What he covers is fact. The other religions. You may not like discussing them, but there are 100% similarities. I went to a Private Christian college and I regretted it, but what they even taught there was the same, that other religions have "partial" truths of what is at the end of the rainbow.
So let's just stop that line of thinking right there, you can't say something is BS because you don't like it. I'd rather you say that you don't like the parts where he says xyz, that would be more convincing than a blanket statement defending your faith that rejects all "offending" materials despite it's merit, but how you feel about it.
He doesn't even get into the specifics of each religion, but yes, if you study religion you notice that ALL religions have a central theme to them. ALL of them do. You have to actually be not afraid to study another religion before you can accept information that brings down your current view on your faith.
Just because you put "proofs" in quotations doesn't assert it's falsehood. It asserts how you interpret new data from a source. You found it offensive that it takes Christianity out of the spotlight. Even though it promotes it's tenants.
That said, the best method has always been to include enough truth to sound convincing and then to distort it into the direction you with the audience to go.
That's what EVERYONE has done FOREVER when they decide to spread any thought or idea. You're giving yourself the loophole to say "it's close but not quite". At the college I went to, they always said "These other religions are good, and they promote good things, but they are only partially correct/have partial truths" because how else can you explain the "overlap" and then different conclusions? You can't.
It's either all correct or all not, and any sort of "partial truths" not given from an approved source is deemed blasphemy. Most religions are a vehicle to ruling people. Considering how kings and queens used religion for centuries to claim "divine right" to rule, even the priests and Pharisees had their hay day to saying their gods allowed them such "gifts" which were likely slight of hand and props
Say what you will, you cannot tell me there are "partial truths" while you contend to say you know best any one's version of "truth" is corrupt for not being what you whole heartedly accept. Considering he has more than enough evidence to assert a heliocentric model of worship, and we know other religions in the ancient past have also done so, why not admit that there are connections between sun worship and the god you know now?
I'm not even sayin Christianity HAS to be wrong. It's one of many religions. The part that gets me is the ignorance or the audacity to say "the religion I was born into is clearly the 1 truth, others are close but none are like mine, this is the truth, and I will die for it" yea that's great but that is every war ever right there with that thinking. Thinking other religions are attacks on your own is the kind of thinking that starts conflict. Shedding the vehicle for truth, religion, and accepting the way the world works and learning from that is how you surpass yourself in knowing what things really are.
Just my opinion. I'm Agnostic, not atheist. There's something out there, whether it's god or some other finality, so be it. But no one can or should claim to know more about an afterlife than anyone else. Divine right does not exist, and has not existed. To do so would be arrogant lest we forget the amount of false prophets these books proclaim as well. Finding the underlying way that "scripture" or "tablets" or "scrolls" all mean the same thing may be the best way to unite the world under something because as humans we all recognize good vs evil. It's not always easy to identify, but not pursuing more knowledge is in and of itself a spiritual death as well. It's up to you to learn more, and to continue learning.
Let's hope of a tolerant community rather than an exclusionary. I will say, Christianity has had it's fair share of follies and fortune. I'm not one to say what's best. Just one that claims no one should claim they found the best for everyone, they can find their own way.
You made a lot of assumptions there that I'm not even going to bother to address. What I said was fact and it seems like it's you who has a problem with the fact that Zeitgeist is based off the work of Acharya S who seemingly plagiarized some of Helena Blavatsky's new age nonsense and passed it off as fact when it wasn't.
Like I said, winter solstice has nothing to do with Jesus' birth. Mithras was never claimed to have been born from a virgin, he emerged from a rock... On and on.
However, it's from studying other religions that you can see that the paganism of the time was influential (through Roman and Catholic control of the teachings in those early years) on the practices of Christianity today -- that's not to say they influenced the Bible, since all of these practices were later added by man.
I was an atheist before I became a Christian, so another one of your assumptions was wrong. I don't have time to address all your claims, but the movie itself is a new age movie that intentionally, not by accident, teaches and refutes a false Christianity (why is there only one religion this is ever done with?) Further, it uses false truths to refute this false Christianity.
I assume you're interested in truth, since you're here. If so, put your faith to the test. I've seen what Zeitgeist claims, how about you see how easy it is to tear apart: https://youtu.be/30AunYXtYDg
That said, the movie's claims about banking and 9/11 are pretty accurate. Which is why I said the religion part of the movie is false -- not because it "hurt my feelings" or whatever, but because the claims have been completely demolished and proven to be garbage for over a decade.
I think that they could be refuted or rebuffed, but yes the 9/11 content is magnificent. I also just like his world view approach much after the religion section. Personally, I think his abstract view on religion basically moving past it, to describe humankind and what's taken place over the course of history is the responsible approach because he tries to disarm your religious thinking to expand it to a more open space that all humans can share regardless of religion, but enhanced by their tenants of why all humans gravitate toward certain behaviors.
In doing so I think I'd be more open to exploring religion, and honestly that's true as lately I've been thinking of reading scripture again mostly because of that, and I think despite literal or religious connotations, the scriptures and holy books of old were a great accounting to how the wisdom of the millennia that have passed can be still absorbed and it's scary parallel to what we see today.
Yeah, I think one of the most profound themes throughout the Bible is not only the focus on truth (and the fact that it is hated), but also the fact that you see an intentional inversion of all the things that are positive and good according to the God of the Bible in today's world. Those were some of the first realizations that took me in that direction and they are definitely scary parallels that are at work all over today. Sometimes these inversions by powerful entities and the outright contempt that is pushed and accepted for only one belief system (Christianity and beliefs that stem from it) are the things that most reenforce the truth of the Bible, as these are different iterations of the same power structures Jesus taught against way back in the day.
One more passing comment that may be interesting to think. I was raised Mormon, which most people know about in passing or a more or less whole. I left the church years ago, it not good. Joseph Smith was a free mason, and the book he wrote, albeit very interesting for wisdom and it talks about some really high concept stuff about what happens to civilizations throughout time (though no evidence of these civilizations are really proven except for a known forgery that one prophet mistook as real called the Kinderhook plates) but I digress.
The point I wanted to make was that the study of humans and the rises and falls of societies is almost scientific. You see the warning signs along the way. When the populous starts to be so prosperous, it becomes corrupt within it's government. When it does that the government makes the people immoral. Once you lose morals, the wars, the corruption, the downfall of their society is brought to them. They go more into the politics of kings and leaders and all that, the Book of Mormon has a lot of stuff between nations and people but I would not have traded away my experience knowing the stories because they are laden with wisdom, even if the stories aren't true the wisdom prevails.
I mention this for two fold, one Joseph Smith being a free mason, may have done something on the radical end, almost revealing some sort of inner knowledge of view/scope of how to view government and society, which is what a secret society would have had a warm welcome with. The second, because the leadership now is corrupt as most religious leadership is now a days, and the abuse of the religion has perpetuated problems that religion has always exploited by evil people, the abuse of children by having a religious figure insert themselves and cause mayhem if they so choose.
Do I think that other religions piggyback off of others, sure. I think they are all trying to describe the same thing. That's what I think makes everything look and feel true in most religions. I think the powers that we try to connect to probably exist, and it's other beings from other dimensions or "beyond the vale" or what have you. This insider knowledge is hard to grasp, define, and share which is why they let wisdom do the talking. Here's what we know, we shall prove it right over time. This is where I would be looking to religion is these end times basically. Not because I need to flock to faith in fear, but because we are growing more desperate and our convictions are holding stronger than in a time where we were mostly "ok". But we may be moving again toward the age of miracles, because we are gonna need more than ever after the dust settles from whatever it is that's been happening to the world the last decade or so.
What he covers is fact. The other religions. You may not like discussing them, but there are 100% similarities. I went to a Private Christian college and I regretted it, but what they even taught there was the same, that other religions have "partial" truths of what is at the end of the rainbow.
So let's just stop that line of thinking right there, you can't say something is BS because you don't like it. I'd rather you say that you don't like the parts where he says xyz, that would be more convincing than a blanket statement defending your faith that rejects all "offending" materials despite it's merit, but how you feel about it.
He doesn't even get into the specifics of each religion, but yes, if you study religion you notice that ALL religions have a central theme to them. ALL of them do. You have to actually be not afraid to study another religion before you can accept information that brings down your current view on your faith.
Just because you put "proofs" in quotations doesn't assert it's falsehood. It asserts how you interpret new data from a source. You found it offensive that it takes Christianity out of the spotlight. Even though it promotes it's tenants.
That's what EVERYONE has done FOREVER when they decide to spread any thought or idea. You're giving yourself the loophole to say "it's close but not quite". At the college I went to, they always said "These other religions are good, and they promote good things, but they are only partially correct/have partial truths" because how else can you explain the "overlap" and then different conclusions? You can't.
It's either all correct or all not, and any sort of "partial truths" not given from an approved source is deemed blasphemy. Most religions are a vehicle to ruling people. Considering how kings and queens used religion for centuries to claim "divine right" to rule, even the priests and Pharisees had their hay day to saying their gods allowed them such "gifts" which were likely slight of hand and props
Say what you will, you cannot tell me there are "partial truths" while you contend to say you know best any one's version of "truth" is corrupt for not being what you whole heartedly accept. Considering he has more than enough evidence to assert a heliocentric model of worship, and we know other religions in the ancient past have also done so, why not admit that there are connections between sun worship and the god you know now?
I'm not even sayin Christianity HAS to be wrong. It's one of many religions. The part that gets me is the ignorance or the audacity to say "the religion I was born into is clearly the 1 truth, others are close but none are like mine, this is the truth, and I will die for it" yea that's great but that is every war ever right there with that thinking. Thinking other religions are attacks on your own is the kind of thinking that starts conflict. Shedding the vehicle for truth, religion, and accepting the way the world works and learning from that is how you surpass yourself in knowing what things really are.
Just my opinion. I'm Agnostic, not atheist. There's something out there, whether it's god or some other finality, so be it. But no one can or should claim to know more about an afterlife than anyone else. Divine right does not exist, and has not existed. To do so would be arrogant lest we forget the amount of false prophets these books proclaim as well. Finding the underlying way that "scripture" or "tablets" or "scrolls" all mean the same thing may be the best way to unite the world under something because as humans we all recognize good vs evil. It's not always easy to identify, but not pursuing more knowledge is in and of itself a spiritual death as well. It's up to you to learn more, and to continue learning.
Let's hope of a tolerant community rather than an exclusionary. I will say, Christianity has had it's fair share of follies and fortune. I'm not one to say what's best. Just one that claims no one should claim they found the best for everyone, they can find their own way.
You made a lot of assumptions there that I'm not even going to bother to address. What I said was fact and it seems like it's you who has a problem with the fact that Zeitgeist is based off the work of Acharya S who seemingly plagiarized some of Helena Blavatsky's new age nonsense and passed it off as fact when it wasn't.
Like I said, winter solstice has nothing to do with Jesus' birth. Mithras was never claimed to have been born from a virgin, he emerged from a rock... On and on.
However, it's from studying other religions that you can see that the paganism of the time was influential (through Roman and Catholic control of the teachings in those early years) on the practices of Christianity today -- that's not to say they influenced the Bible, since all of these practices were later added by man.
I was an atheist before I became a Christian, so another one of your assumptions was wrong. I don't have time to address all your claims, but the movie itself is a new age movie that intentionally, not by accident, teaches and refutes a false Christianity (why is there only one religion this is ever done with?) Further, it uses false truths to refute this false Christianity.
I assume you're interested in truth, since you're here. If so, put your faith to the test. I've seen what Zeitgeist claims, how about you see how easy it is to tear apart: https://youtu.be/30AunYXtYDg
That said, the movie's claims about banking and 9/11 are pretty accurate. Which is why I said the religion part of the movie is false -- not because it "hurt my feelings" or whatever, but because the claims have been completely demolished and proven to be garbage for over a decade.
I think that they could be refuted or rebuffed, but yes the 9/11 content is magnificent. I also just like his world view approach much after the religion section. Personally, I think his abstract view on religion basically moving past it, to describe humankind and what's taken place over the course of history is the responsible approach because he tries to disarm your religious thinking to expand it to a more open space that all humans can share regardless of religion, but enhanced by their tenants of why all humans gravitate toward certain behaviors.
In doing so I think I'd be more open to exploring religion, and honestly that's true as lately I've been thinking of reading scripture again mostly because of that, and I think despite literal or religious connotations, the scriptures and holy books of old were a great accounting to how the wisdom of the millennia that have passed can be still absorbed and it's scary parallel to what we see today.
Yeah, I think one of the most profound themes throughout the Bible is not only the focus on truth (and the fact that it is hated), but also the fact that you see an intentional inversion of all the things that are positive and good according to the God of the Bible in today's world. Those were some of the first realizations that took me in that direction and they are definitely scary parallels that are at work all over today. Sometimes these inversions by powerful entities and the outright contempt that is pushed and accepted for only one belief system (Christianity and beliefs that stem from it) are the things that most reenforce the truth of the Bible, as these are different iterations of the same power structures Jesus taught against way back in the day.
That said, good talking to ya!
One more passing comment that may be interesting to think. I was raised Mormon, which most people know about in passing or a more or less whole. I left the church years ago, it not good. Joseph Smith was a free mason, and the book he wrote, albeit very interesting for wisdom and it talks about some really high concept stuff about what happens to civilizations throughout time (though no evidence of these civilizations are really proven except for a known forgery that one prophet mistook as real called the Kinderhook plates) but I digress.
The point I wanted to make was that the study of humans and the rises and falls of societies is almost scientific. You see the warning signs along the way. When the populous starts to be so prosperous, it becomes corrupt within it's government. When it does that the government makes the people immoral. Once you lose morals, the wars, the corruption, the downfall of their society is brought to them. They go more into the politics of kings and leaders and all that, the Book of Mormon has a lot of stuff between nations and people but I would not have traded away my experience knowing the stories because they are laden with wisdom, even if the stories aren't true the wisdom prevails.
I mention this for two fold, one Joseph Smith being a free mason, may have done something on the radical end, almost revealing some sort of inner knowledge of view/scope of how to view government and society, which is what a secret society would have had a warm welcome with. The second, because the leadership now is corrupt as most religious leadership is now a days, and the abuse of the religion has perpetuated problems that religion has always exploited by evil people, the abuse of children by having a religious figure insert themselves and cause mayhem if they so choose.
Do I think that other religions piggyback off of others, sure. I think they are all trying to describe the same thing. That's what I think makes everything look and feel true in most religions. I think the powers that we try to connect to probably exist, and it's other beings from other dimensions or "beyond the vale" or what have you. This insider knowledge is hard to grasp, define, and share which is why they let wisdom do the talking. Here's what we know, we shall prove it right over time. This is where I would be looking to religion is these end times basically. Not because I need to flock to faith in fear, but because we are growing more desperate and our convictions are holding stronger than in a time where we were mostly "ok". But we may be moving again toward the age of miracles, because we are gonna need more than ever after the dust settles from whatever it is that's been happening to the world the last decade or so.