists, corporate law (they were illegal for a looooong time) and other various methods of keeping the sheep in the herd have distinguished this country as something of an abomination in its current form.
Obviously, this is an opinion piece.
But I sincerely believe that if any of the forefathers were somehow transported from their time, to this time and given the proper amount of time for their education on current laws surrounding government action/inaction/power pyramid, they'd go back to their time and frame what would be considered "obscure laws" to prevent the very direction we have ended in today.
2008 United States of America is the bas son of the re ed, inbred grandson of 1783 United States of America (in terms of government, not people or living standard).
second thought...the people are starting to get there, too, IMO.
So who made this video?
They would depending on the calender used at the time, I cant speak for that. Months are (obviously) based on the phases of the moon according to our current accepted standard (Gregorian), not to the stars. Regardless, I wasnt trying to say there was a relation between the Hebrew narrative and the months of the year.
I was saying there is a correlation between the Hebrew narrative of "12 Tribes" and the parring down of known constellations into 12, that these events were coincidentally happening at the same time (within a 300 year time frame) from 1300-1000 BC.
Putting the United Monarchy's unification in the same time period as that reduction.
The Wiki stated it was 1300-1000 that the parring happened.When the Babylonians first developed a zodiac, it had 18 signs, not 12. Naming of the constellations is not the same thin as developing a 12-sign zodiac. The whittling down to 12 doesn't happen until the 7th century BC at the earliest.
Poof, bam....done. Nevermind. I completely misread that. Always some stupid error. The constellations werent parred down during 1300-1000....that time period refers to first known evidence of humans cataloging ANY constellation period (of which there were 40 some odd).
.
it. I tried to argue not necessarily for "Zeitgeist" (i never put all my stock in one theory/truth...I try ingest and devise my own from known sources), I tried to use known dates to correlate the coincidence between the burgeoning knowledge/catalogue of constellations as it relates to known religious doctrine, the timeframes they purport and the similarities thereof.
With that info made known, I now understand what you meant by relating the argument to the calender. That threw me at first.
Ah well. happens. Wrong again (at least with this approach).
BTW, thanks for not being a about it. I actually enjoy learning.
weren't there 10 months a year at one point?
Early Roman calendar. After the Greeks showed the year to be longer (i think), the Julian Calendar was adopted under Gais Julius Ceasar.
To eventually be replaced by the Gregorian calendar that we use today.
do you believe in the supernatural?
Just say you don't know.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions