Christianity is not defined solely by the Bible

[outhouse]

basically this whole zitgiest thing,,, I could ask. Prove its accurate.

its tough I tried one time and gave up

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

and when I started I thought ,, like you

You realize, I hope, that such an argument rings of fairly serious arrogance?

In the first place, I'm pretty sure that you have no good idea how I think.

In the second place, I once thought like you do, but then with a mighty effort, I threw off the zeitgeist which enslaves everyone (else) and have fought my way toward the real truth.

See what I mean? Doesn't it sound arrogant to you when I say it?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I knew where I was going just forgot the smiley face when I hit submit

Ah. OK. Sorry for misreading you.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

basically this whole zitgiest thing,,, I could ask. Prove its accurate.

its tough I tried one time and gave up

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. I do believe that many, perhaps most, humans accept the cultural truth into which they're born. It's why most Mormons live in Utah rather than being distributed equally around the globe. And it makes for some awful consequences, as when India broke apart. Huge lines of Muslims walked west to Pakistan and east to Bangladesh (E. Pakistan at the time.) Hindus moved to the center.

Humans are like other animals. They're most comfortable staying in the world into which they were born.

 

[outhouse]

You realize, I hope, that such an argument rings of fairly serious arrogance?

if I didnt see the holes in zitgiest and know for a fact hes wrong, and all on his own with his belief.

when no historian or scholar backs someone theres a reason their wrong


I would not have stated it as such had I not know for sure

 

[outhouse]

I do believe that many, perhaps most, humans accept the cultural truth into which they're born.

true

Humans are like other animals. They're most comfortable staying in the world into which they were born.

true, creatures of habit

I'm not sure exactly what you mean

I mean show me zitgiest is accurate if you believe it.

I know its tough to do and not possible, so in a away im not really asking but would love for you to think of the implications involved

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

if I didnt see the holes in zitgiest and know for a fact hes wrong, and all on his own with his belief. when no historian or scholar backs someone theres a reason their wrong

Ah, it looks like this is all a confusion on my part. I didn't realize you were talking about a man named Zitgiest. I thought you were using a variant spelling for zeitgeist. Sorry. I should have asked for clarification.

Can we start over? Who exactly is Zitgiest? Who or what are we talking about? I'm not familiar with anything having to do with Zitgiest.

 

[outhouse]

zitgiest is the author of the vid. In the original vid he is a tinfoil hat, conspiracy nutter.

the one posted is a short segment of his propaganda.

google his name and you can get to the original source.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

zitgiest is the author of the vid. In the original vid he is a tinfoil hat, conspiracy nutter. the one posted is a short segment of his propaganda. google his name and you can get to the original source.

Thanks for the clarification, and sorry for my confusion. I have to say, though, that I don't judge information based on who's presenting it but rather on the information itself, and most of the info in the vid did not look out of line to me. If any of the major stuff is false, though, I'd like to hear about it.

 

[Mister Emu]

The Jesus story is paralled by many other godmen naratives-

In the first min.

Isis was not a virgin
Horus was not born on Dec. 25th, and no date is given for the birth of Jesus.

The first two claims are false, and I've seen enough of the garbage that passes for Jesus-(pagan deity) "research" to waste my time watching it further.

 

[outhouse]

A Scholarlry Response to Zeitgeist the Movie (A Rebuttal to Part 1)#

hope this clears up some of the the zitgiest garbage

 

[sojourner]

A Scholarlry Response to Zeitgeist the Movie (A Rebuttal to Part 1)#

hope this clears up some of the the zitgiest garbage

thank you!

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

A Scholarlry Response to Zeitgeist the Movie (A Rebuttal to Part 1)# hope this clears up some of the the zitgiest garbage

Thanks, outhouse. Before I agree to study it, though, I'd like a committment from you.

Are you willing to study zitgiest's rebuttal to this rebuttal?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

A Scholarlry Response to Zeitgeist the Movie (A Rebuttal to Part 1)#

hope this clears up some of the the zitgiest garbage

I may have to renege on you. Fifty one minutes? Listening to a preacher?

I'm not sure I can do that.

And I have one question: Are you saying that a guy named Zitgiest made a full-length movie called "Zeitgeist"? That seems so strange to me. I just want to be sure I'm not misunderstanding things again.

I may spend 51 minutes with the preacher, but I certainly won't do it unless you're willing to watch a rebuttal of it.

Are you sure you can't just lay out the major flaws which others have found in the material presented in the vid? I'm not interested in a subtle theological argument. I just want to know if the vid was lying about virgin births, resurrections, etc.

 

[outhouse]

I may have to renege on you. Fifty one minutes? Listening to a preacher?

I'm not sure I can do that.

And I have one question: Are you saying that a guy named Zitgiest made a full-length movie called "Zeitgeist"? That seems so strange to me. I just want to be sure I'm not misunderstanding things again.

I may spend 51 minutes with the preacher, but I certainly won't do it unless you're willing to watch a rebuttal of it.

Are you sure you can't just lay out the major flaws which others have found in the material presented in the vid? I'm not interested in a subtle theological argument. I just want to know if the vid was lying about virgin births, resurrections, etc.

LOl i know i know, I only watched 23 minutes to verify accuracy.

Bud, the guy allthough religious is quoting scholars. I was cautious posting it just because of that, but the guy was accurate in what he is stating. In this he is a scholar

far better then the zitg vid thats for certain.


this is exactly why I hate the zit vid, I spend more time trying to reducate my own team players lol If I didnt pick up on tidbits of real information to add to my base, I would not waiste my time.

I forget the zitgiest vids authors name, its mentioned in the vid i posted.

I'm not interested in a subtle theological argument

yeesh you have it wrong bud, its not subtle theological arguments

watch the vid he goes after every fact

I just want to know if the vid was lying about virgin births, resurrections, etc.

watch the vid its in detail, every part that goes with dang accurate info from good middle of the road scholars.

but I certainly won't do it unless you're willing to watch a rebuttal of it.

"IF" you can pull a rebuttle that I havent seen, ill watch it

remember ive studied this already in depth, im trying to see if youll play mustard and catch up.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

remember ive studied this already in depth, im trying to see if youll play mustard and catch up.

By 'in depth', you mean that you've gone to the original sources? I've read various articles about it over the years, but I've never gone to the sources.

If the rebuttal you sent merely puts a different spin on the original sources, then it's not going to tell me much, but if it denies that the original sources even exist, that will make a big difference to me. I'll be wondering why so many scholars are lying about the facts.

Anyway, I'll watch at least 23 minutes and let you know what I think.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Hey, outhouse. I watched the first ten minutes of the preacher’s presentation and then a couple of spots further on.

Can you tell me if the following summary is correct?

Within the past 3 or 4 years, you watched a movie called “Zeitgeist” -- made by a man named Peter Joseph. In this film Joseph presented some kind of conspiracy theory about religion being a sham or maybe even evil. For awhile, you believed everything you’d seen in the movie. Maybe it even changed who you were. You lived with the zitg hook in your mouth -- or however you put it. But as time passed, you began to ask some questions and do a bit of research, and you discovered that some scholars disagreed with some of the claims in the movie. So now you see the movie as garbage, and you have sent me a presentation by a scholarly preacher which proves that the Zeitgeist conspiracy theory is false.

Is that a fairly accurate recounting?

I’ll respond to the presentation itself. I'm just needing to find a solid place to stand first – considering the confusion which has blocked our communication up until now. Can you tell me if I'm standing in roughly the same spot as you are in my understanding of this overall situation?

 

[outhouse]

Within the past 3 or 4 years, you watched a movie called “Zeitgeist” -- made by a man named Peter Joseph. In this film Joseph presented some kind of conspiracy theory about religion being a sham

yes true

Maybe it even changed who you were

LOL not all

I questioned if it was like a scientology induction vid LOL I wondered why they were so hard on religion but yet it made sense without a real background in history

or however you put it. But as time passed, you began to ask some questions and do a bit of research, and you discovered that some scholars disagreed with some of the claims in the movie. So now you see the movie as garbage, and you have sent me a presentation by a scholarly preacher which proves that the Zeitgeist conspiracy theory is false.

No


I studied real history myself and then I realized all the crap he posted was just that.


the link I posted yesterday was just one i found after searching and quickly checking its content.

I’ll respond to the presentation itself. I'm just needing to find a solid place to stand first – considering the confusion which has blocked our communication up until now. Can you tell me if I'm standing in roughly the same spot as you are in my understanding of this overall situation?

who knows bud

you started out backing it and argueing about it, without having a clue what I was talking about.

who knows where you stand, I dont care. Im just trying to get you on the right track.



I can say with certainty if you follow real biblical history you will find our these answers yourself.

also zitgiest is not up for debate about it not being accurate

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

you started out backing it and argueing about it, without having a clue what I was talking about.

No, you're mistaken about that. I've never even heard of the movie Zeitgeist, much less have I ever 'backed' it. That seems to be your own assumption. Apparently it plays a large role in your thinking and so you assume that it must be the same for everyone else. That's my best guess as to what's happening here.

What I've argued for are parallels between Jesus and some of the ancient godmen. I asked you to show me why the godmen info was bogus, if it was bogus, but you still haven't answered that. You've just sent me to watch a presentation which is directly aimed at the Zeitgeist movie -- a movie and a conspiracy about which I know nothing and care even less.

I will admit some confusion over your posts. You spoke of a guy named 'zitgiest.' And when I asked who he was, you didn't even correct me and explain that it was a movie called "Zeitgeist." You even referred to 'zitgiest' as 'he', didn't you? I think some of my confusion might be excused. I really do.

So, yeah, I've had a hard time making sense of your outlook. I still am. If I may make a small suggestion, would you consider using standard English writing conventions? If you'd capitalized the word "Zeitgeist" and perhaps used the standard spelling, I think some of our confusion might have been avoided.

Anyway, I have watched a portion of the presentation. So far as I can tell, the pastor is claiming that some researcher of his acquaintance hasn't been able to find some of the source material. That's about it. I really don't know what to do with that information. It's certainly had no effect on my opinion about godmen. If you think I've missed something substantial, though, you're welcome to point it out.

who knows where you stand, I dont care. Im just trying to get you on the right track.

A loving motive on your part, and I appreciate it. However, I haven't heard anything yet from you which moves me to change my opinions about godmen and Jesus, but I'm still willing to listen if you want to offer something.

I can say with certainty if you follow real biblical history you will find our these answers yourself.

I'm sure you feel great certainty that your knowledge is superior to my knowledge. It's the way most human minds work.

also zitgiest is not up for debate about it not being accurate

Assuming that by 'zitgiest,' you are talking about the movie/conspiracy theory titled "Zeitgeist," I'm sorry, but I'm just not interested. It doesn't mean that I think your conspiracy theory is unimportant. It's just a case of so many conspiracy theories and so little time.

 

[Wombat]

No, you're mistaken about that. I've never even heard of the movie Zeitgeist, much less have I ever 'backed' it. That seems to be your own assumption. Apparently it plays a large role in your thinking and so you assume that it must be the same for everyone else. That's my best guess as to what's happening here.

What I've argued for are parallels between Jesus and some of the ancient godmen. I asked you to show me why the godmen info was bogus, if it was bogus, but you still haven't answered that. You've just sent me to watch a presentation which is directly aimed at the Zeitgeist movie -- a movie and a conspiracy about which I know nothing and care even less.

I will admit some confusion over your posts. You spoke of a guy named 'zitgiest.' And when I asked who he was, you didn't even correct me and explain that it was a movie called "Zeitgeist." You even referred to 'zitgiest' as 'he', didn't you? I think some of my confusion might be excused. I really do.

So, yeah, I've had a hard time making sense of your outlook. I still am. If I may make a small suggestion, would you consider using standard English writing conventions? If you'd capitalized the word "Zeitgeist" and perhaps used the standard spelling, I think some of our confusion might have been avoided.

Anyway, I have watched a portion of the presentation. So far as I can tell, the pastor is claiming that some researcher of his acquaintance hasn't been able to find some of the source material. That's about it. I really don't know what to do with that information. It's certainly had no effect on my opinion about godmen. If you think I've missed something substantial, though, you're welcome to point it out.
.

Ditto, likewise, as above.

I did like the bit about the pastor advising that Christians don't "really" believe that Jesus was born on the 25th of Dec....so that 'parallel' didn't count.

That's gonna be news to my Mom and family... and my excuse not to give Chissy presents.

"Deck the halls with bells of folly....fa la la la la...."