Zeitgeist Refuted

Zeitgeist RefutedEven secular scholars have rejected the idea of Christianity borrowing from the ancient mysteries. The well-respected Sir Edward Evans-Pritchard writes in Theories of Primitive Religion that The evidence for this theory... is negligible.

The first real parallel of a dying and rising god does not appear until A.D. 150, more than a hundred years after the origin of Christianity. So if there was any influence of one on the other, it was the influence of the historical event of the New Testament (resurrection) on mythology, not the reverse. The only known account of a god surviving death that predates Christianity is the Egyptian cult god Osiris.

In this myth, Osiris is cut into fourteen pieces, scattered around Egypt, then reassembled and brought back to life by the goddess Isis. However, Osiris does not actually come back to physical life but becomes a member of a shadowy underworld... This is far different than Jesus' resurrection account where he was the gloriously risen Prince of life who was seen by others on earth before his ascension into heaven. –Dr. Norman Geisler.

Watch the full documentary now

659
4.04
12345678910
Ratings: 4.04/10 from 56 users.
  • 220love

    Why won't God heal amputees? One day we will all start to think logically and step out of the delusional mindset that organized religion has enslaved our minds to accept. I can use How the Grinch Stole Christmas to prove that a grinch exists. Stop trying to convince people that religion is true and just let it be what it is, and that is faith alone. You can't convince others to have faith by throwing up bible verses that theologist can't even agree to their meanings. I have studied religion and I still can't understand why it's so many different religions in the world that can't get along with each other. More people have been killed over religion over the span of the earth than for any other reason.
    So why won't God heal amputees? If you did anything wrong on this earth or are afflicted with anything it is always hope for God to give you a miracle and restore you, except if you have lost a limb. God hated esau but did he also hate amputees?

  • mike

    Garbage. complete garbage. Now go give your money to benny hinn.

  • Jay

    God won't heal amputees because the soul is forever but the flesh is temporary.

  • jon

    this only serves to confirm zeitgeist. what a desparate attempt

  • Jon2

    Wow...this movie just made orginized religion look REALLY stupid. I feel sorry for you guys.

  • Paul

    After 14 years of WIDESPREAD study, and backed/verified by my brother's theological degree, and extracurricular study in ancient Hebrew, I now know that what we see in the King James version is a completely different, and therefore false by the bibles admission alone; let alone the books removed from the original canon, that make the whole philosophy make widespread sense. Also, In learning history of Vatican speaches, that admissions and deciet within the church, and now recent findings of other scriptures and astronomy, I can no longer support Christianity. Knowing now that no other organization has such an impressive death-count than Christiandom, I have to admit that the delusion cannot be stopped nor cleared up properly at all. Those who keep refering to the single source as backup against good dispute from various sources, is infantile at best, and leads intelligence astray. Sorry, but we all will learn eventually. Sumerians of old and the unearthed tablets (no wonder the church refutes them; it's another source, haha) give some careful clues. Even those working and living directly within the church at higher levels are quick shockingly open with their claims of deciet and control. Too bad for those who just want to live well through the good book. All things are good in moderation, and please, don't force anyone to listen to you mental constipation and verbal diarrhea... Nuff' niceness.

  • Neosopheus

    The true mark of ignorance is one who does not think for himself, but rather, uncritically accepts all the dogma and doctrines that have been passed from one generation to the next, from grandparent to parent to child, and so on, ad nauseum. As long as people cling to these antiquated and superstitious ideologies, there will never be peace or understanding, and in turn, we will all continue to suffer.
    So go now, ye sheep, and follow the blind shepherd, who cannot see the forest, nor the trees.

  • Mitch Graves

    Paul,

    I don't know what or where you studied but you need to ask for a refund.
    You must be singularly ill-informed to confuse the catholic church with biblical Christianity! Seriously!

    The biggest "Christian" persecution killed about 3 to 5 thousand and it was the perverse Catholic church at the time who did it.

    Everything in history that can be lain at the door of Christians does not begin to approach one - one hundredth of the leftist communist murders of the last century.
    Almost NO event in history that USED the name of CHRIST was anything whatever to do with GOD's will or word.

    If I decide to kill my neighbor and tell the cops I did it because you gave me the idea do you think it fair that you carry the blame when you never knew me or had anything to do with me? Don't be a tool! IT's absurd.

    Hitler said "GOTT MIT UNS" but he killed 10 million Christians many of which were the top theologians of their day..BECAUSE they openly opposed Hitler.

    And who was it all over EU in every nation that hid the Jews from Hitler...almost every one a Christian. Putting their very lives on the line.

    And every single social reform movement in the history of the US has been manned and started by Christians.

    Don't be so foolish and ignorant of the facts that you confuse the Catholic church or any other large denom with the true believers. And don't be so silly as to think that the true believers are perfect. And BTW hardly any serious Christian I know thinks the KJV is a good translation.

    If you care at all about the truth try looking at all the heroes and great things done by true followers of CHRIST.
    And if you don't think healing is real have the honesty to check it out in person.

    I did not believe and infiltrated a healing service by trying out for the choir. Hinn was there and I left knowing I was wrong when I saw a doctor I knew crying and saying he was sorry for mocking after seeing a patient he operated on instantly healed (four fused vert) and touching her toes.
    (If he was freaked out...I was freaked out!) But I had the honor to go and see if it was the truth!

  • OutSideR

    Sorry guys, Religion is only made for those who require emotional help...
    religion is not actually made to solve your problems...

    i don't know what god is but i know what he isn't, and god is not here to make our lives more complexed...

  • Maestro

    Wow Mitch.
    Those were some amazing statements!

    ...Anyway, back to reality.

  • Micheal

    10 million christians? What? The roughly 10 million people killed in the holocaust were predominantly Jews and Gypsies (Roma). I'm sure many Christian enemies of the state were murdered as well but 10 miliion? Get real.

    And as for the "doctor" that you saw? Have you ever heard of a "plant"? Its when someone (like an actor) is planted in an audience to give a specific response to support whatever the event is intended to promote.

  • @mitch graves

    there are some points in your text that just aren't quite right:

    1. confusing the catholic church with christianity:
    of course those two aren't identical, but the roman-catholic church is the one institution that is responsible for the wide spread of the christian believe. it also reserves itself the right to interprete the bible, meaning that the leaders of the church always had a high influence on the actual believe and the political consequences drawn from it. the fact that this sometimes led to contradictions in the statements of officials of the church and their normally upheld morals lateron led to frictions and divisions in the church, but is another topic. the point is that a devision of church and believe isn't as easy as it sounds, because even objects that seem to be independent from the church, like e.g. the bible leave great space for interpretation.

    2. the crusades are usually regarded to be "the biggest “Christian” persecution" and had a death toll of very roughly estimated one and a half million deads

    3. the problem with "god's will" is not whether or not it is connected to what people like politicians claim it to be, but merely that it is easy just to tell that e.g. a political decesion is "god's will" to influence people deep within.

    4. hitler didn't kill 10 million christians, at least not because of their believe or for political reasons.
    and of course were almost everyone who hid jews a christian, which is due to the fact that most europeans were christians.

    5. james randi said 1996 that he would give one million dollar to anyone who could prove anything paranormal to him. no one ever did, which includes hinn

  • Ajay

    This is the worst documentary on this website! I can't believe its on here! So many so called "facts" are plain wrong! there are just wayyy to many to list here.

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    I agree Ajay.

  • http://enjoyfrancis.com enjoyfrancis

    just like what Maestro said,

    "…Anyway, back to reality."

  • Nic

    ...written, directed, and edited by one man?
    And once again. Circular logic; you can not prove Christianity by using the bible as THE point of reference.
    Is there a God? God is not the question here. But the bible is not God...The Bible is man.

  • TJ

    Explaining with logic and reason to Christians that the Bible is not fact, was never fact and WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE FACT is like arguing with a drunk. It’s like the old saying goes, “Never try to teach a pig to sing. It just wastes your time and annoys the pig.” Greater minds than mine have provided evidence and argument that cannot be refuted with any sense of reason that Religion is NOT reality. I think there are already enough web sites where garbage such as this Mockumentary can find a home and these sites certainly would not allow equal time to a scientific mind any more than they would allow a class on evolution in their Sunday school. Turnabout is fair play. I vote this garbage is removed from this site and save the space for something that truly educational.

  • Mitch Graves is Ret****

    Mitch Graves is one delusional mindless sonofab**** if he thinks the only blood the church has on its hands is 3 or 5 thousand!!! But... he believes in an invisible man in the sky so what did you expect?

    Mitch you sorry bast***, take out that devil's tool google and try throwing Salem Witch Trials, The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, The Vatican and war, etc.. etc. etc..

    you are an i****.

  • Hilarious Comedy Docufaggotry

    I got my first laugh from the opening statement that anyone who has studied scriptures will find them historically accurate and proof that Jesus lived.. Oh F*** that was a GREAT JOKE!! That helped me sit through the boring tubas so we could get to the real stupidity...

    This dumb sonofab**** doesn't know of the meetings at carthage. He's a complete fo**, quoting his own comic book as his proof.. what a jack***.

    I have proof the bible is true.. read the bible, the bible says its true...

    what an obviously retar*** human being that should NOT be making documentaries.

  • guy

    It definatly disproves what was said in zeitgeist saying the story of christ is just a copycat of other pagean religions. Also, ten million christians seems like a fair estimate considering there was some twenty plus million people murdered under the nazi regime which is a long way from ten million total. Furthermore, most of you did'nt even have a sensible resonse to this documentary just he's a retard or an idiot which he very well maybe i don't know the man although right now Mitch Graves is not the person that i think is retarded or idiotic

  • guy

    one more thing the cathlic church of history is not christian. Nobody said that they didn't commit horrible acts to further there own wealth and power because they did but should christians of today throw away there religion because the church commited these crimes hundreds of years ago?

  • Darko

    A very interesting documentary for a open minded people.

  • santasa

    Define "open mind" or, better yet, define "open minded people" Darko, please.

  • santasa

    Dogma for "open minded people" - what a strange notion !? Eh, moj Dare...

  • Max

    I didn't comment on the film because it offered nothing to support any of its claims. All that was offered were the producers opinions backed up with very a few flimsy references, so I didn't agree, and I didn't comment.

    IMHO, that is what having an open mind is. Some people here seem to think that being open minded equates to letting any piece of rubbish help construct their model of reality.

    Religion has gone through many stages of development as society's have changed. It should not be a surprise to find the roots of a current theology in an older set of faiths.

  • Itsallmythology

    hahah this is such a damn lame try...Its on the religulous level so it will fit christians.Man qouting bibile ahahaha..lets quote some Harry potter..

  • Jesus tap dancing budda

    Thank you. This is the funniest documentary I have seen in a long time. It seems that the film maker is trying to disprove Zeitgeist to a teenage bible study group. I think using the bible as his reference source within this context is laughable... What a terrible argument... Keep praying to your god, drive an SUV, shop at walmart, do it all in the name of Jesus...

  • http://www.vitaloverdose.com Vitaloverdose

    Its utterly incredible that after 2000 years of misery brought on organized religion that there are still idiots like this guy trying to prove the existence of their loving god based on nothing more than a book they they themselves admit was written by humans.
    I say nail him to a tree..he'd probably enjoy it.

  • Mike

    PLEASE!

  • r4wMUnt34q

    The reason people refuse to stop believing in God is that they are emotionally addicted to the thought of God. Because when something good happens, they thank God. When they are in trouble and pray and then solve the problem (themselves), they thank God, not themselves! They are conditioned to explain things through God and not through some scientific knowledge, because either they have lack of knowledge (because God is everything they need to know to explain everything) or they end up explaining the unknown through God again.
    What I learned in my History classes was, that monarchs (kings, other leaders and so on) were idealised in the eyes of the people who he was leader to, so that they would respect and obey him. Then some wise people during a crisis time write a believable story, which also consists of some wise sayings, which are true, but that doesnt mean that also everything in the Bible is true! And the concept of God was used to keep the citizens or the ruled in peace, so that they wouldnt cause any problems and obey!
    Belief in God only promotes separation, because believers believe, that non-believers are somehow bad, which isnt necessarily true! It promotes gaining knowledge from some people who call themselves holy or saint or whatever, but if one looks at some things critically, he would find that many things are bullsh*ts!
    Why doesnt the Bible include laws of physics and evolution? If there was any God, why would he let innocent people die, because someone wants to rule our planet???
    IF HORSES HAD A GOD, HE WOULD PROBABLY LOOK LIKE A HORSE.

    COME ON PEOPLE, THINK FOR YOURSELVES AND WAKE UP! DONT LET OTHERS THINK FOR YOU!!! THERE IS NO GOD, JUST MANIPULATION THROUGH GOD!

  • justin

    this film fails to refute

  • In the name of the retard

    Please remove this piece of s***.............................

  • CJ Reneouis

    Doesn't really make sense when this guy keeps refering to the fairytale.. uhm, i mean.. Bible, as a credible source. especially when he is quoting the most ambiguous parts of it.. Not easy debating with religous people as there is no room for openmindness or giving in at all.

    The day I will believe is the day I see a massiv glowing old man sitting on a cloud from my airplane window, pointing his finger at my carbon footprints.

  • Max

    Hi Justin,
    'this film fails to refute'

    Well said

  • karip

    This movie is clearly written by a christian. Everyone has an opinion, which is great. But why do so many fall into organized religion...because they were raised like that, i was lucky to have religious freedom from day 1. You are all slaves, organized religion kills, and death is a sin!

  • Ana

    ok, guys, I didn't even watch this movie, because it's bull****, but I was glad to see so many educated and common sense people who left their comments here!!! Let's make sure that we keep our minds sane and do not let crazy stories about Christ and heaven and hell distract us from achieving our goals in life.

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    Ok than let's vote if this documentary should be removed from TDF.

  • Oppono Astos

    Wonderful refutation. Anyone interested in refuting more of the claims by the 'Jesus Mythologists' like Archaya Stench, get the book Shattering the Christ Myth by James Patrick Holding.

  • Max

    Hi Vlatko,

    I don't want to see it removed. It gave me a little more insight into the irrational notions some people hold. And it gave me a chance to practice my critical analysis skills.

  • Max

    A couple of personal conclusions.

    1. There is no place for faith in the scientific method.

    2. The scientific method makes no claim to the mysterious.

  • http://www.zeitgeistmovement.com Babalski

    I have not seen it but simply claiming zeitgeist is false seams a little dumb to me?

    I know Egyptology and saying `The first real parallel of a dying and rising god does not appear until A.D. 150`

    is only possible if you ignore other evidence.

    I do not support this ignoring part since it makes peeps ignorant. Plz remove this video thanks for keeping peeps informed

  • FocusMix

    Actually, this film should be called Zeitgeist III, because it does more to support the main premise of Zeitgeist than to refute it. The fact that religion has been used time and again, not to enrich or save, but to establish power is irrefutable and the whole point of the first part of Zeitgeist.

    Exposing the unbreakable bond of church and state as the ultimate power couple was the central theme of Zeitgeist (thus the bible and the flag as poor substitutes for common sense and reason as illustrated in the beginning of the film.).

    While there very well may be reasonable contention as to the facts of certain information in Zeitgeist, this, like other arguments that cannot be won reasonably by the church, has been reduced to petty diversions (ie, arguing trivialities to divert from main points that cannot be argued), character assassinations, and name calling. These, ironically, are the very people that want you to follow them????

    Zeitgeist and Zeitgeist Refuted both offer convincing arguments, questionable sources, and reasonable doubts. However, only one has it's roots in common sense.

    I'll go with that one.

  • Joanna C

    What is it with all this hate on this forum?
    Is anyone actually objective here? or is this the tantrum of teeenage boys rehashing Richard Dawkin's ideas?

    Of course this documentary is biased. It's made by Christians! Who else would invest time to refute Zeitgeist?

    But Zeitgeist is just as biast! The information is carefully distorted, deleted and controlled to proove a very peculiar point of view. Can you guys not tell poor journalistic logic?

    Learn to read between the lines, and stop pretending to be thinkers! Not one intelligent idea presented in this conversation outside of irrational, emotional rants expressing hatred to Christianity.

    I'm not Christian but I am thankful that they have helped create a better world. That's what really at the heart of Chrisitanity for 90% of cases. That's objective. On most part, they're do gooders.

    Be grateful that you live in a country founded by these kind of people and stop pretending you're better.
    Please! Half of you are addicted to porn, and that's just for starters...

    If you respeond with hate, what makes you better morally anyway?
    You're just as pathetic as a Christian crusader - running ahead with zeal out in the name of Richard Dawkin's Truth (and all his copy-cat drones).
    Lucky you don't have weapons, but just cheap swear words - which only goes to proove the level of immaturity on this message board.

  • Ana

    Joanna C, would you please elaborate on your statement that Christians helped create a better world. I just wonder, how exactly they helped...

  • Max

    Hi Joanna C,

    Sorry to have disappointed you. We try our best and that's all we can do.

    I agree with you in that Zeitgeist had calls to revolution, that I found hard to imagine as workable solutions. Its ideas of a resource based economy, the validity of the federal reserve and call to social change. Would involve damatic upheaval.

    Refuted fails to address many of these ideas though. responding to the first part of the Zeitgeist only, which proposed that all religious belief stems from symbiotic/Darwinian development of early societys use of astonomical observation as a method in the mesurment of time.

    Refuted attempts counter this idea by emphasising Christianitys uniqueness in relation to earlier pre Abrahamic faiths. It could be aruged that Refuted uses circular resoning and that Zeitgeist has ommisions. The debate begs closer examination.

    Its appears that if funermental corrolations are apparent we can discount modern faith from being absolute truth. On the other hand modern faith can not be validated by claims of originality.

  • Rene

    Damn... didn't read the comments, just started watching the movie without listening to the first opening statement...
    After half an hour I skipped ahead and heard how the bible warns "us" for people who deny Christ "our" saviour, for they are the antichrist.
    I want my 30 minutes back!!

    P.S those who say Christian moral helped make the world a better place or those who are interested in the evolution of morality, please read "The Orgins of Virtue" by Matt Ridley, this explains why and how humans evolved morality. Christianity has morals because humans have morals, not the other way around.

  • http://pamediocres.blogspot.com/ Jesus

    please stop thinking if i lived or not, i had to tell all of you something i just had a psicosis and felt like i was the son of god... and yes driven by my psychosis i make a revolution in my time, i tried to help people, then some others followed me and believe they they carried "the truth", and wrote about me....and you know all about it.

    but you know what? .... you can choose if we want to create something in our lives or to destroy the rest of the world.... in the end when you die you will know that all is the same good or bad..... however if you follow the evolution of nature you will know or guess which could be the future of live on earth...(carl sagan said something) all boils down to your choice... you all have the potential to be jesuses or anti-jesuses.......and dont worry in the end.... we all are one.... so try to follow your own path in live.... is the opportunity to make something........ dont speak about me an schizophrenic that had his time on earth, Think about the present and the future!

  • Gene

    Do not make accusations or judgments either for nor against anyone or anything. I cannot say whether a man who taught this or not lived but, I like what he taught in the bible I have only ever, when reading it, read the words in red. He taught freedom and no one comes between you and the creator only you know what is best for you. He also taught, self sufficiency and not bowing to any power on earth! Remember, and think to yourself do you know how to make wine or, to fish and to make bread all from your own labor? Can you fix your own car build a house can you treat your own wounds if out alone in emergency?

  • III

    to gene:

    i share your opinion on the red text perspective. thomas jefferson did as well. i dont know you but i like you. please dont commit mass homicide or i will look quite silly for complimenting you.

  • TD

    Why is it that those who don't believe in evolution most often act like monkeys?

    This poor attempt to refute Zeitgeist is laughable.

    The best part about evolution is in the near future the Christian story is bound for fossilification.

  • Vilya

    I actually disagree with many of the ideas the creators of Zeitgeist have offered, I also think that their presentation of information was very self affirming and I was expecting at some point some form of agenda which was revealed in Zeitgeist Addendum.

    As well, to many of the so called "open minded", "free thinkers" commenting here, this documentary expresses an opinion as well, just because you do not agree with it does not mean that it is invalid information.

    On the other hand the fact that they use cyclic logic, and unscientific "facts" to prove their points, makes their point of view rather weak. It is up to the viewer to listen to all opinions and make their own decision, that is the essence of free thought, and being open minded.

    I must say before commenting further, that the comments for this “documentary” are far more interesting than the documentary itself.

    I wish I had the fortitude to watch the entirety of this film, so that I could comment on (and laugh) at their feeble attempts to refute many scientific facts. On the other hand they make a number of good points. Many of the sources named by Zeitgeist are rather questionable and as noted before Zeitgeist's own presentation of material, tended to scientific based claims mixed in with a few unscientific based claims in such a way that it seems as if everything they are presenting is pure scientific fact, when it was not.

    I do not agree in totality with either of these two realms of thought BUT due to watching and learning from both of them, sifting through the false, examining the facts and then adding them to my own ideas from previous facts/experiences I am intellectually enriched. This is the essence of science and free thought.

    To be honest the economic commentary that is part of the Zeitgeist documentary is much better put together than their refuting of the Bible. Watch, Who wrote the Bible? a BBS documentary, and The Naked Truth, done in 1991, for some interesting food for thought on the Bible. Religulous was brilliant as well, and The God Delusion while I think that Dr Dawkins was VERY biased and incredibly harsh, it is good food for though.

    Remember, Never have fanatical beliefs, question everything. (Believe nothing, Doubt everything)...When you have no beliefs, you can come up with some pretty great ideas.

  • Max

    Vilya, I do not accept your synopsis, you assume that we hare are commenting on Zeitgeist when we are posting on the refuted thread.

    As to an open minded. If you feel that you can accept any idea as a possible valid, then please wade through them.

    otherwise understand there are no flying pigs.

  • ScaryDemonAHH!

    I believe one of the best things I learned from Zeitgeist (the original) is that there is no bad information, or good information for that matter, but that it is all just information. What you do with it determines its "meaning" in the greater scheme. As such, we are required to use our personal reasoning and calculating abilities to determine what information to agree with, or to ignore, to what degree and what to conclude as a result.

    Personally, I feel that Zeitgeist used information that I could more easily draw rational conclusions from, period. This rebuttal (if you can call it that) only displays information from one rather biased source and fails to tickle the imagination, much like Christianity fails and has always failed in my mind to marry the supernatural with the logical.

    Also, it only refutes 1/3 of the original.. HOW the fudge can he call it Zeitgeist Refuted. That's like refuting gravity because you can throw a ball up into the air, while ignoring the fact that the ball will stop and come back down at you. Zeitgeist (imho) attempted to create parallels between how we were controlled 2000 years ago, to how we are now and possibly how we will be in the future, and these 2/3 of the film aren't even addressed. There is a simple reason for this of course, there is nothing about the Fed or microchips in the Bible so the producer didn't have a basis for arguing those points.
    This mockumentary takes on a "this is how it is" mentality (much like the religion it defends) rather than simply displaying information for rational minds to ponder. A regurgitation of biblical information occurs with the explicit objective of telling others how and why things are the way that they are and how to feel instead of giving them the tools to figure it out themselves..

    -473823728 out of 5 stars..

  • III

    Vlatko.

    Please do not remove this documentary. Granted that it is possibly the least intelligent work on the site, it is important to have access to any attempted refute. to remove a film based on popular disagreement would go against the spirit of this wonderful site. The free exchange of ideas is important to the progress of collective human advancement.

    besides if nothing else we all need a good laugh every once in a while right?

  • ivy

    Vilya
    -like the way you think, and concur

  • Mike

    Not a single refutation of Refuted. That's just great! Could it be because you are such ignorant sheep for slaughter (as you brag the christians are)? The fact we want to be atheists doesn't mean trashing arguments that we can't handle on our own. Stop hiding behind documentaries and be real to yourselves you sheep! Go research the counter-arguments presented (I'm still on it... If I find something I'll put it up.), and this, on your own, before saying "I liked it" or "It s***ed!". I really don't want to have anything to do with most of the atheists on here!! You p*** me off!! Get a life or some sound history books at least before giving us your supposed "expertise" bs.!! You've no idea of the arguments on the other side that would probably put many of you to shame. Oh and something else to waste my time: You actually want Refuted taken off???????????? You pathetic fascists give atheism a bad name! You're a bad deal! What about the people who want to hear the other side? Who are you to deprive it from them?! If you do so, aren't they going to say we are hiding the facts? "Start thinking people (!)" is good advice, especially for those who "think" with other people's brains...! You parots! I agree with Joanna C who put you on the same stool with the catholic crusaders! Indeed we're lucky you don't have guns!! Over and (difinitely) out (of your way...)! Mumble all you want just know what you are when doing it!

  • Max

    Oh come on Mike, that's a bit strong. The proletariat demand a decent education and not fairy tales. Most of the commentary against the film is born of outrage to the fact that or society's are feed 'noble lies' every day to keep political power in the hands of a few.

    There is a very real process of educational deprivation as policy. Educationally our government's are getting exactly what they ordered. But that does not mean all of the people are dumb all of the time.

    Does it really matter if the sceptics do not verify the half life of uranium 238 as 4.47 billion years.

    What the f@?> did you expect?

  • Max

    P,S
    no one has said they are 'atheist' until you.

  • http://web.me.com/rickandfumie/Leaving_Omelas/Home.html Rick S.

    Mike, the burden of refutation falls on the maker of "Refuted," not on those making comments--however ill-conceived they might seem to be. And please do not suggest that watching this woefully inadequate presentation constitutes listening to the "other side" of the argument. I would point out, however, that the vast majority of the comments on this thread would greatly benefit from spell check. Just a thought!

  • MojoRyzing

    What boggles my mind is how people get stuck in “their” time and civilization thinking that “theirs” is the most important the most thruthful. There’s been countless of civilization each with their religion and beliefs eg: Vikings, Incas, Greeks, Romans, Egyptian, Druids, American Indians, and on and on and on and on. Seriously? Don’t we see a pattern here??? Are we not evolved enough to see that all the religions we are involved in our time is noting but a fad? How fu*** eotistical are we to believe that our beliefs are everlasting? That OUR time, in all of the millions of years that passed, IS the TRUE RELIGION? Wake-up! God is the universe, an vice versa. It came from a singularity and we’re all part of it. And it keeps changing as it always will. In millions of years from now, humans won’t even exist, and somthing else will replace us. We’ll be like the neandrethals. Extinct. And whatever will replace us will have it’s own beliefs. What a joke to think ours is everlasting! We’ve also believed that the universe revolved around US! We’re so egotistical, it’s actually quite disgusting. Our reality is so narrow-minded in the grand scheme of things, we can’t even see further than our noses. Litteraly! That’s how we’re behaving conidering how our 2000 years of existence is a fart compared to the 15 billion years that the universe has existed. Yet we’re all fighting like we hold the truth! I DON’T GIVE A FLYING F*** who’s right and who’s wrong, cuz all I know is my time on this earth is approximately 80 years, and I’m spend it LOVING it. And when I die, if there’s a GOD that tells me :”Sorry buddy, but you didn’t serve me well enough, you’re not eligible for everlasting life” I’ll tell him he can go f*** himself, cuz I wouldn’t want an everlasting life serving him anyways. The God I believe doesn’t put much importance on what we do. It’s like us caring about the morality of ants! They do what they do cuz they’re ANTS! Are we gonna start judging THEM? NO! So why would God (and by god I mean whatever created us, if that’s the big bang so be it) why would he waste ANY AMOUNT of energy judging what EVERYONE DOES IN THEIR LIFETIME??? It’s so ridiculously egotistical of us, I’m amazed at how many people by into religion! WAKE-UP!

  • Vilya

    Max
    -Oddly, I agree this is the thread for Zeitgeist Refuted and not Zeitgeist, but while reading the comments the strongest opinion I came away with was, This is wrong because Zeitgeist is correct, not that this is wrong because .. well of the many reasons I stated in my above comment and of course the many other good reasons stated in a few of the other comments. Thus I addressed this in my commentary. As well, to prove that you can learn even from something as unscientifically put together as this, I showed a few points in the "documentary" worth noting.

    As well, sadly, as hard and almost impossible, as it may seem we simply HAVE to gave all information a chance before we discredit it completely, and even if we do. we should sift through the dirt, and find the gems within it. The knowledge you hold comes from your experiences, through your reading, watching documentaries, talking to people, and putting this all together in the framework of your life and the type of thinking it has allowed you. Like this, every person in the world has a different life experience, and thus each person has different information than you, a different way of thinking no matter how slight, and a different process to come up with there current life view, and again, just because it is not your does not mean it should be discarded. Of course I'm not saying if you hear some guy say "WE ARE AN EXPERIMENT FROM THE PLANET ZIMM" your not going to automatically say you found god and get a stress test. You give them a listen assess what their saying and discard or accept. You are correct in saying its insane to think we can do this for everything, because we wont have the time to but never impede the presentation of information. Think on this, all on the insane technology we have today, would any scientist about 2000 years ago (probably astrologists) consider any of this as reasonable information, tell them "you are made up of atoms", they will laugh at you, it was the people who tried the validity of every angle that allowed us to have all that we do today. A more modern example would be quantum physics, any reasonable thinker would say Einsteinian Theory (Gravitational theory) would hold true for everything including sub atomic particles. We now know this is not true, but do you think we would have the field of quantum physics today, and even theories like string theory, if someone did not decide to stop trying to make the convention of the time work and start testing ideas that at the time would be instantly discredited. heh I know it was an expression but, you realize that if the ethics committees don't get to them geneticists could probably eventually cross pigs with a type of bird and make them fly, just an example of a "factual" convention that may not hold true after further research.
    On a side note, Max, I pretty much agree with most of what you have to say.

    P.S. Thanks IVE !!

    Mike.. mike mike mike ... through your bluster I'm not completely sure what your trying to say but this "documentary" is refuted by us through the fact that the information presented is mostly NOT based on facts. (not totally just mostly) and thus ... there is no need to go step by step through it.

    Mojo! a little too much on the expletives but .... EXACTLY! thats exactly it. lol.

  • Vilya

    Bleh, sorry, I rushed the writing and after re-reading I noticed a couple errors and missing commas, my apologies. Still understandable, I hope.

  • charlie brooker

    I watched a full five minuets of this documentary, which had the effect of annoying me so much that i tried to bludgeon myself to death with the lap-top i had been watching it on. The reason this filth was so infuriating was due to it's complete lack of logic and also the narrator's voice, which, in my opinion was more annoying than the documentary's inaccuracies.

  • Vilya

    Yea the voice got to me too..:P

  • Max

    Hi Vilya,

    I agree that we should not suppress ideas.
    Rational ideas are validated through experimentation, the irrational are invalidated also.

    Invoking the super natural explains nothing.

  • Vilya

    Agreed..:)
    The original reason for the "Supernatural" was to explain the unexplainable. From there it grew to a way to bring together, inspire, and instill hope in people, that did not know any better or were so down trodden they needed to grasp at something to stay alive (as a people). In this age of knowledge, or the information age, we no longer need the shackles of the supernatural to explain the unexplainable, we can actually try to figure it out.
    While I still have an idea of some form of greater consciousness that we will never comprehend, I do not think it has any effect or affect on us at all.
    I think the way to "heal the world" is through education and the freedom of shared knowledge.

  • Florian O.

    The thing is that... umm... Zeitgeist has three parts, and only the first part of it deals with religion. Therefore this dumpocumentary should have been called "First part of Zeitgeist Refuted" So that I would happily not watch it and have my 1+1/2 hour back. I was so curious... and now sooo disappointed. This was no different than watching evangelists on TV.

  • Max

    Hi Vilya,
    Maybe not knowing is better than having answerers that are probably wrong.

    It is possible that the universe will never be fully understood and that human existence has no meaning beyond humanity. There may always be mystery. For me filling that mystery with the supernatural is not a solution.

    That is why I have to disagree with the seductive idea for some form of greater consciousness.

    It is difficult to come to terms with the limitations of human understanding, especially when confronting our mortality and that of those we care for. We take comfort from many supernatural beliefs.
    But we can also take comfort in our understanding of the natural.

  • mike

    Max, you're right. I was talking mainly about the first part of zeitgeist.

  • Max

    Yes, you were.

  • steven

    i wanted to comment on this movie by no means am i a church person over all i think this movie was great all you have to do is pick up a bible and read Revelation to see the truth of what our government is doing to us today with more regulations in powering the federal reserve and taking our liberty's away they already pretty much have us Americans as slave's but they want total control those are there ultimate goals but at least im aware of whats going on and who's really guiding Washington many Americans are still asleep wake up!!!! get informed and stay informed thanks Ron Paul Alex Jones for the wake up call.

  • Alex

    Did anyone refute Zeitgeist (the first part)??? Everything is ok in it??? Oh please!!!
    Here is some refutation of Zeitgeist: The Movie
    (Regarding the first part, about The Bible and Christianity.)
    Please try to be calm and objective in order to be able to take -at least- a glimpse of the injustice done in this movie (Zeitgeist... not Zeitgeist Refuted).
    These are just a few comments…!! There was much more nonsense to comment on!
    (I will not comment on the historical facts that blow Zeitgeist from the map, since most are already found on “Zeitgeist Refuted” -found by those who want to be objective).
    1. We are shown a hand that “has evolved” writing 1+1=2 (representing logic) on a piece of paper, and then someone removing the hand and the paper with the equation (logical thinking), just to replace it with The Bible. The idea is that The Bible and logic don’t go together. This is COMPLETELY LUDICROUS! Anyone who believes Christian beliefs are illogical, that they don’t make sense, either does not really know what logic is, or is simply too stubborn to admit the opposite. I mean, even a fairy tale, can be 100% logical (!!) yet false when compared to the facts of reality. If you never went to school and are cut off from the world, you might think (as some did) -based on your observation- that the world is flat. This is a logical observation, for in fact from “where you stand”, you cannot “see” it is round, you just see the horizontal line. Based on the factors at hand (your hand), your conclusion is a logical one, but not correct when compared to reality. In conclusion, likewise, believing that The Bible is not truthful is something we can talk about, but believing it is illogical, is pure uneducated nonsense.
    2. The movie starts with pure atheistic propaganda. It blames everything on religion, it touches our sensitivity (images of war, children crying next to their murdered parents etc.), it equates war with Christianity (religion in general). It even makes itself to be a savior, one who will save us from The God and religion of The Bible. It protects us with the truth (ha!) by telling us through the words of George Carlin which are included: “I don’t know what God is, but I know what God isn’t!” (Oh you great benefactor you!) In other words: “Look, the christian god of the bible cannot be the real God! And you know why? We know What the Real God is, and it’s not Him!”
    Well, really?? How do you know that… oh wise one?? How do you know what God isn’t????? Have you… revelation?? -Guess what? I have some news for you: God can be anything, even be the sadistic God (this is what they usually imply) that He is accused to be by those who are ignorant and arrogant (and vice versa). Hypothetically speaking, who can deprive Him of what to be?? Why can’t a God be sadistic and still be a God?? Why are you able to be sadistic and God can’t?? “Because he is God!” you protest. But how do you know what being God is?? Any answer you give, is just your view, nothing more. Get it? I hope so. So don’t serve philosophical junk food for wisdom, young people may be deceived, people in general.
    3. Then we hear the very funny (12:18-12:46): He will send you to hell….. “because He loves you!” Don’t the atheists see how irresponsible, frivolous, arbitrary, this remark is?? Can’t you see this has nothing to do with the God of Christianity? I mean, being an atheist haven’t you studied The Bible, that you are now trampling all over? If you have, haven’t you noticed the sacrifice of Jesus Christ made in order that the man who will accept Him in repentance and faith, be saved form hell?? Isn’t that to you, even as an atheist, theoretically at least (!) some kind of love from God’s side (even if you’re not completely satisfied by it from your perspective)?? I mean, try to be honest. Didn’t you see such an effort on God’s side from the beginning of the Bible till the end, to approach man for his own good?? Irrelevant if you understand His tactics at all or to a degree. Don’t you see Christians approaching people, in order to speak to them about salvation from hell?? Don’t you know this is God’s will? Really, you don’t know all this?? You don’t see A God Who shows love at all?? And you really think the comedian’s stupid remark is true: “He will send you to hell… because He loves you”???? Then I have to ask: Do you have a brain your head man? What are you doing with it? Rather, what are they doing with it?!!! (My intent was not to insult anyone, but to awake the ones that should.)
    4. Having said: “he will send you to hell… because He loves you!” he immediately says another stupid thing: “He loves you and He needs money!” Are we suppose to take the composers of this movie seriously?? Now that’s faith at its worst! -I mean, equating God Himself with someone who needs money? The Bible teaches this??????? We Christians believe this?????!!!????? You honestly believe we do??? Only a real immoral idiot can -right off the bat- equate God with the christian con artists, that a big part (if not the biggest) of the Church world wide condemns and exposes? The guy who made the movie allowed this remark to be part of the movie. What does this really say about him? Every much.
    5. Then in comparing Jesus to… the sun (!!), he says: “Jesus Christ is born again, every morning”! What?? Jesus Christ is born again?? Every morning?? (24:30). Theologically, being born again, has nothing to do with Christ! It refers to those follow Christ, becoming children of God. Jesus was already The son of God!
    6. Let’s see another ridiculous claim. At 24:36, we learn: that Christ’s crown of thorns, represents…. the sun’s rays?! A crown of thorns does that????? What a foolish comparison! I mean, speaking of evil fairytales! But really, did you object when you heard this, by saying… WHAAAAT???? Even as an atheist, don’t you have to be sensible and truthful?
    7. Then he says: “…the twelve disciples… they are simply the 12 constellations of the Zodiac” (24:36) WOW! Did the 12 at least exist or were they just constellations?? If the second, how can he prove that? And how can he disprove the opposite!!!! I marvel at the extreme arbitrariness, and the gullibility of some people (some times willful gullibility!).
    8. At 24:16 up to 24:44 we again see (do we?) the tactic he uses to prove his prejudices. He chooses to use words from The Bible (out of context), in order to make a parallel to his ideas! Completely irrational! He’s making a puzzle of his own fantasy. I mean, you can apply this tactic to any science book, and make all sorts of comparisons with other stories!! So?
    9. Another “gem”: He calls upon a particular ignorant Christian (that is, if the story is true. It could be; there are many around, just as there are many atheists like him around.) who said: “God put those dinosaur bones there, to test our faith!” Wow! Another eye opener to Christian perspective. We are grateful. -Do you really believe this is what Christian’s believe??? Why would he use such idiotic examples in his movie?? Doesn’t it show that he is just to much of a fanatic… to be careful in his research?? This is a good question to contemplate on! One answered in Zeitgeist Refuted.
    10. Does any body notice anything while watching from 9:00 up to 10:47?? Or is it a coincidence….?

    In closing, does the viewer see from the above samples that he is being brainwashed? It has all the tools for the purpose. Please be honest.
    Regarding the rest of the movie, it too, has nothing to do with Christianity. The fact that a new world order dictatorship is coming up, is -I believe- true from most perspectives. The time is not far. But anyway, is Christianity to blame? IT’S NOT! But -a bold question- isn’t it more probable (like 100% probable!) that atheists or/and pantheists occultists (masons etc.), would be behind it? From a Biblical perspective… IT DEFINITELY IS!
    One more comment. The speaker says that the government does not want an “informed public capable of critical thinking” and that this is what brought on Zeitgeist. THIS IS CAPITAL IGNORANCE ON PART OF ZEITGEIST!!!!!!! It is not an example of critical thinking, but of a) a pathetic attempt to manipulate people in order that they turn against religion b) mixed with critical thinking. And this to make Zeitgeist seem like “a savior figure” while it is just another sheep in wolf’s clothing!! Regarding the “uninformed public”, because of Zeitgeist, they are now misinformed as well! Think of my comments above, and see Zeitgeist Refuted (I disagree with the preaching at the end, and I believe it should not have been in the movie!)
    The rest I leave… to your heart.
    May God give you His increase!

  • Max

    Alex,

    Your validating Christian faith in terms of reason and the material is questionable.

    Faith, I have heard people say, is just that. Faith. Transcendent reality is inherently a matter of faith. Beyond the material and reason.

    Isn't faith one of the fundamental concepts of Christianity.

  • Max

    Hi Alex,
    When I used the phrase 'the material' I was referring to the physical universe and not the material content of the bible.
    And when I used the word reason I was referring to logical reasoning and not 'the reason for'.

    Quoting the bible as evidence of biblical validity, could be considered circular logic.

    The discovery of ancient ruins is not evidence for the validity of the bible.

    A transcendent reality can not be validated it is a matter of faith.

  • Max

    Validation of faith in terms of reason and the material is questionable.

    Faith, I have heard people say, is just that. Faith. Transcendent reality is inherently a matter of faith. Beyond the material and reason.

    Isn’t faith one of the fundamental concepts of religion.

  • Alex

    Max hi, (fourth attempt to post my answer)
    You write:
    1)"When I used the phrase ‘the material’ I was referring to the physical universe and not the material content of the bible."
    Well, you said: "...faith in terms of reason and the material is questionable."
    NO WAY OF KNOWING you were referring to the physical universe…
    Anyway, The Bible is still "material" worthwhile considering. I mean, no one who is objective can rightly just push aside its claims (once they calmly realize their weight), when... they are searching to find the Creator of the creation. -If you believe “Evolution” is what we need, I definitely disagree. To me it is no longer science, but an obstacle to science. It is not only questionable but really… “way out there!” And people say The Bible’s claims are strange! They will say anything but “Well, maybe a Creator did it!” Isn’t that down right weird. I mean what’s happening to these people? Have they lost their common sense?? See the foolish things that some scientists promote (give time to it please, don’t just react…)!

    Since “evolution” has nothing true to offer (in my research, this is always the case) regarding the origin of man, why not consider the facts of intelligent design which point to A Creator? I mean, WHY NOT?? What else is there to think about, that is not a waste of time, but goes hand in hand with logical observation (as you will see next)?? Could it be because some hate the idea of God, especially if He is A Judge…? At least be honest about it, and don’t call upon pseudo-science to protect your emotions (I'm talking to them).

    2)"And when I used the word reason I was referring to logical reasoning and not ‘the reason for’."
    Logical reasoning is 1+1=2. You can use that with issues of faith/Christianity. If you believe otherwise, give me a specific example of what you have in mind. But before you do, listen to “my” logic (Bible aside), maybe it will help: Everything comes from something else. The same is true for intelligence! This is what observation (not theory and speculation) says!! (Observation is one of the most important evidences for anything. Science cannot flush observation down the toilet! I choose to believe what I see, whether the truth or/and the indications to truth.) So, logic says, intelligence, any form or degree of intelligence, must come from a prior intelligence. WE SEE nothing contrary to that!! NOTHING. And this is something we have to hold on to. Hence, when I say logic, I am referring to the out come of my observation at hand: from intelligence comes (=) intelligence and therefore the initial intelligence must have had an intelligent source as well. Every intelligence on this planet comes from another intelligence. This is an observable FACT, not hypothesis. So, I take this fact into consideration (putting aside for the moment hearsay or even reasonable scientific theory [no such thing, other then creationism]), and conclude that there must be a higher Intelligence from which we came from. So Max, logic that considers actual facts, leads to a prior Higher intelligence. (The Bible just gives us evidence of Who He is. But this is the second step.)

    3)"Quoting the bible as evidence of biblical validity, could be considered circular logic."
    a) Max, please be more careful when reading my stuff (so I don’t waste time answering to things I don’t do). I was not using the quotes to prove biblical validity but to prove that the Bible -when it comes to faith- has not problem with logic/reasoning leading to faith.
    b) Your statement here is still wrong though. If I quoted particular Bible passages, and gave proof of the reality of their claims, indeed I am actually increasing the validity of The Bible, but this is not circular reasoning. It would be circular reasoning if I started by saying: The Bible is the truth, therefore everything it said in these passages is true, one of which is, that the Bible is the truth. (Do you know that only “rare” Christian do this, but all, are accused of it, even before they open their mouth!) BUT if I said: the claims of The Bible are being proven true all the more, therefore The Bible’s validity in whole, as being “the truth”, is starting to manifest, then this is not circular reasoning.
    Hence, I did not use circular reasoning.

    4) "The discovery of ancient ruins is not evidence for the validity of the bible."
    Your missing the point. Your statement does wrong to the purpose of my argument. It is definitely an oversimplification! Did you see all of it on youtube?? I just used Sod.and Gom. as an example of the fact that miracles of The Bible have been proven to be actual events not myths. The fact that we read: Gen 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
    ...and then find in that place such "balls of fire", is a clear indication that what is there written is true (why should anyone claim the opposite??). But this truth, bears as a central figure, A God! Why should I accept the evidence of the finding but detach it from the rest of the narration (especially if when you take God out of the picture, no other explanation makes sense)?? But there are a great many stories like this that are verified. SO, this fact/s serve as evidence as to the accountability of Biblical truth, and that that God exists.

    5)"A transcendent reality can not be validated it is a matter of faith."
    No, this is a type of philosophical thinking that holds back critical thinking, and actually names any evidence for the opposite: "ludicrous", "nonsense", "illogical" etc. In down-to-earth-thinking, if a transcendent reality (a God in our case) wants to be validated through various "signs and wonders" in order to lead people to faith towards His Person, what's to stop Him?? WHY CAN'T THIS BE POSSIBLE? There is no reason Max. Pseudo-science has been on the throne too long, and the worshipers... many!
    May God give you His increase.

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    Alex,

    All comments are previewed and if necessary moderated and approved or disapproved by me. I had a bad experience in the past with the comments. People easily abuse that and they use really bad language or they will just spam the site with hundreds of comments.

    Your comment contains several outgoing links and is automatically recognized as spam. I had to retrieve it from the spam comments folder which you may not believe are several thousands so far.

    Anyway there it is. Sorry for the inconvenience.

    Cheers

  • Alex

    Vlatko, thanks alot guy!!

  • Max

    I agree we have no absolute proof of evolution or for that matter anything.

    We have different degrees of certainty, based on our understanding.

  • Max

    edit:-

    anything should read religion.

  • Max

    Validation of faith in terms of human reasoning and the material universe, is questionable.

    Faith, I have heard people say, is just that. Faith. Transcendent reality is inherently a matter of faith. Beyond human reasoning and the material universe.

    Isn’t faith one of the fundamental concepts of religion.

  • III

    alex.

    you tend to quote the bible as evidence of its validity. have you ever considered how ridiculous it would sound were you to hear someone quoting moby dick as evidence that moby dick were a true story? furthermore applying that same logic wouldn't quoting a science textbook be evidence of evolution?

    have you ever considered that the bible reveals nothing exceptional at all? why wouldn't an all-knowing god provide some evidence of its existence other than a rehashing of a story that had already been plagarized? god provides no reason and demands blind faith.

    the bible doesn't read like the words of an all-loving god but rather the words of superstitious men afraid of losing power. the laws of god are isolations. makes you wonder why god would create and sustain the lives of any who worship other entities. how can god be all-loving and yet play favorites? god grants the jews exclusive knowledge of the one true creator of the universe and at the same time tells them he created it in the wrong order. the earth is not the center of anything yet the bible places earth at an importance nearly equal to heaven. he creates earth before all of the stars the sun or the moon. an all-knowing god certainly wouldn't allow his chosen people to believe inaccuracy about their origins. the geocentric theory is one crafted out of an ignoranceof the universe at large, god would know how his creations worked.

    science is not based on faith it is also not out to disprove religious claims however since the birth of the scientific method the various claims made in various scriptures hae become obsolete. you know this to be true.

    1+1=2 thus 6000 < 13.7 billion.

  • Max

    WTF, I come across as a narrow minded square......>/,l'! lol

  • Alex

    ///
    Read again what I have writtten (three "comments")and give time to the links. Then you will understand how surpised I am about what you write...! I don't do what you say. And I probably can't convince you "///" you've no idea (seeing your 3rd paragraph..). You sound like a young person who in ignorance is sure it is how he says it is. Concerning your last paragraph, "science" is definitely not the one to point the finger!! Way too often its claims are ridiculously silly while at other times (many times)they are simply proven wrong by someone who finally speaks out. On the other hand, while some accuse the Bible of being obsolete, in time, they are always proven wrong or are shown that there can be another scientific explanation, one that gives particular Bible claims the benefit of a doubt. But don't take my word for it. Do your sincere "empty cup" research, amd see what you'll find.

  • Vilya

    hurm ... a lot to take in, first of all, why are people still doubting Evolution. There is not only fossilized proof of almost every single stage of life from single cells to man AND many links between them, but we have LIVING examples of these links that have simply not died off. Beyond even this, evolutionary theory can be proven in a microcosmic sense by simply reading up on viruses and how they evolve to survive and how new strains of viruses are born. "Survival of the fittest", if Evolution was wrong you would not look like your parents, and not have talents and traits from your ancestry. The simple fact of looking like ones parents and having traits and talents from them can be extrapolated to prove Evolution. (and just because you have a talent your parents seemingly don't have does not mean they did not give it to you or your ancestry did not give it to you, remember a talent is nothing until it is developed so that it can be seen.)

    Alex
    Your arguments are those of a true Christian. You kept saying at one point that Christianity gives you rational reasons to believe, but NO where have you shown this. To be honest there are a few scripture quotes there which I cannot find the relevance to, rational, in them.
    One of the most insane things to me is that quite a few times you imply that science is wrong so Christianity is right ... so why not the Muslims, the Scientologists (and please do no pretend they have anything to do with science) the religions of the Incas, the Aztecs, the Kelts. Why are you so sure that Christianity is right? Besides a couple of moral values which can be taught without any attachment to religion, there is nothing in the Bible that is truly relevant to the modern world, a simple example is that for people to keep their children believing in the bible they have to take them out of normal schools and put them into special Christian schools. Why could the Mayans not be right, they were so intelligent that we still use the calender they created to this day, and the only reason they died off had nothing to do with their gods but simply the fact that the Christians killed them off. Do we now decide whats right by who wins the war?
    (and please do not say "If I say this its is because I have never read the bible", I have read so many versions of the Bible it made my head spin, oddly enough its very poetic and the verse amazing, but so was Yeat's writing but I don't think he was god)
    THE ONLY reason you can say Christianity is correct and non of the others are, is through faith which is by its definition illogical. Please do not say the Bible has more truths in it than other religious books. There are so many "facts" in the bible that even the most devout of christians cannot deny are false (world being flat, many others), and there is no science or scientific thought to be found anywhere within... The Mayan calender, and I will not even start on the vast wealth of scientifically provable knowledge within the Vedas, provable historical references, and its contribution to mathematics, creating the zero and many believe the first sign of the base ten system but ... you not claiming they are correct ... why? The Vedas, the Mayan religion and many others have far more science within them (not theoretical, slightly provable science but science that we use every day, the calender, anything mechanical and so on), some like the Vedas don't even claim to be the one and only truth so why is it that if science is wrong would Christianity be the only answer.
    Now the fact that Sodom and Gomorrah existed was never questioned, the fact that there are signs of fireballs hitting the city ... Um one of the most popular weapons in siege warfare were catapults throwing large rocks wrapped in cloth that was set on fire ... sooo there you have a fireball.

    You say science flushed observation down the drain ... the basis of the scientific method is observation, if you cannot prove it (observe it) it is just a theory. Where on earth do you see intelligence coming from a previous form of intelligence. In a sense that is true due to Evolutionary theory but according to you we all just popped onto the earth from adam and eve, so .. without the addition of god there is no way to observe that intelligence comes from another form of intelligence, and well I hope its obvious that you cannot use theoretically "observing" god to prove that the same god exists ... cuz that's just silly. As well you cannot claim that humans giving birth to another human is intelligence coming from another form of intelligence because they are the same species, they are not 2 different forms of intelligence.
    Another point is that the Bible is considered the word of god and it is supposed to be unquestionably, the Truth, the mere fact there are so many versions of it questions this but lets say it was the Truth written by god. It was started by St Paul and his letters YEARS after Jesus died. He was trying to bring together the Jews that were considered Christians at the time because they believed that Jesus was the Christos (messiah). Think of the many many hand that those letters went through as they traveled from church to church. Mark Mathew Luke and John all never knew or met Jesus or each other since in order they died before the other was born and besides the discrepancies in each of their stories one can find many indications of why a new version was needed, to be more relevant to the time that the writer was in. Then Constantine and his senate, got together edited it all to their liking (including many "scriptures" that were left out) put it together and then distributed it as the unquestionable BIBLE. (He did it for political reasons i can explain if you need) This is Historical fact, even the Papal historians acknowledge this account. Does this in any way sound like the word of god ... or simply something that started as a way to bring people together, for the betterment of those same people, (who were being oppressed) that quickly turned into a way to control people. How it can control people is another massive post in itself so I will refrain from it today but I can explain if needed.
    (Watch "Who wrote the Bible?")
    Lots more points but I am sure this post is already too long for most people to care to read.

  • Vilya

    Oh and to Max WAYYY up when you addressed me.

    I completely agree with those statements.

    my alluding to a belief in a greater consciousness, is simply that. ... A belief of mine that has no real foundation besides a thought and a gut feeling, I would never let it affect my train of logical thought.

    Though, I am not saying this consciousness has to be "god" I simply mean that there is more out there than we, in the form of a Homo sapien sapien, will never know of because it is simply beyond our capability to observe it or understand it. It could be entire dimensions of worlds of other sentient beings, it could be a single consciousness, I am happy to say I have no firm Idea and I have no need to fill that gap of knowledge in a hurry with unfounded beliefs.

  • http://myspace.com/itsmecca itsMecca

    what was god doing before all that exist? hhmm..

  • Alex

    Vilya, I am trying to get my answer through. It is probably seen a spam again...

  • Max

    Degree of certainty, is an important concept for me. If we take the evolution verses creationism argument the debate is often expanded by theists, false dichotomy abounds. The shear number of dubious premises put forward by creationists is an attempt to mask the underling weakness in creationism ideology.

    So I take the stance that we have no absolute understanding of the origins of life, but we can say that based on our understanding the degree of certainty for evolution is of a much higher order than that of creationism.

  • Vilya

    Max
    Thats true Max, lol, to be honest you sound exactly like my best friend, in that comment. any way lol. Yes degree of certainty is very important, especially in circumstances like these where its impossible to know with 100% certainty what really happened. Though to me there is an elegant beauty to The Survival of the Fittest idea, it "fits" with the world. VERY simple systems, working together, in harmony, that just works. I do not know how to describe it properly but it fits is the best way I can say it. On the other hand as I said simple day to day events can be extrapolated to prove Darwinian theory as well.

    Alex
    Can't wait man, I know I come across as a bit harsh but as I said in another set of comments, I am happy to hear rebuttals to my ideas because I know I do not know everything, there is always the chance I am wrong and listening (or reading in this case) to people refute my idea helps me refine or even change my ideas, :) again hope I am not too harsh and can't wait to hear your ideas.

  • Sock ironer

    Man this documentary is boring,,just another reason to add to the countless others as to why you shouldnt put your faith in thousands of years of human interpretation,,whether for or against religion..

  • Alex

    Vilya,
    to begin with, thanks for your time. My answer to you will be in 3 to 5 parts since I can’t send the whole thing, as Vlatko informed me. Now, following, I have some of your many statements, that -sorry to say- either have nothing to do with what I say, nor with the facts. I will just touch upon them and ask of you to do the rest…

    1)“You kept saying at one point that Christianity gives you rational reasons to believe, but NO where have you shown this.”
    Both parts of this statement are incorrect. I already gave 2-3 rational reasons to believe. You are free to carefully read again the above comments with my name. But I have a question for you to think about: What -as you say- would a “rational reason to believe” look like?

    2)“One of the most insane things to me is that quite a few times you imply that science is wrong so Christianity is right”
    Again, you are wrong. What I do say is that evolutionists are wrong, and that pseudo-science is wrong, as well as that science was been wrong many times. I never said a) “science is wrong…” b) “…so Christianity is right”. This is the “quick” prejudice thinking I always come up against. Especially me, don’t try to put me on the other side of the fence, because I am a just person and will admit to anything 100% scientific.

    3) “I have read so many versions of the Bible it made my head spin, oddly enough its very poetic and the verse amazing…”
    Vilya I have to be honest with on your comments. I am 100% sure you have not read “so many versions of the Bible” as you proclaim. You have not even read the whole Bible (any Bible) even once, but you have read books that presented Bible passages and maybe took a look at some versions as those books inspired you to. I know you will probably say I’m wrong. You have the right to do so of course. The question is, should you?? (No need to comment on this.)

    4) “THE ONLY reason you can say Christianity is correct and non of the others are, is through faith which is by its definition illogical…”
    I have already clearly shown the opposite regarding faith and logic in my comments to Max.

    5) “There are so many “facts” in the bible that even the most devout of christians cannot deny are false…
    Really? Give me your best shot. But when you do and I answer it, will that make any difference to you? This is a good question that I ask myself when I reply to atheists, one, you should ask yourself.

    (world being flat, many others)…
    About the world being flat, the Bible says no such thing but the opposite.

    …and there is no science or scientific thought to be found anywhere within…”
    No Vilya, you were misled to accept this. Keep in mind that indeed the Bible is not a science book, although it doesn’t go against scientific fact (I said fact not fiction); on the contrary.

    6) “Now the fact that Sodom and Gomorrah existed was never questioned,...
    Yes, it was.
    (You continue the sentence:)
    …the fact that there are signs of fireballs hitting the city … Um one of the most popular weapons in siege warfare were catapults throwing large rocks wrapped in cloth that was set on fire … sooo there you have a fireball.”
    No Vilya, not just fireballs. You did not see the videos on the links nor did you give proper attention to the particular details of my comment. At least give time to understand completely my argument before commenting on it (or should I say “trash my argument” -although probably without intention.). I wrote:
    (now with exclamations)
    “The fact that we read: Gen 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone (!) and fire (!) from the LORD out of heaven;
    …and then find in that place such (!) “balls of fire”…” (see the link and realize the details mnetioned.)

    7) “You say science flushed observation down the drain…”
    No Vilya, I didn’t. What I said is:
    “Science cannot flush observation down the toilet!”
    Does anyone disagree? No. -I said this because many scientists disregard what they observe in order to build a case based on speculation.

    8) “Where on earth do you see intelligence coming from a previous form of intelligence.”
    Oh please don’t say things like this. I won’t even comment on it.

    9)”…so .. without the addition of god there is no way to observe that intelligence comes from another form of intelligence,”
    a) We observe intelligence coming from intelligence (just a fact, ask anyone if you have to…). b) we have no reason (based on our observation) to believe that the first man/woman did not come from another intelligence. c) we have no indication for anything else, nor is it reasonable to proclaim otherwise [I mean think about it: the first form of intelligence came from non-intelligence?? JUST SILLY!]. d) naming the intelligence man came from: “God”, does not really matter at this point. What matters is that we came from an intelligence, because observation and logic (without any use of The Bible, or any scientific speculation/theory/religion) leads to this as the best theory!!!!!!!!!!! (Much much much more can be said on this!)

    10) “you cannot use theoretically “observing” god to prove that the same god exists … cuz that’s just silly.”
    If I understood you correctly, then my answer to this is: a) I did not speak about “theoretically observing God”. b) I did speak about strong indications/evidence pointing to Him.
    (Second part coming up)

  • Alex

    (Third and last part for Vilya)
    14) “Mark Mathew Luke and John all never knew or met Jesus or each other since in order they died before the other was born …
    Do your research Vilya. You sound really ignorant. Sorry, but I mean your wasting space here and time. (bad sentence as well)
    (You continue)
    … and besides the discrepancies in each of their stories one can find many indications of why a new version was needed, to be more relevant to the time that the writer was in.”
    There are discrepancies but there is no compromising of the messages of The Bible. This is what you need to find out. There are also seeming discrepancies due to the readers arrogance or/and ignorance. Discrepancies also serve purposes…

    But I'll tell you this, even in the presence of discrepancies, all the rest still point to the reality of The God of The Bible!! Mistakes cannot due away with truth. Be objective about it, if you consider your self an honest researcher.
    The end.
    Vilya, please be more careful when reading my stuff (I answered you on Zeitgeist:Addendum as well). Regarding the rest of what you write, I felt that there was no need to waste more space here since a) I have already answered some of them in previous comments, b) no time to get into the all-time-classic confusion (not intent to insult you) of Christian religion and Biblical Christianity (two different things -learn about that) c) the part about why choose Christianity over other religions, well, for now, that’s for you to find out (but you have to sincerely want to, right?). But I’ll give you a good clue: It is in its core the only sign on the road inspired by God to show the reality of man, life and death. I know you won’t take my word for it, and you shouldn’t, and I sincerely don’t want you too. I my self have passed through Budhism, Islam, and my knowledge and experience (!) simply came to the point of yelling out: Christ is really The Son of the God of The Bible. So, don’t waste your time my friend, check it out. -A question for you to think about (I don’t want an answer): Can the arguments you have against Christianity (God, The Bible, Christians, etc.) be refuted -to a good degree- by… you? Or, by others? If so, you are wasting precious time at the expense of your eternal soul. Don’t hate me, I’m just sounding the alarm, because I SEE THE DANGER AHEAD.

    Wholeheartedly, may The Lord, awaken you to His truth. Would you like that? ASK IT OF HIM IN SIMPLE CHILD LIKE FAITH.
    Alex
    Ps. 1) I persist that you read all my comments again (maybe better if copy/pasting them on a separate file) and give good time and thought to them as well as to the videos and the articles in the links I provided, because I don’t believe you have. If you answer in a manner that proves you did not give proper time to what I say, I will not answer you. You can then say what you like.
    2) Max, I agree with you that the degree of certainty on the origins of life is something very important. But I really can’t see how in the light of evidence you consider evolution the best theory. I JUST CAN’T, and I have read much on evolution. I believe that for some reason you are not seeing the arguments coming from all scientific fields that blow evolution out the map (I can give you such links if you want), meanwhile ignoring the arguments that support intelligent design and creationism, just because they are not made by evolutionists. If you have something against the Bible, that doesn’t mean you should -right of the bat- see whatever IDs and creationists claim as being wrong, just because propaganda says so. Keep in mind that a great many evolutionists see great flaws in their theory, and more and more openly admit so. You can find on the internet many such statements (and not taken out of context!).

  • Max

    I find it hard to imagine the absolutes contained within creationist ideology as the basis for the future of mankind.

    Sky gods are not the way forward in understanding, quite the inverse. And at this point I am trying not to be rude.

  • Max

    Vilya,

    Thanks.

    Its interesting that feedback plays a roll in many organic and non organic systems. There appears to be a strong connection of iteration, feed back and the apparent complexity within systems. A simple example would be a Mandelbrot set. Evolution is an elegant example, I think.

  • Alex

    Vilya, my comments have been posted above in three parts. Take your time please.... if you want to be correct in your responses and not waste our time. I believe you don't. See also all prior links in my messages. This is necessary if you want to build a case based on facts that present the truth.

  • Max

    We have degrees of certainty in respect of evolution and creationism.

    the degree of certainty for creationism:-

    1. The earth was created and is less than 15,000 years old.
    2. All life forms were created, and do not evolve.
    3. 1 Bible
    4. A transcendent reality

    the degree of certainty for evolution:-

    1. Fossil record.
    2. Radio isotope dating.
    3. A large amount of cross referenced data.
    4. Extinction.

    I prefer to keep the number of my premises in single digits as it wastes less time.

  • Max

    'So, logic says, intelligence, any form or degree of intelligence, must come from a prior intelligence. WE SEE nothing contrary to that!! NOTHING.'

    The ability of organisms to reproduce and evolve nervous systems capable of capturing, storing and retrieving information via the amorphous interaction of synaptic connections does not require an intelligent creator.

  • Max

    'Can the arguments you have against Christianity (God, The Bible, Christians, etc.) be refuted -to a good degree- by… you? Or, by others?'

    transposing that:-

    Can the arguments you have in support of faith (God, The Bible, Christians, etc.) be validated -to a good degree- by… you? Or, by others?

  • Max

    Its important to note that organisms are not using DNA as a means to an end in the process of replication.

    The organism is the evolutionary by product of self replicating DNA.

  • sonny

    please stop all these stupidity and nonsense.. we are all dumb idiots and morons... numbers are infinite and universe is so big for us to comprehend, diving like a toad in an ocean, or putting a light bulb on an evening sky... we can be dumb and idiots but please don't be a hypocrite like the one who made this film.. my religion is to do Good..

  • http://backyardstains.blogspot.com Nameless

    lolz .Alex dude .. get a life man ! seriously. For the ones who believe in him , doesnt need any proof/evidence/hyperlinks to convince themselves that there is God. If its about convincing others - no evidence will ever make it close to a convincing
    reason for any non-believer to believe in God.

    What are you really so unsecured about ?? What will you lose if you lose God ? Just chill .. theres much abundance on earth you can cherish than keep defending your faith through a endless stream of links and references which either way doesnt even make up for even 1% of your natural state of happiness.

    I have been witnessing your never ending long posts in support to your belief in God.I respect people's individual choices but at the same moment I wish that you could have spent the same amount of time in helping the needy or doing something constructive than trying to win a dead-end debate and convince a non-believer otherwise.

    Everyone - I repeat everyone on earth knows inside themselves the few basic list of "whats good" and "whats bad". Believer, Non Believer or the confused ones doesnt matter which faction you belong to...everyone knows that killing a helpless animal is not good , blowing up people and places is not good , raping a woman is not good no matter how much people try to justify these acts in the name of religion or any other institution laying formal guidelines for moral codes in a civilized society.

    Religion may improve emotional comfortability and pshycological safety , but can never quench your spiritual starvation on a whole. And thats simply because of a single reason. And the reason itself is irrespective of our faiths.

    You know what the reason is ...

    Simply we are inside a creation whose possibilities are limitless and timeless while no force/being/institution/group is competent enough to understand it fully ever.

  • Alex

    Nameless, hi!
    1) The truth is, there are way better things to do then answering evolutionists and atheists, and providing all these links. BUT, you're misunderstanding my purposes. I am not doing it, just to support the reality of The Creator! Why would I do that?? No, I am doing it so people who have not heard the other side, or are misinformed, and are sincere in their quest for truth,would get a chance to hear the other side and see that things are not as atheist and evolutionists say. But again, why would I do that, right? Because I believe that people who will not accept Christ as their Lord and Saviour will go to hell. False-arguments keep people in the dark... but people need light more than they know, many times more than they want! This "nameless" is my motivation (how it came about is a long story). Anyway, if you understand my motivation, you will understand why I go to the hassle.
    2)I agree that no knowledge can quench the thirst of a person who thinks. And this is not Christianity's purpose. Christians themselves have many questions, the difference is that they know (believe it or not!) their questions will be answered one Day. Yes, then our thirst will ceaze. We will know all things. But till then, my motivation and my questions serve their purposes.
    As you see, I agree with what you say, so I have nothing else to comment on.
    Ps. How do you know that I don't help the needy with the same zeal? And don't do other constructive things? What I do here is just one more part of my life.
    God bless you Nameless. Really.

  • Max

    Alex,
    sometimes I am far too reactionary. I was more than a little short in my comments toward you.

    As Nameless pointed out, with some people your noble endeavours will be lost.

  • Alex

    Max,
    yes, I agree, but it's ok. I know it comes with the territory.
    I've answered all your views/comments, but I can't get it through again due to the links I provide. I informed Vlatko, and I am waiting for his help, so patience. I will make an effort to not put so many links, but I know they're useful and time saving for me. Besides, I clearly said what I believe you (anybody) needed to hear, so most likely, my time is up here. So Max, wait for my answer. If we can't get it through, you can ask Vlatko for my email address. Write me and I will send you my answer. Or ask Vlatko to send me your email address. (But wait a couple of days, it might get through.)
    "See" you.

  • Alex

    (Part 3 for Max)
    2. Radio isotope dating.
    (provided links I can't get through)
    3. A large amount of cross referenced data.
    See the above links as well as the following:
    (again the same)
    4. Extinction.
    Where’s the argument here?
    (again the same)
    “There is no direct evidence that any major group of animals or plants arose from any other major group. Species are observed only going out of existence (extinctions), never coming into existence.”

    2)“The ability of organisms to reproduce and evolve nervous systems capable of capturing, storing and retrieving information via the amorphous interaction of synaptic connections does not require an intelligent creator”
    a. You write: “The ability of organisms to reproduce and evolve nervous systems capable of”. What “evolve”? There is no proof for evolution. Your comment is based on speculation.
    b. Observation (! -As I insist in pointing out.), and logic based on it, says that there must be a creator. Even if we accept the delusion of evolution, again my argument would be the same. Even for evolution you need a creator, that is, since anyone unbiased can clearly see that there is design and purpose and laws everywhere! You just can’t run from the idea of a creator when you look at the data. YOU CAN’T. (Unless there’s some form of fear in your heart…)

    3) I asked a simple question, and I didn’t even want an answer, and of course I didn’t get one, I got a reply. I asked:
    ‘Can the arguments you have against Christianity (God, The Bible, Christians, etc.) be refuted -to a good degree- by… you? Or, by others?’
    You replied:
    “transposing that:-
    Can the arguments you have in support of faith (God, The Bible, Christians, etc.) be validated -to a good degree- by… you? Or, by others?”
    Anyway, Max, please try to be fair. I’ve actually already answered this. There’s good sound evidence in my above comments, so -as you know- my answer is yes. (If you don’t accept those, why would you accept anything else?) Hence I have validated my faith to a sound degree, and many others who know the above arguments, have validated “my faith” as well, something that helped them… rethink evolution. Now there are still others that see the truth in what I say, but are just too stubborn to admit so.

    4) “Its important to note that organisms are not using DNA as a means to an end in the process of replication.
    The organism is the evolutionary by product of self replicating DNA.”
    Mmmm… “Self replicating DNA”, interesting ha? No? --Did you see the material on the links to Perry Marshial?

  • Alex

    (Part 4 for Max)
    Having dealt with all your comments, I’ll add some other interesting facts:
    “EVOLUTION BY CHANCE IS MATHEMATICAL NONSENSE. We have seen that we have to test everything as the Bible says so let's do that. If you believe in evolution then you believe that given enough time, chance can produce anything; spiders, dogs, cats, bees, people, you and me. In one school "science" text book it actually stated that given enough time, a monkey tapping away at a typewriter would eventually write words, sentences and even whole books. Now that is quite disgraceful to fill young minds with such rubbish. David C C Watson did as the Bible said and tested that and I relay here what he came up with:
    A typewriter has 60 keys. To produce the word "PEANUT" by chance:-
    To hit the letter "P" would be a 1 in 60 chance.
    To hit the letters "PE" in that order would be a 1 in 60 x 1 in 60 = 1 in 3,600 chance.
    To produce the word "PEANUT" would be a 1 in 46,656,000,000 chance.
    If our Darwinian monkey typed at the rate of 3 letters per second it would take 450 years to produce "PEANUT".
    To type the phrase "PEANUTS AND TYPEWRITERS" (23 letters and spaces) would take 1,000,000 monkeys over 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years each typing at a rate of 3 letters per second. This time period is 100, 000,000,000,000,000 times as long as the evolutionist's supposed age of the earth of 4,500,000,000 years!
    Going back to that text book: How long would it take that monkey typing at 3 letters per second to write a complete book? Well, I'll leave you to work that out. How far would the zeros stretch around the world?
    Now be honest with yourself. How long do you think it would take the earth and universe to form by chance?
    THEY SAY CHANCE IS A FINE THING - WELL IT IS UNTIL SOMEONE WORKS IT OUT! DO YOU REALLY THINK PURE CHANCE FORMED US? IT IS MATHEMATICALLY UNREASONABLE TO THINK THIS!

    MATHEMATICS REALLY DO PROVE THAT EVOLUTION IS NONSENSE.
    Charles Eugene Guye, a Swiss mathematician, has calculated the chances of a single molecule of a protein-like substance being formed by accident at 10/320 to 1. That means that the odds against even one molecule evolving would be: 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000... + many, many zeros.
    Doctor Meuller, another mathematician, estimated the probability of one horse evolving at 1 in 1 followed by 1 million zeros. Now I'm not about to try typing a million zeros, much as I would like to make the point as strongly as possible. The above 320 were enough! This would be a thousand, thousand zeros that would fill 15 A4 pages. Then our horse would need a female horse.... etc.... etc. Go on - admit it is nonsense!”

    Of course Max, I agree with him: “it is nonsense!”

  • Alex

    (Last part [5] for Max)
    Hope, I helped you see the other side.
    Ps.
    A question: does the above math argument bear any weight at all in an evolutionist’s brain? If it doesn’t, what would (I wonder)?
    And to put the cherry on top, give time and read the following book written by a muslim. I can't put the link, so google: “Confessions of the evolutionists” by Harun Yahya (he's a muslim). It's the 3rd or 4th from the top. Find the index and choose the chapters you want to read on-line.

    It shows that what creationists claim, is also claimed by many evolutionists. This is an important point, in the midst of all others.
    May God you His increase.
    PS. I had to improvise and leave out most links, otherwise my answer would go to waste.

  • Alex

    For Max
    1) You write:
    “We have degrees of certainty in respect of evolution and creationism.
    the degree of certainty for creationism:-
    1. The earth was created and is less than 15,000 years old.
    2. All life forms were created, and do not evolve.
    3. 1 Bible
    4. A transcendent reality
    the degree of certainty for evolution:-
    1. Fossil record.
    2. Radio isotope dating.
    3. A large amount of cross referenced data.
    4. Extinction.
    I prefer to keep the number of my premises in single digits as it wastes less time.”
    This is just how evolutionists “put it out there”. Can anyone see anything wrong with this picture?? Max you are saying that evolution is based on science while creationism isn’t (this is the same lollipop that evolutionists lick all the time). Are you telling me that all that is said in the links that follow are wrong?? All? Really?? -Anything evolutionists dish out can be refuted by ID/creationists. This alone is reason to check out -at least- the other side.

  • Alex

    (part 2 for max)
    2. All life forms were created, and do not evolve.
    (I had links I can't get through.)
    3. 1 Bible (Already gave some links in previous comments)

    4. A transcendent reality (already dealt with that)

    And at the same time, there are undisputable facts that clearly show science’s mistakes of the past when it comes to macro-evolution.

  • Max

    Alex,

    We could both post links for a long time, I for one would like to hear your own thoughts and I sure you would like to hear mine.

    1.In Radio isotope dating your link stated:-

    PROBLEM: One can almost never know with absolute certainty how much radioactive or daughter substance was present at the start.

    The great advantage of uranium-lead dating is that any sample provides two clocks, one based on uranium-235's decay to lead-207 with a half-life of about 700 million years, and one based on uranium-238's decay to lead-206 with a half-life of about 4.5 billion years, providing a built-in cross-check that allows accurate determination of the age of the sample even if some of the lead has been lost. This can be seen in the concordia diagram, where the samples plot along an errochron (straight line) which intersects the concordia curve at the age of the sample.

    2. The question of evolution

    Domestic animals and arable crops are far removed genetically from their ancestors, the environment has the same effect as selective breeding. Viruses and bacteria bacteria develop resistance to drugs because of natural selection.

    3. Your right you don't have to prove anything

    4. As I have said, degree of certainty is an important concept.

    5. Creative mathematics, these figure have little meaning without the mathematical model used to calculate them. And monkeys with typewriters are not analogous to the processes of biochemistry.

    You seem to fill your posts with bible quotes, links, dubious claims and personal incredulity. Nothing you have said has reasonable degree of certainty over evolution.

    There is a vast amount of cross referenced data, most of which indicates that the earth was not created. And is far older than the biblical account of the age of the earth.

  • James

    We as humans who haven't been on the earth long seem to fathom and come up with these ideas that we know the truth. Humans are just discoverers of creation. We don't create we discover. We can create what we discovered earlier which is funny because then we believe we are creating. Anyways, if we as a race cannot even fathom eternity or the universe for that matter how are we to say that God didn't create this planet or the Universe. Our concept of time is twisted. We are so small that time is different to us than it is to God. It says in the Bible that to God 1000 years is to 1 year, the same as 1 year is to 1000. Therefore God is able to slow time down (hence he is the light and the life), as well as speed time up according to God himself. I can't dispute evolution because I was not there to see anything evolve. Maybe, just maybe, this is how God created it...it even states in the bible that before God made the earth liveable, the earth was always here in darkness. Maybe then the bacteria, dinosaurs, and all that crazy crap was here developing over time. Maybe not, who knows except for the one who created it. That's all. It is good to see that we are still a nation of thinkers, it's just a bit underground nowadays!

  • Alex

    Max you write:
    "Your right you don’t have to prove anything"
    What do you mean I am right?? No, I wouldn't be right if I said something like that, and I never did. Where did you get this idea????????
    Christians -the ones that love to think- will never tell anyone:"You don't have to prove anything when it comes to your belief!" Of course I do, and for 2 reasons:
    1)If I don't, I would be equating my belief with someone who -with no evidence/indications- just believes in the tooth fairy? Just silly to say the least! So, by proving the reality of the various aspects of my faith, I am -by the way- actually proving that a) I'm reasonable, thinking, logical, rational person(not foolish sheep for slaughter), and that b) logic thinking, evidence, strong indication (call it what you like) are NO contradiction to Christianity. That one can have a great degree of certainty when it comes to Christinity. Also that c) my faith IS a reality not fiction. 2)If I don't try to prove my faith, I cannot help my fellowman put his obstacles aside in order to see Cristianity under the correct light and thus have a chance to accept The Saviour and escape eternal damnation.
    Max, listen carefully to the following:
    Personally, for me, I don't need any evidence at all for my faith!! But what do I mean by that? I mean Christ a)has been revealed to me, and b) is my experience since then. This is why Christians insist on their faith. They don't mention this of course, because this is not an argument that bears any weight in a debate and they will just be mocked. Therefore, if you take the Bible out of the picture, my faith in Christ will remain exactly the same. The same is true if you take all the evidence I provide for His existence, the Bible truthfulness, etc. out of my brain, again, my faith will be the same. My faith in His reality is sealed by His revelation in me and my experiences. What I am getting at is, that the evidence I bring you, is to a) remove obstacles from your brain b)place objective factors that point to Him, but not to reveal Christ in your spirit; that is God's job. If you allow me (!!) to accomplish those two, through the use of logic and facts, this means you are sincere in your quest for the truth. THEN God will see this, and will visit you, visit your spirit, and seal His existence by His revelation in your spirit. This, does not mean you will follow Him, but that you most likely will. I Have heard people tell me: "I DON'T KNOW WHY, I JUST KNOW that what you are saying is the truth, BUT, I cannot leave the pleasures of life (all kinds: cheating on my husband, premarital sex, pedophilism, homosexuality, lying, being glorified in sin, making money at the expense of others, etc.) and follow Christ."
    You are always left with the choice Max to follow or not to follow. I hope I was clear enough on the issue of "proving God to others".

  • Max

    Alex,
    If you have faith then I happy for you. You do not need the validation of others in your personal relationship with faith, seeking the approval of that faith from others is meaningless, in the end we face the reality of our own personal extinction alone or with faith. Faith may give you some structure when addressing your social fears but I doubt it can give any deeper understanding of humanity and all of of its joys and cruelty's. Murder, rape, paedophilia, child abuse, stealing, lying.. are all ethically wrong, I don't agree that homosexuality or premarital sex are ethically wrong. Faith does not have some sort of monopoly in the ethics of humanity. Its possible that some people are genetically predisposed to take advantage at another's cost. But I do not assume that all people are driven to such without the guiding hand of faith. To do so would not reflect my own experience of humanity.
    I know that it is is impossible to disprove the existence of God, I also know that in my view it is impossible to prove the existence of God.
    I know that faith has brought joy to a great many people and mental suffering to others.
    In comparison with the issues around us, my quickly approaching extinction is a of little consequence or worry to me. Faith in a God is not required.

  • Jeff

    You know there's something fishy about this film when 8:29 into it, for some reason they try to smear Edward Carpenter claiming he is a homosexual, as if this somehow refutes his credibility and should not be taken seriously, but i guess the target audience is aimed at Christians

  • Alex

    Max
    1)your second sentence -after all I’ve said- makes me wonder "if you can hear me”.
    2) You write that you “doubt it (faith) can give any deeper understanding of humanity and all of of its joys and cruelty’s.”
    a) Max when speaking of faith in God, we can mean various things e.g. faith is the application of trust in an invisible God. When speaking of faith in general, we are talking about the contents of Christianity, its claims/beliefs. One of the things this “second” faith speaks about is the root of good in man and the root in evil in man. What it teaches is that the good in man comes from the Image of the Creator. The bad in man comes from within man, but due to a mysterious “mechanism” (sin) inherited to mankind from the first to two people who sinned against God. I know this doesn’t close the issue, but it does give a Christian a pretty good insight to good and evil in man, or as you say in “understanding of humanity and all of of its joys and cruelty’s”. Have you ever thought about it that way? This is a part of the Christian “faith”.
    b) When you say deeper understanding, how deeper? Will you ever be satisfied with an answer? I personally, for now, am very satisfied at the Biblical answer. This answer gives me reason for being understanding of others, helps me pray for them and see them change, etc.
    3) You write: “I don’t agree that homosexuality or premarital sex are ethically wrong.”
    Well, you are “right” not too, just as another atheist is also “right” if he disagrees with you! Weird? No. See, I say that homosexuality and premarital sex is ethically wrong, because (besides my reasons) this is what He Who created ethics say about these issues. So this is where Christians differ from the rest; we don’t have to guess, we know what is right and wrong because our God knows. (Of course I don’t expect an atheist to agree with me on these two issues.) Everything Max boils down to whether our God, The God of The Bible, is the real God. If you find out that He is, your opinion and mine is besides the point if He has spoken on a particular issue.
    4) Faith does not have some sort of monopoly in the ethics of humanity.”
    If the Christian faith (the contexts of it) is inspired by The One Real God, it does have the monopoly in the ethics of humanity.
    5) You write: “I also know that in my view it is impossible to prove the existence of God” This Max just blows my mind. (Are you 100% honest with me, rather, with yourself??) I ask again: What would you consider proof of His existence? If you can’t answer this, then this means you are -without realizing it- trapped in circular reasoning: There is no God, so you can’t prove His existence, because there is no God. -But again I insist: Think. What proof in particular would prove to you, His invisible existence?
    6) “I know that faith has brought joy to a great many people and mental suffering to others.”
    A kitchen knife can is for cutting bread. If you use it to city a tree down, then you are misusing it to the point of harming your own self, physically and psychologically. The purpose of faith in God is joy, love, becoming more virtuous in general and honouring the faithfulness of God. “Mental suffering” does not come from faith but from disobedience or/and ignorance.
    7) “Faith in a God is not required”. It is if you find out HE SAYS IT IS. This is why this issue is the most important one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Max

    Alex,
    I am very happy for you. But I think that we will just have to disagree with each other.

  • octopussy

    if I proclaim myself a believer in aliens to a psychiatrist I am deluded and probably will be ascribed with some form of mental illness,
    if I am a believer in a son of god magician chap called jeebus who breaks the laws of physics I am considered sane just religious.
    religion is simply, from a scientific viewpoint, indistinguishable from madness.
    discuss.

  • Vilya

    Thank you Alex for you time in placing your rebuttals to my points disagreeing with you.

    When we speak of logic, in science, we mean not only things that make sense but we must have some sort of solid proof behind our "logic".

    You keep posting links with vids and documents that "prove" you are right, but when we disagree with them, it cannot be that we read them or looked at it and thought that they were wrong because we have seen evidence disproving them, or that they do not use actual science to prove their views... It simply had to be, we did not take the time to read it. You even say that there is no chance I read the Bible, even though you don't know me. You continuously state that I am not reading what you write properly, while you are not only taking some of my statements out of context but you do not even try to see the science behind the ideas that I put forward. sigh

    There is no sense to this, the Bible is merely a bunch of words that you twist to make it seem correct in almost any way ... please note the use of almost. But in the end .. facts will prevail, that is why, as more people are educated more people leave the church, why do you think there are so many people fighting to have "christian schools", it is because they know that if children are exposed to all of the information on pretty much any subject of thought, the Bible's view would be the least likely choice as their opinion.

    Any way on and on I can go but we have to agree to disagree, since no matter how open I am to your points of view .. you are not to mine, and even belittle my intelligence, so whats the point of trying to show you my point of view if you have no respect for it. Sadly this is the problem when talking to almost any zealot.

    Just a footnote: I have always been interested in Religion and while having taken classes in religion and different religions at a University level, I also attended Church and sunday school, RC, Pentecostal, went to a Presbyterian high school, and to a few Evangelist conventions, just to observe for myself what the fuss was all about. During all of this especially Sunday School when I was younger of course I read the Bible.. lol .. and as I said Many many versions... Just because I disagree with it does not mean I did not read it.

    I have read, besides the Bible(S), the Koran(Quoran), and so much more from many other religions and other philosophical viewpoints, through this and my own research into science, (biology chemistry physics Mathematics) I have formed my own Ideas on the world, but though I am strong in these Ideas I am not arrogant enough to believe that I possess the only truth.
    As well, Watch "Who wrote the Bible?" "The god who wasn't there" and even "The Root of all Evil". Though I do not agree completely with all the views presented in these Documentaries or even how it was presented in some cases, There is much solid unquestionable Science within them.

  • eaststone

    ooo sorry about the spelling mistakes

  • Ajay

    Is the new test. n old test. considered scholarly sources? lol... Think about it, this author refuted zeitgiest using the bible alone, i'm sorry but i watched this hoping to see some good rebutz and i got nothing out of it. If you believe that there is one absolute God, that created the heavens and the earth blah blah blah, that God is all knowing, all powerful, would God not create the heavens and the earth with his own devine energy? wouldn't that mean that the devil and god are both of the same entity? (ying-yang) how would God, creater of the universe damn us by putting us on this planet ruled by satan? isn't he a forgiving God? y did he damn his own angel? i dunno the bible is a nice bed time story, but its really wishy washy (flip flopping) in the sense that God is not a constant being, but an emotional creature bounded by human characterists. only human beings would give such a devine entity human characteristics... all in all... religion is a waste of time... just remember the fundamentals... DO GOOD AND BE A GOOD PERSON ALWAYS!!! don't let u're 5 senses run you into temptation, let u're sub consious, your mind and intelect be your guide!

  • eaststone

    i also think that people seem to forget, that reading the scripts, is a kind of resarch in the history books, some of the storys can be comfirmed, by archolegy ;)

    but you can prove and disprove allot of things just by aksing the wrong or right question.

    think what you want, but remember that extremist on both sides are wrong.
    its all a long debait on this thing whitch, achuly dosen´t have to be an isue.

    all i know is that the goverment dosent care if you are left or right, religious or not, youre already in theyr spider web.

  • eaststone

    quote form above:

    "if you know old fary tales like from the grim brothers, youl find that the storys are not, true, but exaturatet storys, with a hidden, true meaning."

    witch walt- disney and hollywood has corupted by the way :)

    i thing that the pearson who wrote Zietgeist is much more in "the game" that the goverment wants him to be in, that he knows.........hope im wrong

    will china be the next target by the way?.....hope im wrong

  • eaststone

    i think you all forget to analize the religion, even if you beleve in it or not,
    you get confused, so you wont onderstand, thats its trying to protekt your bacsic human rights in the society, and so you dont become slaves,
    think about your grand children, forinstance.
    and yes thear are allot of wierd things about chriastanety, that should not be theare

    theare are allot of documentarys, and books about religion, that will surprice you, becaus
    thear has been several fusions of cultures, and words haven been written down, untill hundreds of years later.
    if you know old fary tales like from the grim brothers, youl find that the storys are not, true, but exaturatet storys, with a hidden, true meaning.
    be neutral when you studdy these things, also christna meens christ, whitch was thear
    almost 1000 years before

    i also think that people seem to forget, that reading the scripts, is a kind of resarch in the history books, some of the storys can be comfirmed, by archolegy
    but you can prove and disprove allot of things just by aksing the wrong or right question.
    think what you want, but remember that extremist on both sides are wrong.
    its all a long debait on this thing whitch, achuly dosen´t have to be an isue.
    all i know is that the goverment dosent care if you are left or right, religious or not, youre already in theyr spider web.

    quote form above:
    “if you know old fary tales like from the grim brothers, youl find that the storys are not, true, but exaturatet storys, with a hidden, true meaning.”
    witch walt- disney and hollywood has corupted by the way
    i thing that the pearson who wrote Zietgeist is much more in “the game” that the goverment wants him to be in, that he knows………hope im wrong
    will china be the next target by the way?…..hope im wrong

    what does walt disney and hollywood and zeigeist have to do in this context

    ironicly the the roman impire.
    if you want to have entertainment go to the circus, og do your studdys a bit deeper, ofcours zietgeist might help a bit

  • Alex

    Vilya,
    I can comment on all your new comments, but no need, since I believe my message was clear and my arguments were solid (!) either showing the truth or/and the scientific possibility of another side of the story (which of course you say has been disproved… yeah right!). I will respond though for the last time to one of your statements:
    “we must have some sort of solid proof behind our “logic”.”
    Other than the links, you know… I DID GIVE SOLID PROOFS (remember: one analyzed prophecy, math, Sodom and Gomorah, scientific truths found in Scripture, facts from observation), which -for at least here- all together (!) do amount (!) to a very strong indication/evidence/proof (!) for the Biblical case. With no intent to insult any one but just to speak the truth, sorry to say (I must), that if anyone honestly can’t see the solidity of the above proofs, he just has a very low capacity of thinking (I honestly can’t reason it any other way); there will also be of course those who simply lie to themselves. I mean, in simple terms, “solid proof” is anything that leads to the greatest degree of certainty… I did provide that. No one can actually disprove the above weight of the facts mentioned in the parenthesis above and what reality they point to…. so, why must they be wrong no matter what!?? I’ll tell you why; some people are afraid of a God who will judge them as being guilty, since they -deep down- know they are. But, the good news is that if you -in repentance and faith- devote yourself to Christ He will remove your sins from His sight and save you eternally.
    Now, to whom it may concern:
    In closing I would like to say, that Zeitgeist refuted, gives the facts, where "Zeitgeist the movie", is based on wishful speculation (I mean, see it again). There is nothing historically accurate about it that disproves the New Testament claims (Refuted makes this point, and many books on the issue as well). Having said that, I have to point out that no refutation of the film actually took place. Also, I noticed so many really ridiculous ideas on this thread as in all in which atheists write on, like:
    * Religion is for crazy people
    * That Zeitgeist refuted was the worst documentary on here
    * Accusation of using circular reasoning as proof (!) in the documentary, when there was non. (Can some of you at least see that most are not even able to listen to what is said, that they are just knocking it for the knock!)
    * The film did nothing to support it’s claims.
    * That Christians don’t think for themselves.
    * The film should be taken out form this site.
    * Organized religion kills (therefore is always killing even today / when was the last time you saw Christianity kill? (Please use your brain instead of letting other people waste it. I’m so tired of all these lies, by hatred filled people.)-Other than that, New Testament Christianity never killed).
    * It is filled with irrational notions.
    * That the film was biased because it was made by Christians (Note: 1) Christian may make mistakes but they don’t lie when they are making their case [by rule!!!] 2) atheists on the other side… well, just read most of the above comments and figure it out. --I my self has proved that Zeitgeist was foolish and openly biased from the beginning!- read that particular comment again if you like.)
    * The film… “fails to tickle the imagination, much like Christianity fails and has always failed in my mind to marry the supernatural with the logical.”
    And a lot more where that came from.
    Also I noticed:
    Hatred, frivolousness, arbitrariness, foolish talk, fascism, vengeance, misrepresentation, immaturity, carelessness, gullibility, ignorance, arrogance, in most of those who “disliked” Refuted, in various degrees of course. There were of course those who had a different spirit, but they weren’t many; they never are.
    So, you can say all you want now without my “close minded unscieniftic Christian faith”. But while you’re at it, do remember what has been said so far.
    May God give His increase, to all who want it and think they can handle it, an increase that will lead you to His salvation in time.
    In Christ,
    Alex
    PS. 1) If someone wants, they can get my email form Vlatko. Tell him to see the comment "attached" to the date on this post, for my permission.
    2) Take Oppono astos (all the way up there) advice and read "Shattering the Christ Myth" by James Patrick Holding, if you need more refutation, and are not afraid of it.

  • http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/d1de80b45eb79d58c817f6f9bb20b8ce.png mazzy

    comical and horrifying ... 'when is jesus going to bring the pork chops?' ... 'god is dead, and no one cares' ... hahaha what about the mormons? ... anyone who believes this heap of sh*t didn't pass the 2nd grade.

  • Nameless

    @Alex : Because I believe that people who will not accept Christ as their Lord and Saviour will go to hell. False-arguments keep people in the dark… but people need light more than they know,

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

    Seriously you need to rethink on what you publicly say dude. Do you know what does your above statement sound like ? - A completely indoctrinated christian suicide bomber(which I seriously hope you are not). The exact same philosophy makes a muslim suicide bomber blow up people shouting "allah ho akbar" thinking he is gona end up in " jannat" (heaven) instead of hell because he is killing the kafirs(infidels) who doesnt believe in Allah. The same view makes a Hindu zionist burn mosques because they think they will be getting a place in the "swarg"(heaven) because he is terminating those who doesnt believe in Lord Krishna. Tell me dude have you ever faced a religious riot infront of your face ????

    Forgive me for being an unnecessary literalist over here but on a close examination of what you say these literal meanings should be derived according to your above believe:

    1. If I am a Hindu and I dont believe in Christ or hell of Lucifer then I'm heading for the hell.
    2. If I am a Muslim and I dont believe in Christ then again I am doomed for hell.
    3. If I am a Buddhist and I believe in karma , but not in Christ and Lucifer then again I am going to hell.
    4. If I am anything other than a devout christian , then again I am doomed right ??

    Its thoughts like these that has made this planet such a miserable place for centuries. I have nothing in particular against Christianity or Christ. Neither against any religion
    for a matter of fact. But I didnt find anything unsurprising about your statements over here. Because most of them are just the same old stock statements which I keep on hearing from fundamentalists of other religion too. Everyone claims that their god is the final truth and their cause is worthier than any other form of belief system or religion. Its all perception to be precise. I know today you may not kill a person because he/she is not a christian but I think theres a good chance that you will kill people if you are commanded by the vatican pope or some high priest if they find a threat to the survival of Christianity. If you dont obey , you know will be condemned to hell where Luc and company will rip your soul apart till eternity. This is just a small analogy.

    Infact its common for every religiously devout person. And it all makes perfect sense because at the end of the day they all suffer from different manifestation of the same psychic problem which is deep imprinted in their minds since childhood. You know its called insecurity. Insecurity gives birth to a form of a psychological safety which even the most intellectual and intelligent humans submit themselves to it.Life is not that easy neither its so simple to understand everything about it when there are ups and downs while much of the actual cause of happenings in a person's life both individually and its relation to the natural environment collectively on a whole is sometimes beyond the scope of
    understanding by a single or a group of individual (some call it chaos theory). Thus the mind being a reflex organ reacts to everything when it fails to understand this phenomenon because of the limited scope of evidence and logical reasoning thereby giving birth to altered state of mind(which is mostly guided by the unconscious part of the mind). This altered state creates a series of hypothetical scenarios of understanding complex issues by a set of moral right/wrong algorithm. After it has formulated a
    satisfactory lists of understandings it starts making a finalized secured zone which is then taken over the by the subconscious mind.

    Now this subconscious mind guides most of the day-to-day activity of the person (which even none of us are aware of). Thus if something that happens which is beyond the grab of the subconscious , both hemispheres of the brain(right & left) starts off in a disharmony between themselves. This is where every individual on earth encounters a dual personality within themselves. When unable to cope up with this disharmony, the mind creates something which is called "God" , that ultimately acts a resolver to the right and left brain conflicts. Now this "God" can be interpreted at a different level since this (left/right)brain disharmony itself occurs at a different level from person to person.

    For some "god" means source of life. For some it becomes "energy that guides all life forms". For some its omnipresence. For some god turns out to be natural elements sun,fire,water,air, etc. Then for some it becomes a idol looking similar to a human. For some its the collective consciousness of the world. <-- Uptill here things are fine and not catastrophic.

    Things start getting worse when this least understandable conflict zone in the mind takes over the DPU (desire processing unit) of the brain. It results in creating a pseudo scientific solution in a much entrenched sub conscious mind.Out here I will like to mention something out of the box. "Since everything is made up of same elementary particles the laws of physics governing them are the same. As such to every action , there always lies an equal and opposite reaction."
    The mind creates its own freedom space and moral fence. This creation process of freedom space and moral fence is inordinately subjective and as such it differs again at different levels. But the root of this entire process is based on a simple hypothesis of something from a extremely scientific and epistemological standpoint. Thus its bound to be erroneous and fallible. Not to mention this is just one part of whole duality phenomenon inside us (political ideologies,formation of laws,spirituality,etc).

    Now can you picture this whole process on a massive scale of all humans on earth ? We get generations after generations with a fundamentally flawed understanding of life.

    Everything about religion is directly proportional to the conflict within. Stop gathering answers from outside and ask within yourself. Its the only place you will ever find the truth. We are made up of the elementary particles that contains all the answers of universe. We ourseleves hold the truth inside us. Our body is made up of atoms and subatomic particles which are nothing but empty packets of enegry.Lets apply a little physics here again.Energy can never be created nor destroyed. It only undergoes from one form of enegery to other. The how come life is born and life is dead. Doesnt that mean it only undergoes from one form of life to another.
    People fear to look inside them because it ultimately holds the answer to everything about everything.

    If you closely study all the religions they all share a huge list of similar ideologies. Ever wondered why ?

    At the same time so many killings in the name of God has happened all through out history. Ever wondered why ?

    At the same time there have been countless good deeds by some of the people of all religion all through out history. Ever wondered why ?

    Why do all religion speak of a promised land ? Doesnt that thing sounds similar to the "finalized secured zone" ?

    You say others are misinformed over here and you are doing your best to make them realize the presence of Christ , just incase when the judgment day comes they dont end up in hell. I appreciate your good will for others. But it has to be based on a foundation of absolute universal truth which no one is aware of spare the links that you have posted over here. On this whole conversation If you have noticed , I have not even raised one single point from the documentary zeitgeist refuted and I believe my personal opinion about it is irrelevant of what the current conversation is between us.

  • Max

    5) You write: “I also know that in my view it is impossible to prove the existence of God” This Max just blows my mind. (Are you 100% honest with me, rather, with yourself??) I ask again: What would you consider proof of His existence? If you can’t answer this, then this means you are -without realizing it- trapped in circular reasoning: There is no God, so you can’t prove His existence, because there is no God. -But again I insist: Think. What proof in particular would prove to you, His invisible existence?

    a)Validation of faith in terms of human reasoning and the material universe, is questionable.
    Transcendent reality is inherently a matter of faith. Beyond human reasoning and the material universe.

  • Vilya

    Alex ...:) I was gonna say a few things but Nameless just laid down some actual thought provoking ideas that I need to do some reading on .. :) so good luck with the Christ thing, hope when they ask you to kill Muslims you say no.

    lol sorry, cannot help it just 2 things:
    No matter where you look the vast majority of "Proof" of the Bible comes from the bible itself and therefor is scientifically unreliable. While there are some proofs for statements within the Bible that come from a scientific source, there is a Major Flaw within any of it ... The Bible is supposed to be the Unquestioned word of God, the "Truth", so if one single idea is proven wrong, then it cannot be the Word of God, and everything in it can be questioned, Then It will simple be what it should be a good story that helps teach morals.
    One other thing you say that Christianity has not killed anyone in years, that's laughable. Where do you think America gets most of its American Troops from (as distinct from the people that join the army to become American). Most of these guys are Church boys who are encouraged by their town church to Join the Crusade against the "Terrorists" meaning go kill the Muslims. Why do you think Governments worry about the "Bible Vote" in America, do you think Bush actually became religious when he proclaimed his faith just a couple months before the elections against Kelly? The Government uses the Bible belt of America to feed its Army with personnel with the preachers teaching the young men that that is the right path, the Christian path, ... thus Christianity is used to increase the American Troops ... to kill people. IF you dont believe me you really are in denial, since this is not even a conspiracy theory ... lol .. watch Jesus Camp, watch videos by the Preacher who was Bush's consultant they do not even attempt to hide the fact that they are encouraging young boys and girls to join the Army ... using the Bible.

    Any way, again good luck with Christianity, once your happy that's mostly what counts. Oh and if by chance your in the sect of Christianity that thinks Armageddon is 2012, keep in contact with me so you can give me all your "earthly belongings" before hand since according to your STRONG belief your not going to be needing them, if not well never mind.

    Nameless, your idea on the need of a God figure being formed because of the conflict between the left and right hemispheres of the brain is very interesting and something I'm definitely going to read up on it.

    Ajay, great point, something I forgot to add in my comments ... the human nature of the Christian god ... why would something greater than us to the point of creating us, be pretty much just like us, lol even to the point of childish ... throwing tantrums and the like.

    Max, why try man lol ..:) but I agree as I said before Faith by its mere nature is Illogical. Once there is logic behind it, it is no longer Faith, it is a belief.

  • Vilya

    Oh and Max The Mandelbrot set is an iteration of a complex quad polynomial isn't it? Makes those fuzzy graphs, hurm sry have not worked with complex numbers since A level Further Maths, When I get some time ill look it up though, seems interesting.

  • Alex

    Is is really a great temptation (I mean tie me down!) not to answer your comments, but it is not necessary any longer, especially when I read things like this: The Bible is supposed to be the Unquestioned word of God. Oh my friend how little you know, but this mistake of yours comes from idiotic comments coming from... Christians. Yes, you heard right. Or the other one: "the vast majority of “Proof” of the Bible comes from the bible itself and therefor is scientifically unreliable". Wow, what an objective scientific thought! But anyway guys, God bless you!
    Ps. 1)Oh and do "read up" on the right and left hemisphere being the cause of God, you might find more reason to doubt reality. (evolution is so pathetic as an idea: everything must be caused by our brain.)
    2)No need to address me anymore unless you want to of course. Whatever makes you happy. As I've said, go on without me.

  • eaststone

    i see the schrips just like philosophy.
    and its to easy a weapon to juse for make war.
    un respkekt full, and racist to other peaople.
    i have heard somthing about the buch goverment, in the bohemian growe, some pagan statue, was thear, and some sakrifice to a baby or a baby doll, kind of satanistic they claimd, it to be.
    and i heard that china might be one of the next targets, of Unitedstates? might be somthing before

  • eaststone

    well ancient , history, psykology, phisosophy, astronomy, warfare, and much more is incluted

  • eaststone

    and who is to thank, for that we have the antik philosofers?
    and can you realy prove that sokrates was alive?

  • Max

    Man, sometimes this is so entertaining.

  • eaststone

    this is better than "the movie"

  • g33kch1ck

    I watched the music video/experimental videography "documentary" called "Zeitgeist," thinking, "Okay, this guy is another one of those conspiracy people." But I watched the whole thing, thinking he'd eventually make a case. Then, I watched "Zeitgeist: Addendum" so I could understand the revealed agenda - which is little more than a hack revamp of "Star Trek" if you ask me. Then, I thought, "Zeitgeist: Refuted" must be an intelligent discourse and actual refutation of all that whack-job shit. [In my opinion, once you use Bilderberg seriously in a sentence, I'm obligated to roll my eyes at you.] Boy, am I disappointed in having just lost nearly 6 hours of my life. More bullshit. It's no wonder we are a repressed, lost, lonely society when the only response we can come up with to combat the fanatical dogma pressed upon intelligent, serious people is to throw off the yoke of the World Conspiracy/Ruling Elite/Illuminati/Technorati/Freemasons/Blah Blah Blah... There is no difference between the dogma and doctrine of the worlds' religions and that of The Venus Project; you just can't polish a turd.

  • eaststone

    i know this movie is just spreading heatred. and i call that a sienology spiritual ending.
    kind of ironic isent it?

  • eaststone

    i hate most american docoentarys by the way, its a huge ball of cancer

  • CMcF

    There are a couple major differences between the zeitgiest movement and world religions. For instance the zietgiest movement doesn't seek to implement it's reforms through the use of force; also the Zietgiest films also leave any decisions regarding what to do with the information presented with the individual, many major religions cannot make the same claim.

    I think the whole religious issue is a red herring to be frank. The real problem is our "for profit" capitalist society. Whether you agree with the views presented or not, the fractional reserve banking system is a fact, as is the information on the federal reserve.

    If a world run by elitist industrialists is your chosen form of governence, don't worry we're well on our way. If you have issues with the zietgiest films I would suggest checking out Manufacturing Consent. The information presented is pure academic research and is quite frankly irrefutable from an academic standpoint.

    I think that any open minded person that looks objectivly at the world situation must come to the conclusion that we are headed in a bad direction. A society that has profit as it's sole(soul) motivating factor cannot by definition not be based on class.

    Here is my challege to everyone, look up the definitions of democracy and oligarchy and then tell me which system you honestly think you have; is it a system of the people, for the people, by the people with freedom and liberty as it's motivating factor. Or do we get to select from a small segment of what is obstensibly a seperate ruling or political class to create the illusion of choice?

  • g33kch1ck

    I would even go so far as to agree that the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, and that a capitalist society is not the best society for all mankind. My main comparison between religious dogma and that presented in The Venus Project are that both are fictitious, and neither are good for people. And The Venus Project isn't even a new idea; it's just another incarnation of the most idyllic form of Communism (I believe it's called "golden spiral"?). Or Star Trek. I just can't abide presenting "fact" in the form of conspiratorial fear-mongering. Hell, I'm not even so naive to believe that conspiracy does not exist. But the scale postulated by the "Zeitgeist" films is intractable, and to repeatedly suggest that I'm being, essentially, herded without my knowledge or consent is, frankly, condescending.

  • Max

    I doubt the vision of the Venus project can be realised with current technology. Maybe with future technology it may be possible to have a society comprised of completely autonomous individuals who choose to share a collective space.

    Punctuated equilibrium may demand it.

  • Alex

    Vilya.
    I sent you an answer on Zeitgeist Addendum, but it just disappeard, like my comments are blocked. Same with my second message. Maybe Vlatco blocked me out, I don't know.

  • eaststone

    how can the capitalistic society be god when 1 procent owns 40 procent.

    and i still think all parts are taking the wrong path...

  • Romel

    I believe in God.
    I notice people are trying to shove the notion that God doesnt exist. Its ironic cause everyone complains about how Christians shove their ideologies down everyone elses throats.
    Now theres are people doing the same thing?
    Doesnt that make you no better than my fellow believers?
    I believe in God and science.
    Faith explains what science cant comprehend.
    And Science explains the physical manifestation of the creation.
    Spiritual matters are not physical, so theres no way science can prove it, and just cause science cant prove something doesnt mean that it doesnt exists.
    And to the people who hate this film and to those who write those comments criticizing calling it idiotic, you are no better than, and just as close minded, as the Christians who reject everything science says.
    You can read this comment and refute it, but just know this, if someone isnt open to the truth, then they will reject it in favor of the illusion cause the truth hurts and it sucks cause it puts self esteem into question. So rather than getting emotionally upset that this film rejects the original Zeitgeist film puts out, instead accept it cause apparently no one knows.
    I enjoyed the Zeitgeist films, I agree with most of the notions they laid out, but as far as the religion aspect, I never believed it.
    Keep an open mind and open heart, quite contrarily that's the only way to know God.
    Don't judge a majority by the actions of a few.

  • Max

    Romel,

    Although I do not share your faith, I agree that it is impossible to prove against or for in the question of faith.

    Where do you stand in the question of the transcendence of god in relation to the physical universe and human understanding.

  • Max

    CMcF,

    I agree. Oligarchy rules all. I haven't voted for fifteen years. Our systems of governance are twisted beyond use.

  • eyepopping

    Romel, i understand how and like how you neatly set up how religion and science both have a simple meaning in life and can co-exist.. but come on.. why is it so hard for people to accept that we humans are just another mutation form from this beautiful blue planet. that we are and we exist just to exist.. instead of arguing aimlessly at the notion of which is right religion or science. we should finally just stand up and say what can we do to improve our species? what can we do to be faster, smarter, and stronger creatures? because we're gonna evolve whether anyone likes it or not...

  • steve

    god is a superstition!!!

    ...

    not smyted. see, living proof.

  • platoson

    As a pastor, theology professor, and former missionary, I try to be objective. I have read the books 'The Christ Conspiracy' (by Acharya S) and the Jesus Mysteries (Freke and Gandy) which says Jesus did not exist and although they do make some interesting points, but ultimately they are inaccurate on some points and not to be taken seriously when they say Jesus did not exist.

    Yet at the same time I cannot take this seriously as it has started with its conclusion that everything in the Bible and within Christianity is correct, and then it sets out to find evidence to support its findings. Neither are objective, but both sides are biased and therefore not interested in truth, but only in supporting their own beliefs.

    Both are two extremes, but the truth is somewhere in the middle.

    Sadly Christianity really is based upon myths, does it mean that Jesus did not exist? No, of course not.

    He does exists, but even though the gospels are full of contradictions, at the end of the day what is important is love and that was ultimately what Jesus tried to teach and that is the only things that is important.

  • http://Topdocumenteriesfilms Lee Goodall

    We cant even understand this planet, never mind God. One day we will all meet God, and to those who served him, they will know all as he does.

    I pray your eyes will be open, and you will come to know the Lord as i do.

    God bless

  • Rishi

    Vlatko,

    Just wanna say that uv done a great service to enquiring minds by setting up this site! thank you.

    People, please! debate is a healthy part of life, however stress (nowadays)reduces longevity, and god supposedly dislikes haters! so every1 is losin out, spread the love damn it! both docu's (i havent watched em) seem to be propaganda in potent forms. well the tone of convo here suggests it. what has been, the old ideals/ideas, are irrelevant. theyve shaped society and thinking. most new evidence which goes against history books is ignored, many are afraid to suggest findings for fear of ridicule.we should look to immediate future of our species/planet.
    people see stuff that science puts down to imagination all the time-scientists wont believe an eyewitness report alot of the time. so most cases of new species are never investigated. take for example giant squid, which were just "sailors tales".
    yet can search for particles that have no mass and cant be seen because they reckon theyll find em. double standards?
    based on this, wots to say there aint a God? have they searched? there is too much dismissal based on opinion and status quo, imean wots to say there wasnt an alien race that engineered us, or that god exsist in another plane/dimension-could he even be dark matter?

    btw im not a believer, i actually did human bio at a respected uni, but im all for thinkig out the box. the MO of science is still rigid in parts. look for a solution, the ID/evo debate may then be closer to conclusion.

    on a lighter note i am taking over the world with my own religion; Rishtianity (see wot i did there?) join and on wedenesdays we will have a sermon,hosted by Your God (thats me, followed by nap time and cake and tea as i tell u how i created existence! PUKKA!lol

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    Thanks Rishi.
    I must say you have some good points there.

  • http://maco Rico

    Wow see even on hear religion got people getting heated. Face it religion was invented, yes invented a long time ago in order for people to live in harmony with each other. I beleive it was like a moral code with stories of hope and inspiration. It also shows us the great power and wrath that could be used upon us should we not follow the path. But over the years people have seized upon it as a method of control. Its now sold to those out of hope, mentally weak or those who need guidance as they can only follow. Why do think the Christians tried to force their religion on everyone else. So they could take their possesions and control their minds. They were the original corporation and the bible was their product. There is no scientific proof of anything in the bible, wake up.

  • Alex

    Platoson, you are a:
    "pastor, theology professor, and former missionary"???
    I really doubt it, but in any case, if it is true, I must say I feel sorry for your flock! You write:
    "Sadly Christianity really is based upon myths." I mean how -in the light of evidence- ignorant can you be??????????????????
    Please do The Lord and His sheep a favor (and yourself by the way....!) and get another "job"! You're a disgrace to the truth and frivolous at that.... you even gave us "your" credentials... that's just so great of you....

  • Unignorant

    This is disappointing was hoping they would refute Zeitgeist, not the first 1/3 of it and then not even the film but the authors cited.

    They should have named this Zeitgeist: "Rebuked" because you cannot refute theory with faith

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    Ok, as it was repeatedly requested by Alex, there is another film added above which should expose Zeitgeist Part One.

  • nick

    I usually don't even bother to comment about things to do with religion. I would just like to get this out so maybe some confused person reading it may be able to see things a little more clearly. First off , what makes you people think that any scholar today has a better understanding of language then scholars from one two three and four hundred years ago. That part isn't even important though. Whats important to understand is that Christianity and the Bible are one. Religion and the Bible are not. A religion is based on self, such as the term self righteous. A person assumes they can do something to improve their standing with God. The Bible on the other hand clearly states that man failed that attempt so he sent his son who lived on this earth a perfect life, was crucified, died, rose again in three days, and ascended into heaven. The reason he did it was to pay the debt that man had with God for their sin. Now, you are completely debt free with God if you understand that and believe it. Jesus Christ payed the debt for your sin and all you have to do is accept it. Don't get pulled into the religious quackery out there and follow God's word. II Timothy 2:15 - Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. Thats all you need to do. Understand that all of the Bible isn't always talking about you. Much if not most of it is talking about the Jewish people during a time that we no longer live in. Romans-Philemon is directed to the non-jewish people. or in other words books written by the Apostle Paul. Oh yea and about which Bible to use the older the better. The original King James Version is fine. get to far in to the newer bibles and they begin to really distort the whole meaning of the verses and how they relate to one another. I could go on forever but if you have a question just ask me i'll check back here as i'm sure someone will probably bash me. If you do bash me I won't reply to you, but if you use common courtesy and talk to me like you would a friend than i'll reply.And by the way i havent watched this video i'm about to. I have seen zeitegeist though. Zeitegeist is pretty rough stuff. either or , once you truly "get" the bible you'll understand that there's no way it was written by anyone but the Spirit of God. If you have a question feel free to ask. I've looked for answers my whole life. I may have a few that could help you out.

  • john

    why oh why? is it always about god! we are so non essential to the workings of the universe and still, we believe we are the centre of it still, please people, god or no god, the way we treat each other as a race is discusting and if there is a god we wil all be held responsible for the way we have stood by and watched the few destroy the collective, like i said, if and it's a big if, god did create the world for man, seven days in eternity is a hell of a long time and we destroyed it in less than three hundred years, i don't think he will be happy, i my self belive in buddhism, i think as an educated adult it realy is the only way of thinking that makes sense to me. well that's my theory and we are all entitled to one. thank you john

  • Joseph

    All religion should not be taken literally but seen as a set of allegories and standards. Ancient peoples used imaginative stories that served a symbolic role on how they should live their lives. At the time, they believed in the supernatural elements of their religions because they had no knowledge of physics and biology. But when evidence comes to refute these claims, and a literal interpretation is maintained, this is when religion becomes a problem.

  • john

    i totaly agree, but as an avid physics fan, i must admit that qauntem physics is actualy proving the buddhist piont that all is not real and reality is a projection of the minds eye and that all things in space( not time, as time is a refference of which we created)are made up of the same things and are bound together by energy, it's like the old saying about a falling tree, if no one is there to see it fall, does it make any niose? i think people should use what ever they believe in and take the possatives, use them and make better peopl of them selves? you can't change a world, it's impossable, peacefully you can only change you and you is where it will have to begin.

  • john

    almost forgot, on a different note, would it be so bad to have a one world government? if humanity is to progress, then we have to change the way we think and it wouold be easier to rise up against one system of tyrany as a whole world of frustrated people, than it is now to rise against a multitude. while man strives to be the bet we will never be it! man has to strive to make humanity the best as a whole, nature will adapt after we have gone and always will, the earth is a living breathing physical form and we are the bacteria, we choose if we are good or bad bacteria and that is as simple as i can explain my thoughts. thank you for reading tis and i hope you read it with love and light in your heart. john

  • CMcF

    You know, religion is alot like art. It's all in how you interpret it.

    I find a few things interesting;

    Platoson, I would checkout the church that you're the pastor at way before Alex's if that is any consolation. Why? Because what you say makes some kind of sense. I cannot believe that THE ONE TRUE FAITH (if any such thing even exists) would ever condone intolerence in any form. TOTF as I would envision it would say something like "This is what Our Way states is the path to salvation. You try out whatever path you think is correct and we'll be right here if you ever want to check us out and if you find it without us we wish you well"

    To those who would interpret the bible as literal truth I can say that I am as sure as one can be about such matters that this form of Christianity is at best misguided. If the God that you worship is the one that murdered infants, asked Abraham to sacrifice his son as a test, flooded the earth, and required the blood sacrifice of his only son I can say with all certainty that I reject that religion. I understand the consequences of my actions and am willing to chance an eternity in hell if God is that sadistic.

    I would like to comment on the forms of Christianity that take a more "esoteric" POV but I have to go help a friend move. Perhaps I'll finish later.

  • Nameless

    Well said CmCF. Something that bothered me just now !
    Our lives are in a finite lifetime. So theoretically a person can commit a finite number of sins.
    If the prophetic religion version of God loves us so much , then why will it condemn a sinner to hell for infinity for a finite number of sins committed ???

  • nick

    Most of the questions people ask are already answered in the Bible. Nameless, God the father can not dwell in the presence of sin. Not even one. Also, the wages of sin is death. Jesus Christ was sacrificed as the lamb of the old testament law, to pay for the debt of your sin, of my sin, of everybody's sin. All people who except Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior are forgiven their debt forever and are sealed by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ for eternity. To be more specific if you reject the Son of God, God the Father will reject you.

  • Gabe

    Nick, you state crap without backing it up, just like all the bible freaks out there. What debt of what sin, may I ask?

  • Nameless

    Well nick , you are right ! I got my answer. If I reject the Son of God ,God the Father will reject me. And then what ??? Is there a pact between Father and the son and the Lucifer that all the God rejects will be transferred to another section that is run by the Satan ??

    Quote -
    "All people who except Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior are forgiven their debt forever and are sealed by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ for eternity."

    Please can we have a rational discussion over here ....

  • Alex

    No Nameless, go read the New Testament. God is not the devil's co-worker! The devil himself will wind up in hell (as you might know)! And no, he will not be the boss while he's there either! He will be suffering as all else.
    Then you say "Please can we have a rational discussion over here..." Well, you think... you can?? I ask you this, because there is nothing irrational about the following statement of faith(as you mention it): “All people who except Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior are forgiven their debt forever and are sealed by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ for eternity.”
    So Nameless, bias does not make rational thought, irrational.
    Also, nor is it irrational for God to throw you in hell... he will do so for very good rational reasons(!), if that's any comfort for you... :) But that's your choice. (Don't forget that)
    Keep in mind that everything you say against him, is not just talk among us, it might be seen (depending) as insults to His face. YOU WOULDN'T WANT THAT. Just warning you pal. It's your life. Be calm, do your sincere research, and see the evidence with "clean glasses". Just to help your research, I'll ask you a question to help you discern (try to) what one of the biggest problem in this "discussion" is: What -for you- exactly, in detail, would proof of His existence, be composed of? Are you looking for that particular proof? If not, you're just wandering here and there, talking smart alec "ideas", paretting what other's have said, and thinking you know how to think, when actually your thinking has no goal (other than to react). Answer the first question to yourself and you'll have a goal to pursue in your research. Otherwise you'll be sheep for saughter.
    Ps. when atheists or wannabe atheists attack Christianity with words like: "irrational", "illogical", "makes no sense", 99% of the time they are motivated to do so by immature emotional impulses and not by "good thinking". My advice is that they get a good dictionary, and from then on put these words to good use.
    God bless!

  • Alex

    Cmcf Hi!
    You write:
    1)"Platoson, I would checkout the church that you’re the pastor at way before Alex’s if that is any consolation. Why?"
    Indeed, it would make perfect sense if you would...

    2)"Because what you say makes some kind of sense."
    So, you can honestly imply, that what I have said as a Christian doesn't make sense? Well, people will be the judge of that, wouldn't they?
    3) "I cannot believe that THE ONE TRUE FAITH (if any such thing even exists) would ever condone intolerence in any form."
    So, Christianity being based on myths (as Platoson says)"makes some kind of sense" to you(...), because you "cannot believe (...)that THE ONE TRUE FAITH would ever condone intolerence in any form."??
    Mmmmm....
    Cmcf, when you say "the one true faith", you are probaly talking about the unknown reality, the actual facts of life (those contrary -as you believe- to Christianity).
    Yes, but why must "the one true faith" be tolerant to everything? Why? There are degrees of tolerance. Why must God tolerate everything forever? Intolerance is found in all levels of nature, as well as in all systems of justice! Why then must "the one true faith" be tolerant to everything??
    and by the way, 1)Intolerance does not a priori mean violence! 2) Oh and yes, The God of The Bible, is really really really Tolerant! You want some proof? Look at all the garbage people speak about Him everyday, BUT... THEY'RE STILL ALIVE...!! 3) Biblical Christianity (Religionists is another thing) is tolerant and would never harm anyone else believing in something different (they can just talk to him and pray for him), without this meaning that they must agree with beliefs contrary to their beliefs and not expose what is false by the use of truth. This though, is not intolerance, but love for the truth, honesty, rationality, love for people, love for God and simply put... conversation, discussion, debate, freedom of speech.
    God bless!

  • Max

    Forgive me for mentioning this again, but....

    Validation of faith in terms of human reasoning and the material universe, is questionable.

    Faith, I have heard people say, is just that. Faith. Transcendent reality is inherently a matter of faith. Beyond human reasoning and the material universe.

    Isn’t faith one of the fundamental concepts of religion.

    And no Alex...

    'No, this is a type of philosophical thinking that holds back critical thinking, and actually names any evidence for the opposite: “ludicrous”, “nonsense”, “illogical” etc. In down-to-earth-thinking, if a transcendent reality (a God in our case) wants to be validated through various “signs and wonders”in order to lead people to faith towards His Person, what’s to stop Him?? WHY CAN’T THIS BE POSSIBLE? There is no reason Max. Pseudo-science has been on the throne too long, and the worshippers… many!
    May God give you His increase.'

    ...is inadequate. You did not prove the existence of a transcendent reality and you can not prove the existence of a transcendent reality, all you have is faith.

  • Alex

    Max, Max...
    1) Because you "have heard people say", this means we all must go along with what you have heard... Please! You never answer the fundamental question: what would be rightly considered proof?? If you can't answer this question, nothing anyone says can serve as evidence to you for His existence.
    2) You're just clinging on you personal definition of "faith", disregarding the fact that Biblical faith has nothing to do with your definition (as I've shown/see June 20th). A question you need to answer to your self is: why must a transcendant reality be completely beyond human reasoning?? If you can't give an answer, you should change your view on "faith". I really can't see Max any rational reason why you are so absolute on this definition of yours... suspicious isn't it. Could it be simply because you just don't want to know (!) of any strong indications which provide a good degree of certainty?
    3)Concerning my "proof" (that is, for your behalf //I don't need it anymore), or great degree of certainty if you prefer, I already made my case, which is -among other things- is composed of: a) Facts from the Bible that one can scientifically scrutinize that clearly, almost "substantially"(in quotations, to denote very strong degree of certainty), indicate an Existence (there named God) that "transcends" mankind (See comments and link regarding prophecy, see links regarding the proof of the Biblical miracles, see comments and links on the DNA as well as on design in nature which in itself gives a good degree of certainty [to anyone who wants to see]) b) Facts from scientific observation (which anyone can make!), which give a very strong degree of certainty regarding a Creator such as: Life does not come from non-life, intelligence does not come from non-intelligence, purposeful effect and design does not come about without a prior purposeful cause which designs. These facts added up, together, say (See also June 21st point 2, July 6 point 9 and 11c) LIFE IS THE EFFECT OF AN INTELLIGENT CAUSE (God). This is the only reasonable theory which more than adequately answers these three facts. Evolution is completely useless in answering them (many evolutionist admit this/see my links).
    Your reply way up there(one I saw no reason of touching upon):
    "The ability of organisms to reproduce and evolve nervous systems capable of capturing, storing and retrieving information via the amorphous interaction of synaptic connections does not require an intelligent creator."
    ...is just that... a reply or even worse is a point which proves me right!! Listen to your self Max: (living!)"organisms", "ability(!)", "reproduce", "(nervous)systems"(!),"capturing, storing and retrieving(...!) information (!)", "via (!) the amorphous interaction of synaptic connections", CAN ONLY REQUIRE AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR THAT IMPARTS TO LIFE (LIVING ORGANISMS) THE ABOVE ATTRIBUTES/QUALITIES! According to unbiased observation (hence no theory needed here)this is the best if not the only(!) reasonable "theory" (scientifically speaking) of the existence of things... that is, the Existence of an Intelligent Creator.
    4) So again Max, when you say "all" I have is faith, sorry but you are simply being stubborn, since I have already informed you that Christian's initial faith is based on initial indications/evidence, and their further faith is based on experience as well. So no, we don't wake up one day believing! (What-are-we-talking-about??) God gave and gives through His means the degree of certainty which gives an observable foundation to our faith in His unseen realities spoken of in The Bible. For example, my "faith" is that you exist and come in contact with me here, not because I have seen you, yet, not without a reason/s either. But because all the facts give me the degree of certainty I need to "believe" you exist. These facts are my proof! Hence, my faith goes hand in hand with reasons/indications/evidence/proof. No contradiction at all, simple common sense.
    Nay God give His increase.

  • Nameless

    Alex : I ask you this, because there is nothing irrational about the following statement of faith(as you mention it):

    “All people who except Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior are forgiven their debt forever and are sealed by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ for eternity.”

    Dear Alex , I guess I called up nick(ofcourse theres a possibility of nick and you being the same guy) for a discussion since you are fairly the most hopeless case on this entire website which most rational creatures over here will agree too. I have ventured a lot into the glorious details about prophetic religions in the above posts which I believe you didnt ever bothered to read or even if you did it is quite certain you never went one step forward to research on them , that is ofcourse obvious you just simply cannot do it since they straight away contradict with the bible bullshit you have in your brainwashed mind since your childhood. You can call us by many names say atheist, biased, hypocrites or any flowery word that suits well with your misplaced supremacy but the sad part is you need a life for yourself more than kiss assing your God all day long in the internet and your natural offline life too.

    I asked for a rational discussion because that statement by nick simply makes absolute nonsense considering a person from some other religion accepting some other god has nothing do with hell or some fantasy like that,... I mean its sometimes so ridiculous to even to imagine such crapload of imaginative fear kingdom existing in people's brain that they are scared to death even to question the most simplest forms of human existence.

    See a sad thing about a person like you is your view of the universe is so extremely narrowed down by some ancient writings that at a certain point you cant even start thinking
    for yourself. Thats when you get a sense of dependency on your priests,bishops or any religious authority over you that has entrenched in your mind so much that even a slightest possibility of them being wrong terrifies you to the deepest core of your mind. But since they are ultimately based on false information and mind control programs, its natural you are bound to react than act accordingly with your reasoning capabilities.

    Fear of Hell has drenched you to a point where you cant even think anything as simple a thought as "why god cannot exist", So its natural on broader topics like moral codes, judgement day and other philosophical foundations you will always tend you refer to your bible than your own rational nature given brain. And guess what theres even a term for such mental disorder ...

    Here the best part :::::::::::::::
    Alex:
    ---------------
    Keep in mind that everything you say against him, is not just talk among us, it might be seen (depending) as insults to His face. YOU WOULDN’T WANT THAT. Just warning you pal. It’s your life. Be calm, do your sincere research, and see the evidence with “clean glasses”. Just to help your research, I’ll ask you a question to help you discern (try to) what one of the biggest problem in this “discussion” is: What -for you- exactly, in detail, would proof of His existence, be composed of? Are you looking for that particular proof?
    -------------

    I have never asked for any proof of Christ or Your Christian version of God in my entire discussion ... as I simply dont need a proof. I am no atheist and I have stated that earlier. I do have something I believe to be considered from the point of view of faith. But calling it as "God" would again corrupt it ! since God itself is one of the most over used controversial word. I was done with my research long time back and I seriously never needed to refer to any internet links for it. Because quite simply the answer is within you more than anywhere else.

    My point of view is well placed and its scope encompasses all forms of human existence in relation to every other beings living and non living on the entire universe. So to be brutally honest I dont even think you are close enough to even start a discussion on the existence of God with us because of your inordinately constricted level of understanding.

    I may sound rough and a complete bad ass with zero intolerance at the end of it , but think of it in this way- even though theres a little hope for me that you will even understand a single bit of what I have said so far , yet I have invested my couple of minutes in writing this ...because quite simply I feel pity for such insecured existence like yours.

    I would rather say "may you find your truest self" than "god bless you".

  • nick

    For Gabe.
    Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
    Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
    Romans Chapter 6:
    20For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
    21What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things [is] death.
    22But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
    23For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
    For Max
    Hebrews Chapter 11:
    1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

    2For by it the elders obtained a good report.

    3Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

    i would like to add to the above statement. the world is made of things that we can't see, elements for instance.that's just a thought of my own doesn't mean that's what its talking about.
    For Nameless
    Ephesians Chapter 1
    9Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:

    10That in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; [even] in him:

    11In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

    12That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

    13In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

    14Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
    Also Nameless... The Bible is far to huge and complex of a book to get all the answers from just one verse. If you understand the Bible it all makes sense. The war between God and Satan has been going since before man's creation. If you want to study it, let me know. I can save you a lot of time and confusion from having to deal with religious quacks who'll make you promises that will never come true.

    And Jesus answered and said to them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. And you shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that you be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows. Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and you shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. Matthew 24:1-14

  • Max

    Alex,
    lol, we can not prove or disprove a transcendent reality. Your asking me what I would consider proof of an unknowable transcendent reality, what, you want me to imagine a proof of of a theory which is by definition, equivocal?

    You can not prove the existence of God it is a matter of faith.

    Unless of course, your God is not transcendent.

  • nick

    Nameless. i just read over what you were saying to alex. First, I assure you I'm not him. Second I don't have a priest, preacher, or any such thing and I do not go to church. I do have an open mind, however the only legitimate proof of God is the Holy Bible, which is also the word of God. I don't fear hell whatsoever and never will. We do not live in a prophetic age right now so anyone saying that prophecy is being fulfilled does not understand how the bible is laid out.The prophecy's will come true, but not today. That doesn't mean their going to hell either. Just so long as they understand the role that Jesus plays in their salvation. Here's the bottom line, don't say that I'm not open minded, because i look at a lot of possibilities. None make more sense than the Bible and If you don't want to hear what it has to say than at best you can get a few quotes from it and bash them with some bodies scientific proof of evolution. Plenty of people get the idea of evolution. But very few people understand the Bible. Anybody can pick it up and read it, but the bible itself states that you should study it. Well if you have to study it that must mean it requires a little more insight than just reading it like a bedtime story and it does. I know a little and theirs much that i don't. Also something people don't give a lot of thought about is that if the world was covered in water, it would create much of the evidence of evolution in a much shorter time. Another thing you said to alex was something about suicide bombers. Nothing I mean Nothing in the Bible tells you its okay to murder someone. The relationship that the Jewish people had with God is not the same relationship that people have with him today. Now, I could dive into a class session on almost any sentence I wrote, but theirs no need. But you can't have an open minded discussion if you don't won't to hear both sides of the discussion. That would be a closed minded discussion. Let's see whose really open minded. Anybody know where those fancy little symbols on the back of a one dollar bill came from?

  • sillycat

    although shitty it still offered more logic than zeitgeist. zeitgeist is the biggest piece of shit i ever heard. Do not believe or taken anything from zeitgeist.

  • Nameless

    Nick . First of all , the way you flood the discussion over here with Bible quotes and the flow of your writing has a pattern very similar to that of Alex. So indeed theres a good chance that both personalities are the same. Anyways for now I will go by what you said. You are nick and Alex is alex :P ....

    Nick :: None make more sense than the Bible and If you don’t want to hear what it has to say than at best you can get a few quotes from it and bash them with some bodies scientific proof of evolution. Plenty of people get the idea of evolution.

    ------

    When did I ever mention about evolution over here ???? I am not even considering evolution into the picture since it was beyond the scope of my original question that I asked.

    Nick:: But you can’t have an open minded discussion if you don’t won’t to hear both sides of the discussion.
    ------

    So true, if I may add one more thing to it - You can't just have an open minded discussion if only thing you got to the support of your claims from the bible to be the bible itself !

    And I never said Alex to be a suicide bomber. If you had read context to which I was referring to , it was clearly mentioned that the way Alex thought of Non Christians was the fundamental ideology which had a strinking similarity to the ideologies of suicide bombers from any other prophetic religion.

  • Alex

    Nameless,
    1) I don't have to wait for you to ask me for proof, I give it anyway. The purpose of my comment on "proof" was to urge you to reconsider your atheism (that's how you come across).
    2)I didn't openly say you were an atheist, but I spoke of "atheists and wannabe atheists"; when it comes to christianity... your both (since you are not 100% sure of His existence... I mean, you can't even call him a "God"! And I'm suppose to believe you are a theist. Please!)!
    3) a)I'm not Nick! Where did you get this notion from?? I was just comenting on your comment to Nick. Also, just because he uses Biblical passages like I did in one comment(!!), this to you makes you suspicious that I am he?? I mean, you're talking to Christians! What did you expect? Verses from the Koran? b) In my case (and I belive in Nick's case), it would be a sin to be so deceiving as to claim I am somebody else! And besides... what for???
    c) You can ask Vlatco, if we are the same person, I mean, if you like, you can even ask him to call us both (if Nick agrees of course)!
    4) I devoted my life to Christ at the age of 22, not since birth!
    5) Regarding all the rest of what you say, I can only say a) you haven't a clue (just because you don't want one..!) b) Your false claims/accusations (and all the trash talk) about me... just say alot about the small borders of your perception as well as about the lack of self-awareness; you're definitely not even a worthy adversary/opponent c) It is so interesting that some claim not to be atheists but then speak like true atheists. I mean they are the ones that attempt to trash The Bible/Christianity, and you -in your own way of course- do the same!!! If you'd stop your double talk confussion, it would be better for all.
    6) My comments "had a strinking similarity to the ideologies of suicide bombers from any other prophetic religion"?? Indeed, verified, you have no clue! This is just bratty slander. May God forgive you Nameless! Ps. Have you been talking to suicide bombers lately? You seem to suggest you know them well... :) A joke.
    7) You write to me: "I asked for a rational discussion because that statement by nick simply makes absolute nonsense considering a person from some other religion accepting some other god has nothing do with hell or some fantasy like that..."
    What?? His comment was one of a Christian. This is what he believes. What did you expect?? That he change his faith to accomodate other religions in order to be "palls" with them or be "grey" just to make you feel comfortable?? WHAT KIND OF "RATIONAL" THINKING IS THIS? Nameless sorry but you sound like brainless! ;)

    That's all for now,
    God bless you!

  • Alex

    Max hi!
    1)You write: "...we can not prove or disprove a transcendent reality."
    You just don't get it. I can't seem to help you.
    2) "Your asking me what I would consider proof of an unknowable transcendent reality, what, you want me to imagine a proof of of a theory which is by definition, equivocal?"
    Max, everything at first can be equivocal. This says nothing. This cannot intimidate science. Research must go on and in order to do so, it must start off from somewhere. Hence, when searching for the existence of God, the normal (!) thing to do is to start by using principles/facts relative to things that already exist and applying them to the possibility of something that might exist by the use of good questions.
    First we would have to define "God". We can search to find a God of any definition, this doesn't mean our finds would meet our definitions. But let's say we wanted to start with the following definition: God, as an "invisible superior being and creator"; I mean, already The Bible gives us such a definition why not use it to start of with?? Let me elaborate on how we would go at it. The normal thing to do is ask questions like:
    1) Is there a reason to search for the existence of a God to begin with? (Answer: Yes. The reason to do so is a)having knowledge of our personal origins and "build" on that accordingly. b) not being left with the most important questions being unanswered [where does life, intelligence/consciousness, the initial cause, come from?]. there are other reasons, but let's stick to those for now)
    2) Can a God exist? (Answer: Possible.)
    3) Would "He" be able to come in contact with man? (Answer: Possible.)
    4) If a God existed could He be invisible? (Answer: He could be invisible since a) we don't see Him (if He exists)b) there are invisible forces discerned by their effects e.g. gravity), hence, invisibility, is a possibility.
    5) If He came or comes in contact with us, by what senses would we be able to realize His Presence? (Answer: Possibly with some or all of the senses we have. Keep in mind, a)we have no reason to believe the opposite b) Him being a God [intelligent superior being (much more our Creator)] would make Him able to come in contact with our senses if contact was His purpose.)
    6)Did all of mankind or at least some of mankind, ever claim they came in contact with such a God? (Answer: Yes they did and they do.)
    7) Could their claims be to a good degree scientifically researched/investigated? (Answer: Yes. Note here the following: If science says they didn't have such experience -when indeed these people are healthy in body and mind- then it is up to science to prove they didn't have an experience with the higher being they say they did! If they don't prove this, up to the time the do, they can only say that these people had the experince with such an entity, since these people are proven perfectly sane!! [They are trying to prove it was all in their mind, but they haven't!] At most, right now, they can just resort to -unjustifiably- calling them liars, but not crazy!)
    8) a) What are the tools needed for our quest? (Answer: Observation, good judgement/discernement and logic[leading to sensible questions and sensible answers]) b) Based on these tools, do we have any objective indications of a transcendant being? (Answer: Yes, we do. See my comments/links.)

    Considering the above questions(and answers) Max, and many more(!), we will inevitably wind up searching for proof of His existence THAT SOME OR ALL OF OUR SENSES CAN SENSE AND REALIZE. This is the first and most logical step!!
    At this point note, that if we find such proof/evidence (of any degree of certainty), we cannot disregard it, just because that proof doesn't transcend our senses!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (If it did "it" wouldn't be "proof" to us!) This would just be biased, unscientific and down right idiotic!! BUT, if on the other hand we don't find any evidence that meets our senses, then we can conclude: based on our senses (and the tools mentioned), there is no God!

    Then you write the same old chant: "You can not prove the existence of God it is a matter of faith."
    I will just add (...again!), it is a matter of faith based on given infomation which serves as evidence for a particular invisible reality.
    Max, I was told of this book that might help you. I have not read it yet but just flipped through some of its pages and sounds real reasonable. You can by it at Amazon (if I remember correctly about 8 dollars...). It's called: "God's undertaker" with subtitle: "Has science burried God?" by John C. Lennox (about 180 pages).

    Then you add: "Unless of course, your God is not transcendent."
    Him being transcendant Max has nothing to do with Him being incompetent to the point He can't come in contact with us!!! This is your logic: transcendant = incompetent. Something you have to prove!
    In closing, I will just say, that it is simply logical to start of using what you have to detect the possibility of something invisible... your logic, observation, senses. When you do this, your findings will all lead you to the logical conclusion: A God does exist. It did to me, and to many others who started off by logic.
    May God give you His increase Max!

  • jonathan karl

    wow...just wow....this guy is so completely bias its not even funny. another pro-christian propaganda film!

  • Max

    Hi Alex,

    The problem for me is that a transcendent reality is not just equivocal, it is inherently equivocal.

    We are unable to touch, smell, see, hear, taste or measure it as to do so would prove that it is part of the material universe and therefore not transcendent.

    So it does appear to be a matter of faith.

  • Alex

    Max,
    1) About the senses: a)The prophets in the Old testament heard Him, and their prophecy is proof of this! b)We are able to see in nature, and in the Bible (findings of His miracles), His doings (but no one bothers to do so!). c)There are people (I being one of them) who have many experiences with God; their senses say otherwise.
    2) You are again saying that a transcendent Being is an incompetent Being... You have to prove this! This is not scientific thought.
    3) You write: "We are unable to touch, smell, see, hear, taste or measure it as to do so would prove that it is part of the material universe and therefore not transcendent."
    Why Max can't a transcendent being be able to manifest Himself in our material universe and still be transcendent??
    Where is your evidence?
    4) "Transcendent" is just a word you use which you have not given full detail of its definition. This is where you have become trapped. No body can give full definition of such an idea/meaning. Therefore -objectively speaking- you cannot say what it can do and can't do. To me, the term "tran-scendent Being" speaks of a Being that transcends mankinds knowledge and ability. This I believe is the safest basic definition which we all can agree on.
    5) Note that when you are talking about "material universe" you are assuming that the nature of a transcendent Being is completely different in "substance". Why must it be?
    Think it over.

  • Alex

    Jonathan karl, Hi!
    Why must it be bias?? Its a strong word, which needs to be proven. If the evidence proves Zeitgeist wrong, then(!), why can we be biased against it?? I mean, both films disagree with Zeitgeist (the 1st part), and they are simply refuting it. What did you expect?? Would you say the same thing about the maker of Zeitzeist The Movie??

  • Max

    Alex,

    Incompetence is not an issue.

    The only transcendent, almighty, and holy God, who cannot be approached or seen in essence or being
    Transcendence can be attributed to the divine not only in its being, but also in its knowledge. Thus, God transcends the universe, but also transcends knowledge (is beyond the grasp of the human mind).

    God's existence is ontologically distinct and fully independent of the material universe.

    Transcendence is countered by immanence, expressed as Christ and the Holy spirit.

    Do you really understand your religion at all?

  • Nameless

    Nick: I have to add though, The Bible is not just a book. It is the word of God. I don’t just mean the letters in red either. The entire book is inspired by God. No other book can explain it. It explains itself fully and completely.

    [ Word of God ]. Ok I am sure its God's word but one thing baffles me again .. If its really God's word then why is it that you say Bible is a complex book to comprehend for us poor mortal beings ....cant God be straightforward enough to let his children know what he expects out of us in a clear cut manner ??? Perhaps he thinks we need to go through the merry go round list of stories, read between the lines and then figure out what exactly he is trying to tell us .. he loves throwing puzzles at us and the only rule to solve this puzzle is by having unquestionable faith in him. so far , so fair ... Then he tells us that one who doesnt believe in him is heading for hell ...ofcourse those bad ass souls never understood the puzzle so they are not fit enough for heaven! I mean I love this version of such fair God ... And a book that is inspired by this God has to be of unquestionable truth ...so far so good ! I need to understand onething over here ... Is anyone over here is aware of any book that was written about the ones who wrote the Bible in the same time when the Bible was written ??? Any book or any material that verified the claims of the people who wrote the Bible ??? Before reading the Bible and coming to any conclusion about the universal truths, I would anyday read a book or material like this first before I read the Bible or for that matter any book of that nature (especially Quran). Then again heres a problem even if theres a book like this exists , can anybody verify the ones who verified the Bible .. I guess not. And then who will verify and validate the ones who validate the ones who validate the ones who wrote bible.....never ending loop right ??? See its the problem. You can never be certain about the claims of any book or for that matter anything ...Word of God is verified by what --- Word of God itself ... And the scientists whose quotes you copy past from the internet doesnt help in the support of your claims because all of those scientists contradicted themselves at some point of their lives (lets not even start going there) , and in some case like that of Newton to Einstein even their theories conflicted with each other. And secondly their understanding of God in the quotes refer to the "so far not understandble" omnipresence of fundamental building blocks of everything rather than the Biblical version of God. Thirdly please dont formulate your opinions about the presence of God based on the statements of some mortal beings , internet links , websites or even any book or that matter.And regarding the reality you think is the result of the (grand fight between God and Satan).. Try to think for yourself by going one step ahead of whatever you have read in the Bible and learn about other religions,cults and history not to exclude verify them along with the science grounds. When I say learn that does mean reading a lot about a lot of stuff. But dont make your opinions based on them even !!!! From there on You will get to realize something even bigger , brighter and stranger than your current perspective of the world from the standpoint of the Bible .And heres the best part - it wont shatter your existing faith but I seriously cannot find the right for it ...in a simplest form I can say (a mere upgrade of your faith)

    You tell me to refer the old testament and the exodus story to start understanding the truth of God. Well thats just your perspective. Thank you but as I said earlier , I'm done with my religious readings and validation ....and I must say Bible itself doesnt hold the entire truth while the interpretation of it holds some massive lies and deceptions. Please please refer to my posts way up in this thread that explains the origin of bible and other religions. I can refer you the Vedas and the vedic knowledge for the understanding of the universe and the astronomical factors effecting the events here on earth but it aint the entire truth. And then some other guy may come and refer you the earlier chapters of Quran and the origins of prophet mohammed which also claims to have the total understanding of how the universe works in the words of -- you guessed it God himself. Then theres a buddhist guy who comes up and says the teachings of Lord Buddha has strinking similarity to the mordern day quantum physics and does indeed explain the workings of the universe and god is nothing but an infinite consciousness that we are part of. Now imagine if an alien comes to this planet and meet all four of us .. and gives an equal ear to each of our individual stories of faith and god , which one is he gonna believe in ???
    Christ ?? Allah ?? Lord Krishna ?? Gautam Buddha ??? and then there others too ... I hope this example acts as a better starting point of your search for truth and the correct questions to ask in life than finding the answers.....'

    I am usually a no quote person as I simply I like to put my own opinions and perspectives without any need of links or materials in support of them but however I will place a quote by someone from the history....for you especially : "Believe those who are seeking for truth. Doubt those who find it". I hope it sums up pretty much everything that we have discussed so far.

    Thanks !

  • http://www.efusjon.com/gotmoney Sandi

    Well I was trying to figure out why people are so blind today. I have come to the conclusion people don't understand how the rich are getting richer. I was befriened by a person, I was their worker, and they gave me a tip on how the very wealthy are making more money again. They gave me the op to get in to something that is making them more BUCKS, like the 13 largest hedge fund co owner is doing who told me of this. But it seems so crazy when you have people out there that are just being lead arond by the ring in the nose. The basic US citizen will just let something go by them while the fat cats are even making more money. WEll that is what is bugging me, why are people so blind, I am what is considered lower mid class, I went for some $ I'm not a fool

  • Nameless

    To Alex

    1) I don’t have to wait for you to ask me for proof, I give it anyway. The purpose of my comment on “proof” was to urge you to reconsider your atheism (that’s how you come across).

    Well my questions about God is far more objective and than being spiritual in nature. As such I dont easily dwell into a trance mode with hypnotic understanding of universe when considering the most important fact that a spiritually starvated race with enough missing links about the universe will always fall for anything that is of profound complexity (something like the Bible or Quran).

    2)I didn’t openly say you were an atheist, but I spoke of “atheists and wannabe atheists”; when it comes to christianity… your both (since you are not 100% sure of His existence… I mean, you can’t even call him a “God”! And I’m suppose to believe you are a theist. Please!)!

    Lets get one thing very clear over here. The word God , the definition of God and its application on a particular context is different from one another. God is a word that can be used to denote a lot of things. The definition of God is highly subjective which can range from religion based Gods like Christ, Allah , Lord Krishna , Jain Mahavira to ancient mythological Gods like Apollo,Zeus,Amen Ra,Bramha,Shiva,etc to the quantum world gods (like infinite consciousness, universal interconnectedness,nature and environment,etc). The usuage of the word God can refer to any of these mentioned above and in what context they are used is considered to be the most important factor. For example - One can say Christ is the God who is all forgiving by nature. One can also say Christ is the alternate name for the God of all universe. One can also say Christ is not a God but just a way of understanding the human nature. Since the word itself can be used to represent so many different manifestations of the same source , I refrain myself by using the word "God" while referring to what I believe in. The language limitation is itself the culprit more than our limited understanding of the universe. So I hang at a place where my conclusions are always evolving and my "God" doesnt need me to play complex puzzles with holy scriptures or spend time at the church or temple listening to the priests or pandits and spend countless nights reading between the lines to figure out one basic moral code for living a good life without hurting any mortal being or the nature. And since the word "God" can be used to refer so many of the Gods out there... its better I dont use it all.

    3) a)I’m not Nick! Where did you get this notion from?? I was just comenting on your comment to Nick. Also, just because he uses Biblical passages like I did in one comment(!!), this to you makes you suspicious that I am he?? I mean, you’re talking to Christians! What did you expect? Verses from the Koran? b) In my case (and I belive in Nick’s case), it would be a sin to be so deceiving as to claim I am somebody else! And besides… what for???
    c) You can ask Vlatco, if we are the same person, I mean, if you like, you can even ask him to call us both (if Nick agrees of course)!

    Alright forgive me here. But I did find both of you pretty similar. Anyways I am open enough raise my doubts and accept the findings. :)

    4) I devoted my life to Christ at the age of 22, not since birth!
    5) Regarding all the rest of what you say, I can only say a) you haven’t a clue (just because you don’t want one..!) b) Your false claims/accusations (and all the trash talk) about me… just say alot about the small borders of your perception as well as about the lack of self-awareness; you’re definitely not even a worthy adversary/opponent c) It is so interesting that some claim not to be atheists but then speak like true atheists. I mean they are the ones that attempt to trash The Bible/Christianity, and you -in your own way of course- do the same!!! If you’d stop your double talk confussion, it would be better for all.

    Trash talk is a part of my nature , since I hardly take anything seriously. My self awareness doesnt need to be proved since you are the one who needs the backing of quotes from bible , links from the internet and continously replying to every so called atheist instead of doing something better with your time(which was the first thing I said to you when we spoke for the first time) and what not just help your cause. I think for myself using objective analysis and my approach clearly is to piss off fundamentalists like you who in the name of God and under the misconception of moral policing others on the basis of faith on something they have never even questioned is just what makes the world little more worse place than it already is. As I told you earlier too , that its not today that you may kill a person but certainly on the event of saving Christianity from falling. Only when the last church has gone down, only when one pope is left to save and the only option to stop it from happening is to have sex with a gay , then may be you will encounter the biggest moral dilemma of your life. Its just a wacky theory by the way but good enough for a brain storming session for you. ;)

    6) My comments “had a strinking similarity to the ideologies of suicide bombers from any other prophetic religion”?? Indeed, verified, you have no clue! This is just bratty slander. May God forgive you Nameless! Ps. Have you been talking to suicide bombers lately? You seem to suggest you know them well… A joke.

    Well Alex , it takes no brainer to figure out the thought process of a suicide bomber and the kind of deep permeation of faith based hate with the grand touch of heaven/hell concept along with a promise of heaven. Lolz , you should go back and read again and again what I said in that section about your faith based claims and its resemblence to the suicider bomber mindset.

    7) You write to me: “I asked for a rational discussion because that statement by nick simply makes absolute nonsense considering a person from some other religion accepting some other god has nothing do with hell or some fantasy like that…”
    What?? His comment was one of a Christian. This is what he believes. What did you expect?? That he change his faith to accomodate other religions in order to be “palls” with them or be “grey” just to make you feel comfortable?? WHAT KIND OF “RATIONAL” THINKING IS THIS? Nameless sorry but you sound like brainless!

    No dude ! Incase of a rational discussion , the scope of your objective reasoning cannot be bound to the bible or your specific religion itself. Thats what I wanted to raise . I dont say that the quote isnt from Bible - what I asked for is the application of the thought its trying to instill on every human being and not just a Christian. How will it make a person convinced of the thought if the only source of the validation of the thought becomes the thought itself. And I believe I have discussed it earlier in the above post with nick !

    lolz :P ..thanks for calling me brainless. Because its still better than having all the brains and yet believe that "Bible is the final truth".

  • Max

    Sandi,
    Hope it goes well, volitionality is a great cash generator for some hedge fund managers. I wouldn't put the farm on it though, S&P passed 1000 today. Retracement could take us past the March low.

  • Bill

    If God were a proven fact --- we would not need "Faith"

  • Achems Razor

    I am strictly a layman, and this is my own personal view. We are all Gods! Through our Collective Consciousness we form our reality, even though it is an illusion, just as time and space are illusions. None of it actually exists! An atom is 99.99% empty space. Our Collective Consciousness forms vibrational directives which coalesce into matter, think Quantum Physics. Light can be a wave or a particle, whichever we want it to be, but never both at the same time, and will exist in 10 to the 500 power of alternate universes. Everything that you see and know is man made. We are all on one vibrational level that we call reality!

  • Mr_Dips***

    Only thing that shocked me was how bad this documentary was... yes I do think that there's a lot of criticism of the Zeitgeist, but this was UTTER DIARRHEA CR** =D=D=D=D.

  • Alex

    Max,
    Sorry, but this is starting to become hilarious :). Yes, you know I understand my faith perfectly! But apparently you can't. I also understand that to you Transcendence = incompetence. Although you deny it, this is what you are chanting again and again! You are saying that a transcendent being cannot come in contact with man, but also that He cannot give us indications/evidence (that is, so to not abolish -the requested by Him- faith factor) for His existence. This is just way wrong logic. And something you can't prove.
    Then you write:
    "The only transcendent, almighty, and holy God, who cannot be approached or seen in essence or being"
    Please finish your sentences Max....

    "Transcendence can be attributed to the divine not only in its being, but also in its knowledge."
    I agree. That's why I spoke of transcendence in knowledge an power/ability.
    Note here that transcendence does not necessarily have to point to something completely different! It can just mean very different or just different (as long as it transcends)! I mean from my faith's scope, man is made in God's Transcendent Personal Image/Personality...!

    "Thus, God transcends the universe, but also transcends knowledge (is beyond the grasp of the human mind)."
    This is your religion talking. Not objective reasoning/logic. -What can stop Him from coming in contact with humanity?? You can't answer.

    "God’s existence is ontologically distinct and fully independent of the material universe."
    How do you know all this oh wise man?? :) Does your -possible- guru religion assume this? Or are you just giving me your "feel" on the issue? Either is fine, but let me know. But meanwhile don't make believe you are objective in your conclusions.

    "Transcendence is countered by immanence, expressed as Christ and the Holy spirit."
    Clearly, in simple words, define "counterred by immanence". It can mean many things.

    Max, you're just making up your own theological definitions and expect everyone to follow along. But at least try to make sense while doing so. You are not sounding scientific, logical, rather you sound like a New-Ager...

  • Alex

    Bill hi!
    1)Indeed faith is in the unseen God. But the unseen God can -if He chose to- give such indications/evidences of His existence and will, in order to encourage our faith in His unseen existence. What's to stop Him? This is Christianity's position.
    2) You know, a "proof" and "fact" don't always go together. Fact and proof can some times be personal and objective only to your senses. For example, if a divine being such as an angel appeared to you and this repeatedly, this to you personally, would be a "proven (to your senses) fact", but a fact you can't prove to others.
    Now if that angel told you details of my past as well as details of my future (which actually came to be true), then, to me, who hasn't seen that angel as you have, your angel -due to the evidence- is a 100% proven fact(!) ...although I did not see him as you did!! Likewise Bill, Christians have faith in the unseen God due to His multifold manifestations/workings (some are for all to see!).
    The only reason we sensible Christians encourage others to look into our "facts" (e.g.the angel speaking of my past and future) is not so we can feel better but because in the context of our faith there are parts that speak of mankinds terrifying destination, from which we want to help it escape. So whether non believers accept it or not, we say what we say, for their best interest (at least from our view).
    Hope I've been of help.
    God bless you!

  • luke b

    All organised religion is wrong it opens the door for hypnosis of the masses we should fight this forced and given control of are minds

  • nick

    To Nameless: I'm gonna take this one subject at a time.
    First. In order for someone to disprove the Bible such as the Zeitgeist attempts to do, they would have to understand the Bible. Zeitgeist makes many mistakes in its comparing other religious figures to Jesus. One is the birth of Christ who wasn't born in December. So all that "sun god" theory is shot straight out the window. It's not necessary for me to say that, but the point is that the Bible is complex but it's easy to understand if you know how to study it and do. People take the Bible and twist it everyday, which actually probably leads just as many people not to believe it as it leads people to believe it. The Bible is the final authority on God's word. Without believing that, you can't believe the Bible. As for the Bible being a puzzle, it's not at all. It simply just requires studying. If you don't want to study it, you can always listen to a preacher who understands the Bible and has studied it. But the truth is I don't think you want to believe so you probably never will. I again will state though that Romans-Philemon, are the books in the Bible written by the apostle Paul who is the apostle to the Gentiles. Yes you are whats considered in the Bible to be a Gentile.
    As for the Quran or Koran, Some "religions" use the Bible and some don't. Those that do use it, misuse it. True Christianity is not a religion, but a personal relationship with God. Although Islam is a just another "religion", the Bible tells us why that religion originated. Muslims agree that their original roots came through Abraham and his wife's Egyptian handmaiden, Hagar, who bore a son for him. God named that son, Ishmaelite, and predicted that a vast nation of people would come from him. Because that son was illegitimate, (or not meant to be), that son and the nation that came from him, became a continual problem to Abraham's legitimate offspring.

    Abraham, had another son with his wife, Sarah, and named him Isaac. This was the legitimate son that God wanted Abraham to have. All the Jews came through Isaac. To this day, the big war between Jews and Muslims is all about which son inherited the right to the land of Jerusalem from their common father, Abraham. That's why it is always called a "religious" or a "Holy War". The Bible says that only Isaac and his descendants have any right to that land. In an effort to discount the Bible's claim, a man name Muhammad (570-622 AD) wrote another book called, "the Koran", so that Ishmael's descendants could use it to try to claim the land away from Isaac's descendants. Today, as Muslims, they are still jealous of the birthrights and favor with God that Israel enjoyed back then. The war between them goes on to this day. Muslims are angry with America for sticking their nose in and siding with the Jews. The Koran calls anyone who is not on the side of Islam, "infidels". It says that, "infidels must die". Some Muslims have taken this to heart to the point of becoming terrorists.
    About Genesis. the only reason I recommended reading this book first as i said before was the History of the Bible and a foundation for which to read Matthew and than Romans. Romans being intricate in your salvation. The entire Bible is for us, but the entire Bible is not to us. That is a critical factor in understanding the Bible. And as far as being out of that going to hell category, that's the easiest part. People just don't like the idea of being punished for something when they feel they've done nothing wrong. So they choose to believe what they can. The truth is every person on this earth past the age of accountability will be held accountable for what they have done. The difference between those who will be in hell and those who won't is that those who won't have been sealed by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ and all those things which were counted against them are counted against them no more. Jesus is the only way to be saved and all you got to do is put your faith in him and accept that he was sacrificed to pay the debt for those sins. Just remember this, one day maybe before you die this old world is gonna get pretty bad, the body of Christ will no longer be here , we will be in heaven. The thing to remember is that old King James Bible, if you can find one by than. I'm not sure how it would work after that time period as I haven't studied that much into the Ages to come. I know that right now we're in the Age of Grace where forgiveness is based on faith in Jesus Christ. I won't speak on what I don't know so it will be up to you at that time to figure out about the scriptures in the ages to come. which is Hebrews through Revelation, I do know that much.

    John Chapter 14
    2In my Father's house are many mansions: if [it were] not [so], I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

    3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, [there] ye may be also.

  • nick

    ….and I must say Bible itself doesnt hold the entire truth while the interpretation of it holds some massive lies and deceptions. - Nameless
    While you say the Bible holds lies and deceptions , you failed to mention one of these lies or deceits. Please do tell me where the Bible holds such an occurrence.
    Also I put those quotes by other people just to show that some of the greatest thinkers of all times believe in creation more so than the idea of evolution. I believe I stated before that it did not mean they believed in the Bible. I also do not base my beliefs on any such quotes. My beliefs are based on my entire life spent questioning the very thing I now believe and have believed for many years now. I grew up in a small town where a lot of people went to church. This church that church, why so many churches? I attended many churches and none of them ever seemed to make sense. They had the fundamental idea of salvation, but when it came to other areas of the Bible they just seemed to be stretching or putting to much emphasis here or there. So as I approached adulthood I kind of just gave up on ever understanding the Bible. Then one Saturday night, as I lay in bed flippin through channels on the t.v. I came across an old preacher talking about baptism. Baptism is one of many subjects that I had tried to understand in the Bible that nobody ever seemed to agree on and I found a little bit confusing. So I thought lets see which type of way this guys selling Baptism. And lo and behold he laid out the most beautiful well described and fully correlating with the Bible speech I had ever heard. He went on to describe how the Bible was to be studied and the moment he did that, all the knowledge I had about the Bible seem to fall in place and it was no longer confusing but it made perfect sense. Anyway , I know that it wasn't required of me to share that, but I did. The point is i know its hard if not impossible to believe things sometimes. I have watched many documentaries that have made arguments for evolution and as a martial artist have also been exposed to many different eastern philosophies. Anyway, the beauty of this country today is that your free to believe whatever you want to. If you want to believe in a creator you can , if you want to believe in evolution you can, One day you won't be able to believe anything except what they tell you to. My biggest problems do not lie in what a person believes or doesn't. I just hate when people attack Christianity with such hate and disdain, like its whats causing all the problems in the world. I will say that the inability to decide which religion is the right one may cause confusion but the Christian faith is not one of the religions that condone killing people. Anyway that parts not to you Nameless i was just getting it out there.

  • Max

    Alex,
    Aren't Immanence and transcendence fundamental to the Holy trinity. I thought it was the holy spirit and not the father that is manifest on earth, sorry I'm clearly confused perhaps you could explain to me.

  • jonathan karl

    Christianity is just flat out false... being raised christian and being around Christians/Catholics all my life, i can honestly say that Christians/Catholics are simply the most ignorant, judgmental, and close minded people on earth.
    so closed minded they cant even accept that their religions are just the perverted copies of older faiths. and all of the people on here trying so hard to stand up for it, still have yet to accept the evidence themselves. they just believe it because that's what they were taught or raised to believe,
    that or they found religion as a means to help them in a hard time in their life... and there is still is the FACT that many other deity's of old have the same exact attributes that "Jesus" did... that is irrefutable if you simply read up on other religions and faiths... and unfortunately Christians don't want to do that, or even think that its a possibility. they just look at the so called "evidence" to support it, quoting bible verses and the like, and deny all evidence that disproves it. kind of like what modern science does with evolution.
    my conclusion; Christians/Catholics(the same thing in my eyes) is just flat out false. I asked questions that had my Sunday school teachers stumped when i was in 2nd grade. that says far more than enough to me about how much these people actually take the time to refute the subject within their own minds.

  • Nameless

    Well said Jonathan. And I think its the same not just about christians but almost all fundamentalists from every other religion. Not just the Christians infact there are fundamentalist muslims and hindus who are equally annoying and profoundly ignorant because they all think that their version of truth mentioned in their respective holy book is the final truth and one doesnt need to look further and investigate what the other side has to offer.

    I mean how come someone be so dumb that they dont even wish to dwell into what lies beyond one single book of their respective religion. All fundamentalists states quotes from their own holy books instead studying them closely with other religions and derive conclusions of their own.

    nick : The Bible is the final authority on God’s word. Without believing that, you can’t believe the Bible.

    I think you dont even read what I said to you earlier and if you have read what I said , then perhaps you didnt even bother to think about the scenario I mentioned ... or else you couldn't have came up with the same statement once again. Quite expected - most fundamentalists cannot do that ..its sin to think for yourself , isnt it ???

    For once stop thinking like a Christian and start thinking like a human being. Then may be you can understand what I have mentioned in my earlier post. Please read again. And then come back with your logic instead of Bible stories as a proof of the stories itself.

    In my whole discussion so far I have not even mentioned anything about the documentary Zeigeist and its refuted/exposed counterparts. Then why do you have to even include them ... I seriously dont give a damn about how much of it is true and how much of it is lies . My opinions are not even based on someone's documentary neither my wisdom is based on a foundation of spoon feeded unquestioned truth.

    Bible says its the word of God. Quran says its the word of God. Geeta says its the word of God. If there are so many books with different versions of God spoken stories , then perhaps you can tell me which God is the final truth. Because of these different God given guidelines and stories , there are so many level of misinterpretations of it ! And then people kill each other based on these different interpretations. I mean even if I believe that we are quite an idiotic race... Cant these gods from different religion have a conference and come up with a common solution so that all humans can understand their God given truth without a conflict with other versions of it ????

  • Frank

    Zeitgeist is NWO propaganda, similar to what hitler used.

  • Alex

    Nick hi!
    Please see above, not Zeitgeist Refuted, but the new film under it: "Zeitgeist exposed".
    God bless you!

  • Alex

    Max,
    be fair, and pay proper attention to what I write. You wrote and I asked:
    "“Transcendence is countered by immanence, expressed as Christ and the Holy spirit.”
    Clearly, in simple words, define “counterred by immanence”. It can mean many things."
    Why didn't you?
    If you did, I would be answering your question now in further accuracy: "Aren’t Immanence and transcendence fundamental to the Holy trinity."

    Anyway, my fist answer, is yes, but this doesn't mean we put God in a box and speak of His essence/"substance" to the point where we can conclude: He has nothing to do with the material universe. I mean why musn't He?? Everything was made by Him! Is there "substance/matter/energy" that is not in its basis derivitive of God's essence?? Is there a type of matter/energy that has completely nothing to do with the Creators "energy"?? Max, you probably confuse what "Christian" philosophers (and many preachers parret) with Biblical Christianity (what a mess!)
    Then you write:
    "I thought it was the holy spirit and not the father that is manifest on earth, sorry I’m clearly confused perhaps you could explain to me."
    Max my friend, you are confused to the point I don't make sense of your arguments. What does this statement have to do with anything I've said??????????? Anyway, 1) By saying this, you seem to -theoretically at least- grasp the simple notion of A God being expressed to Humanity. A relief. 2)The Father and Son, manifest their will here on earth, through the invisible Presence of The Holy Spirit, but they can do so also by angels. 3) THIS doesn't mean Max, that The Father and the Son can't on their own!! Be reasonable, They are God! It is a matter of roles. The protagonistic role in The Old Testament was The Father's. He, Himself spoke through the prophets and did miracles. Then followed, His "Word"/Son (Jesus). He had the protagonistic role. He was miraculously born (Paul calls it a "mystery": God was manifested in flesh), lived here about 33 years, taught and did miracles, and died for man's sin and resurrected making Him the mediator unto salvation. Today, The Holy Spirit has the protagonistic role. Note that I am talking about protagonistic roles. This doesn't mean that The Other Two Persons of The Trinity are absent! This unique plan of God, has all three persons of the Deity playing a protagonistic role; All of God has a Hand in man's salvation.
    Hope I've helped. May God give you His increase.

  • Alex

    Jonathan Carl,
    I don't want to offend you, but Catholicism (just like its twin brother "Orthodoxy") is not Biblical Christianity! I my self was born in an Orthodox family. I was never really a born again Christian (didn't even know what it is), I just went along for the ride. Anyway, it like Catholicism is a man made religion, that just uses Biblical terminology! It is these two religion that had done so much harm to Biblical Christianity, leading people away from God's real will, sending them to pray to Mary's spirit and the spirits of the saints (if we accept they where that is)! Building a special order of priests that has nothing to do with the New Testament, then baptizing babies, etc. It is way far from the teaching of The Bible. You can google it find out about it. So, please don't confuse Christianity with Catholicism.
    But wait, then came Protestantism. The truth is while it too is doing harm with its so many denominations, it's heading in the right direction at least, since its efforts are to return to Biblical Christianity; Protestantism is at least alive in its core and not dead like the others. I attend a Protestant church (with all its mistakes) since it is closer to the Biblical teachings. There are a great many Protestant churches that are as spiritually dead as are Catholic and Orthodox churches. Pray and be careful if you ever want to attend a church. Don't become either of the three (attnding is another thing), but just a Biblical Christian. God will judge you according to The Bible not Christian religions, that to various degrees have gone astray.
    God bless you!

  • nick

    to nameless and jonathan karl: I can tell that by your words it angers you to think that All of Life's purpose could lie in a Book. jonathan karl, you call Christians ignorant and judgmental. I am not judging you or nameless and by calling me ignorant you only portray the hatred you feel toward the idea of God. I understand that not all people will believe in Him.
    And nameless, you do not understand that when I tell you the Bible is the final authority on God's word that it means exactly that. No book or man can add to or take away from that authority. It doesn't mean you have to believe it. You can read any book you want to do about the Bible or any other Religious doctrines that dispute the Bible. I already gave the history of the Islamic faith in a condensed short form, and yes their are many more. Buddha was a man and nothing more than a man. He's dead. Jesus Christ is alive and sitting at the right hand of the Father in heaven. Nameless will reply, - you believe Jesus is alive and in heaven just because a book tells you, you don't have any other proof, just one book. - yes nameless , that is the point. But Just so you know the Bible has 66 books with something like 40 authors written over a period of 2000 years.It's not just one book. It is however inspired by the Holy Spirit. Don't harden your heart and mind to reject the Bible. Just read it. All that God wants you to know is in the Bible. Like I said before, people try an disprove the Bible when they don't understand it and they discredit themselves before they even get started because they don't even understand what the Bible is saying. Like jonathan karl who says that Christianity and Catholicism are the same thing. That shows that he doesn't understand the Bible, he just knows what people have told him about the Bible. Happens everyday. People shouldn't judge you jonathan and I agree that many people who base their religion on the Bible are very judgmental when the Bible clearly instructs us not to pass judgment on others. But if someone says you can't go to heaven without knowing Jesus as your savior that's not passing judgment, that's simply telling you what the Bible says.

    Alex thanks, I will watch it now.

  • jonathan karl

    it doesn't offend me that you believe there is a difference between Catholicism and Christianity...from being around both, i cant tell you there really isn't that much of a difference at all. the people are just as dogmatic and illogical in both, and they both fallow the same book, with the same teachings. Catholics just take it farther, and have saints. other than that, its the same old bull****...

    and yes nick, i do hate the idea of a god, some supposed loving yet wrathful god, who is outside of time and all knowing, who creates a race of people supposedly to test their faith, when he would have already known the outcome.
    who judges people based on sexual orientation, and spreads the belief that homosexuals should be put to death, or treated as rapists and murderers. a god who damns anyone who doesn't believe in him to a lake of fire... straight up... logic and reason are my gods.

  • Nameless

    To Nick ,
    Quote:"
    Buddha was a man and nothing more than a man. He’s dead. Jesus Christ is alive and sitting at the right hand of the Father in heaven. Nameless will reply, – you believe Jesus is alive and in heaven just because a book tells you, you don’t have any other proof, just one book. – yes nameless , that is the point. "

    You please better come up with something logical as I have said earlier. I mean you dont even know anything out of the Bible. Buddha was a man and Jesus is a God and I am an Android. Lolz ! .... Please I have mentioned earlier repeatedly , improve your narrow sense of understanding along with your knowledge base, read again what I have said earlier and then come up with an argument.

    Quote: "
    But Just so you know the Bible has 66 books with something like 40 authors written over a period of 2000 years.It’s not just one book. It is however inspired by the Holy Spirit. "

    The word of God in 66 different versions written over a period of 2000 years is all the more reason why it cannot be the word of God. And either ways , I think its better instead of flooding the board over here trying to justify your faith with circular logic and bed time bible stories better study something infact anything outside the Bible to get your facts straight and reasoning skills brushed up.

    To jonathan: Lolz , dude there are funda "mentalists" over here who will again come over say "may lord forgive you" to such a grand blasphemy :P

  • nick

    Oh you poor soul, may love be your comforter and happiness be your guide. It's not as simple as it seems. I'm sorry to have angered you to such a degree. I just want to say this, it is true that all sinners who refuse to acknowledge Jesus as the savior will be judged accordingly, but it doesn't matter what your sin is, the forgiveness of all sins is based solely on your faith in Jesus. There nothing more or less that you can do to obtain salvation. It is based on faith alone in the cross work of Jesus Christ. If anybody you, me, or anyone else could do anything to create our on salvation Jesus would not have had to be sacrificed. God gave man the chance to do what we could not, so he came and did it for us. He lived the perfect life, he didn't say you had to. We are made perfect by faith in Christ. It is a love that man can not seem to understand. Don't allow the teachings of religious systems to take away one of the most beautiful things in this life. A relationship with Christ through the Bible. Again, salvation is based solely on faith in Christ, nothing else. God has given every man a chance to come to him and spend eternity in heaven with him. One day the prince of this world will be cast into a lake of fire and anyone who has refused God's gift will be cast there also. No sin may enter heaven. Lucifer will lose, actually he's already lost and one day that final person who is going to come to Jesus will come and when they do, the people who have accepted Christ sacrifice as payment for their sin will no longer be here. Then God's wrath will begin to be unleashed, and he will be right and just in the things that occur because he gave us a long long time to accept his gift. Also, he didn't create people to test their faith.He didn't test their faith either, Satan did. Do you know how he tested Eve's faith.

    Genesis Chapter 3:
    2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

    3But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

    4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

    Do you see how he begins to deceive her? He wants to instill doubt in her mind. Ye shall not surely die. Then he goes on in verse five to tell her why God doesn't want her to eat of the fruit, That she will be like gods knowing good and evil.And that is how sin entered this world.
    Anyway, I know what you said, and that logic and reason are your gods. I'm going to try an find a good Bible teacher online to try and point a few people in the right direction that are interested in hearing about the Bible and how it plays a role in their lives or who just want to learn about the Bible and its proper interpretation.

  • Max

    Alex,
    Is it not the purpose of transcendence/immanence duality, to avoid the paradox of God the creator existing within his own creation, necessitating that God must be separate from it.

  • Alex

    Max hi! (Please use question marks.)
    Who says so?? After all I've told you, you still don't get it. I mean, why must it be "the purpose" of "transcendence/immanence duality, to avoid the paradox of God the creator existing within his own creation, necessitating that God must be separate from it."?? You are so trapped in your way of thinking it's amazing! How can you conclude on what the purpose of the transcendent being your talking about is, and what "It" must "avoid"?? Max please pray for God to open your mind (as He did in Lydia in the Bible). Try it.

  • Alex

    Jonathan Karl,
    You write "logic and reason are my gods". Well, yes, but they are your false gods since they lie alot.

    Nick,
    my advice is, that after "his vomet", don't address him anymore. It is a clear case of Mat 7:6. Careful Nick...

  • Alex

    Achems Razor, Hi!
    You write:
    "All Religions originated from antiquity. When the fruit was eaten from the tree of knowledge it was a magic mushroom called, Amanita Muscaria, that gave Religious Ephinanys. That is how all religions were formed."
    Achems Raxor... your are not using Achems razor! I mean you really believe "That is how all religions were formed"?? Mushrooms??? And Christians are the gullible ones?? But I’ll entertain it:
    A bad way to start of a religion, look at the possible side effects of this mushroom:
    “Depending on habitat and the amount ingested per body weight, effects can range from nausea and twitching to drowsiness, cholinergic crisis -like effects (low blood pressure, sweating and salivation), auditory and visual distortions, mood changes, euphoria, relaxation, ataxia, and loss of equilibrium.
    In cases of serious poisoning it causes a delirium, similar in effect to anticholinergic
    poisoning it is characterized by bouts of marked agitation with confusion, hallucinations, and irritability followed by periods of central nervous system depression. Seizures and coma may also occur in severe poisonings. Symptoms typically appear after around 30 to 90 minutes and peak within three hours, but certain effects can last for a number of days. In the majority of cases recovery is complete within 12 to 24 hours. The effect is highly variable between individuals with similar doses potentially causing quite different reactions. Some cases of intoxication have exhibited headaches up to ten hours afterwards. Retrograde amnesia and somnolence frequently results following recovery.”

    “…Author John C. King wrote a detailed rebuttal of Allegro's theory in the 1970 book A Christian View of the Mushroom Myth; he notes neither fly agarics nor their host trees are found in the middle east, and highlights the tenuous nature of the links between biblical and Sumerian names coined by Allegro. He concludes that if the theory was true, the use of the mushroom must have been "the best kept secret in the world" as it was so well concealed for all this time.”

  • Max

    Alex,

    "Who says so?? After all I’ve told you, you still don’t get it. I mean, why must it be “the purpose” of “transcendence/immanence duality, to avoid the paradox of God the creator existing within his own creation"

    If God created the universe he must exist outside of the universe. It is not logical to exist with in the universe and create the universe at the same time. He must therefore transcend the universe.

  • jonathan karl

    "Logic and reason are false and they lie a lot"? Are you serious?...lol

    None of you have fully read the bible, obviously...
    If you had, you'd realize how abominable and shameless your "god" really is...

    ...and there is one unforgivable sin, to question the existence of the holy spirit... that means if you so much as think that "god" may not exist, you have committed the one unforgivable sin.
    Jesus even said to gather all those who do not wish for him to be king and have them brought to him and put to death... it also says in the bible that if man lies with another man, he should be put to death...

    So technically if you follow the scripture to the T, you'd be putting people to death for nothing more than what a book says.

    ...and why would a "god" existing outside of time and being all knowing create a race of people to test their "faith","love", or "belief" in him, when he would have already known the outcome?

    I have proof without any certainty... while you have certainty without any proof.

    Question everything! It's the only way you truly learn.

    ...and finally, much to the delight of many on this board, this will be my last post.

    "If you argue with an id***, after a while it is hard to tell who the real id*** is."

    Goodbye.

  • Achems Razor

    To Alex: Thank you for your input. My belief to me is more plausible then unscientific fairy tales that were written when it was thought the earth was flat and the center of the universe. Re: Side effects: I guess that is why God said to the woman not to eat of the fruit as you will surely die. Or was it to gain more wisdom? But the serpent said you will not die. Apparently she lived. Where is the power? You can get possible side effects from anything you ingest into your body. I will name just one. ASPIRIN. Which originates from the earth, from the leaves and bark of the willow tree. COMMON Reactions:= *dy spepsia *nausea *vomiting *abdominal pain *rash *tinnitus *dizziness *hy peruricemia *bleeding *ecchymosis *constipation *diarrhea. SERIOUS Reactions:= *anaphylactic/anaphy lactoid rxns *angioedema *bronchospasm *bleeding *GI ulceration/perforation *DIC *pancy topenia *thrombocytopenia *agranulocytosis *anemia,aplastic * hy poproyhrombinemia *nephrotoxicity *hepatotoxity *salicylism *Reyes syndrome.
    The magic mushroom Amanita Muscaria story is not the best kept secret in the world. If I know it, anybody can. And from your quoting the Author John C. Kings rebuttals, this story has been around for some time. Regards.

  • Achems Razor

    To Alex again: I did not say, I ever, or ever will! ingest Amanita Muscaria. I do not want anybody else to do it either! And if you read my posts properly, I had no mention of psilocybin! Regards.

  • nick

    Oh jonathan karl, the Bible says that if a man breaks any of the Laws or Commandments then they shall be put to death.As for your commandment,
    Leviticus 20:13
    If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be PUT TO DEATH; their blood [shall be] upon them.

    For you to base any of your beliefs about God on this statement, It shows that you really don't understand the Bible. When I tell you something I assure you I can give the Verses in the Bible to back it up with an understanding of the following, What the Bible's saying, Who it's talking to, and When it's being said according to God's word rightly divided. You have to answer those three question's about any verse in the Bible before you can understand it. As for arguing with an id***, I haven't called you an id*** , and I don't think of you as an id***, If you feel that way about me it's fine. As for your understanding of the Law of God, I have to say that you don't understand it and who it's pertaining to. Just so you know, that very verse your quoting has nothing to do with you in the sense of salvation.
    Romans Chapter 11: stated by the apostle Paul
    13For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

    a Gentile is someone who is not Jewish. and right now it doesn't matter if your Jewish or not as far as the way to obtain salvation goes.

    Ephesians Chapter 2: stated by the apostle Paul

    8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

    9Not of works, lest any man should boast.

    Again I state it's not something you do or don't do. It's faith in Jesus Christ. Please read the Book of Romans and understand how your salvation works. If your confused get a good teacher, If you can't find a good teacher I will post a link on hear as soon as I find a good teacher online.

    I guess the bottom line I'm trying to make is that just because someone is gay or homosexual, it doesn't sentence them to hell any more then stealing a candy bar from a convenience store or just being born for that matter. The Bible says we are born sinners. Anyway, good luck and I will pray that your heart will soften and hear the grace that God has given this world.

    And one final thought: The way people reject the Bible and God amazes me. Let's pretend if you will that tomorrow the President comes on and says in two weeks their will definitely be nuclear fallout engulfing the entire U.S. from coast to coast. The President himself has seen to it that every one has been mailed a "special" mask enough for them and their family's. All they have to do is put them on and they will be safe. I would think that most people would put those masks on, but some people would reject that idea. any way it's not a great comparison but the similarity of the two ideas should suffice.

    The point is that it's really that simple. All anyone has to do is "put on" Christ.

    Galatians Chapter 3: again stated by the apostle Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles.

    19Wherefore then [serveth] the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

    20Now a mediator is not [a mediator] of one, but God is one.

    21[Is] the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

    22But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

    23But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

    24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

    25But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

    26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

    27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

    28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

    29And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

    And just so we know how we are Baptized into Christ

    Ephesians Chapter 1:again, the apostle Paul

    13In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

    1 Corinthians Chapter 12: again, the apostle Paul

    13For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

    All I ask is that you read the above statements with an open heart and just listen to what they are saying.

  • Alex

    Jonathan Karl
    1)“Logic and reason are false and they lie a lot”? Are you serious?…lol
    --I mean you don’t even pay attention to what you read! IS THIS WHAT I SAID?? I was implying that your gods: logic and reason, are false gods, since the outcome of your logic and reason represents lies, inaccuracies, deception, poor thinking.
    2) “None of you have fully read the bible, obviously…”
    --a) Another lie of yours. I just know you never read the whole New Testament let alone the whole Bible!! You need patience for such a task and a desire for the truth. You apparently don’t have either. b) I mean you are talking to Christians and you say we haven’t read The Bible… now that’s a twist! And you say it after Nick posted so many passages from The Bible…?! Ok, whatever…
    3) “and there is one unforgivable sin, to question the existence of the holy spirit… that means if you so much as think that “god” may not exist, you have committed the one unforgivable sin.”
    --See how ignorant and foolish you are making your self look, blabbering all over the place? Where does it say that in The Bible?? Find it and rub it my face real hard would you!
    JK the unforgivable sin is defaming The Holy Spirit and His work. If you read the particular passage, Jesus says those words to those who didn’t believe in Him, actually warning them that they are close (! / hence they hadn’t fell into that sin yet, otherwise He would have told them so) to blaspheming The Holy Spirit by saying that He did His miracles with the power of the devil, while He did them with the power of The Spirit. The Holy Spirit is most sensitive issue in The New Testament. According to your blasphemous words and Jesus’warning, know that you are already damned forever (you dug your own grave!), I just pray -for your sake- His justice does not apply this punishment to your being after what you have said but that His love and longsuffering for the sinner, will keep you far from it. I suggest you do the same! I mean -out of sincere care for your soul, I have to say now, knowing what a crazy eternal death wish you just made- how can you be so stupid!!!!!!!!! HOW? For what??? Nick and I are talking to you in a manner which shows our interest for your benefit alone, and you attack God in this manner?? Honestly I am mad right now and really sad for you at the same time!
    Now there are some protestants (individuals not denominations) who arbitrarily say that rejecting the gospel/salvation is the blasphemy of The Holy Spirit… this is probably where you got your -close enough- wrong idea. They say this because they want to rid believers of such a fear (that’s because Satan wants this). They are in sin when saying things like this, since the NT is pretty clear on the nature of this blasphemy. -The world is filled with “Christian” misquotes and misrepresentation, the Holy Spirit is so saddened by them.
    4) “Jesus even said to gather all those who do not wish for him to be king and have them brought to him and put to death…”
    --If you find that too in the Bible, please rub it in my face! You probably had in mind half of Jesus’ words (as usual) regarding… judgement day!
    This will be applied at judgement Day!
    5) “it also says in the bible that if man lies with another man, he should be put to death…”
    --This is true. It is God’s game and the rules are His! (I just happen to agree for many reasons that it is not natural nor ethical [going against nature//Yeah don’t tell me about animals because a)you are not one b)you’d be amazed what other things animals do!].) God from the beginning wanted man and woman together. Anything else is an abomination to Him. I hope you are not a homosexual (you already mentioned sexual orientation/homosexuality before that is, so it makes me wonder…).
    6) “…and why would a “god” existing outside of time and being all knowing create a race of people to test their “faith”,”love”, or “belief” in him, when he would have already known the outcome?”
    --See, again, you think you know what you are talking about when you have no clue. But let me ask you a question. If God already knows the outcome of our lives, doesn’t this logically mean He sees it somewhere? It does. Are we there as well?? If so..... -Figure it out if you can and you'll have your answer.
    Really, may The Holy Spirit just forgive you... this is our sincere desire.

  • Alex

    Achem’s razor, hi!
    You write:
    1) “My belief to me is more plausible then unscientific fairy tales that were written when it was thought the earth was flat and the center of the universe.”
    --Well, the bible doesn’t teach that. Read my comment on June 6 point 5.
    2) Your following words don’t make sense, anyway:
    “Re: Side effects: I guess that is why God said to the woman not to eat of the fruit as you will surely die. Or was it to gain more wisdom?”
    --You tell me! Or do you expect me to tell you?
    3) “But the serpent said you will not die. Apparently she lived. Where is the power?”
    --a) What power are you talking about??? b) Anyway, by God saying that they would die, He apparently meant, die spiritually, that is, become cut off by him. They were thrown out and had to live a life of struggle and survival (as we -their descendants- do).
    4) “You can get possible side effects from anything you ingest into your body. I will name just one. ASPIRIN….”
    --True. But a) I never said only these mushrooms have side effects! So your comment is irrelevant, needless. b) Aspirin is not accused of being a religion starter like the “magic” mushroom is! Not yet anyway ?!
    5) “The magic mushroom Amanita Muscaria story is not the best kept secret in the world.”
    --Yes it is. I mean, if all religions started from it, why is there no mention of it being their originator from the beginning of religions? Doesn’t, no body saying anything about it, mean: a) that if it were true, it is the best kept secret throughout almost all of history? Or b) that it is simply not true, but another fairy tail created to yield a portion of believing people far from Christianity? This idea about that mushroom being the creator of religions is at most 100-200 years old!
    6) “If I know it, anybody can.”
    --No, the idea (!) of magic mushrooms being the originator of religions is a new thing! One that we may hear about today. But it is a story absent in ancient and pre-modern history.
    7) “And from your quoting the Author John C. Kings rebuttals, this story has been around for some time. Regards.”
    --Well, I gave (give or take) 100-200 years. Ok, I’ll add 500 years more! Again, so what?? 1300 years no one mentioned this religion starter.
    8) True you did not mention Psilocybin, but I did, so what's the big deal? I mentioned it because it causes the mushroom's hallucinating effect and to make known the great dangers of it, something that again hinders strongly the idea that it was a religion starter!
    9) Something very important as well is that fly agarics nor their host trees are found in the middle east
    God bless you!

  • Nameless

    Alex : It is God’s game and the rules are His!

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

    This piece of quote is for everyone to serve as a warning that whoever in their sane minds indulges themselves with an argument with this guy called "Alex" is going to end up regretting.

    Please go through his earlier truckload of bible crap just to get a glimpse of his profoundly stubborn ignorance. From here on rest is people's choice !

    Alex .. Dude cease ...

  • Joe

    This film should not be removed.

    I stopped after 5 minutes into the film.
    It sounded like Sunday sermons, which I know too well, and I began to doze off.

    I find these comments to be more interesting.
    Sharing ideas are always so so elevating.

    But people let's not become like Catholics, Protestants,
    Evangelists, *Ush, *Ews,*Uslims, and any other proud groups who use ignorance, insecurity, blindness, self-righteousness,
    and fear to attack others.

    IF YOU DO NOT HEED MY COMMANDS YOU WILL BE FOREVER
    CONDEMNED TO ETERNAL FIRE OF HELL.

    So lets hold hands, sing, and dance around the fire.

  • Joe

    You just gotta laugh.Those who follow a religion should be taken out in the street a bummed in public.

  • Alex

    Joe,
    society should thank God there aren't many of you around:
    You write:
    "But people let’s not become like Catholics, Protestants, Evangelists, *Ush, *Ews,*Uslims, and any other proud groups who use ignorance, insecurity, blindness, self-righteousness,
    and fear to attack others"
    ...and then describe and expose yourself:
    "Those who follow a religion should be taken out in the street a bummed in public."
    What a role model!! What an inspiring nice person!! Look, you care nothing about morality (obviously), so don't be a hipocrate with the "dance around the fire" bit. You are just exposing your hate filled self, something not surprising at all.

    Nameless,
    You quote me in saying: "It is God’s game and the rules are His!". This is just a fact, and in its context it served its purpose. It is not my made up argument. This is Christianity, like it or not, and indeed this is what people must realize in time.
    Regarding my "profoundly stubborn ignorance" as you say, my comments are all there for anyone to see... and figure both of us out.
    You too are filled with hate. You too need God, way more than you can imagine.
    God bless you both!

  • Achems Razor

    to Alex: Greetings. I will address your rebuttals one by one. 1= I did not say the bible taught that, it was the limit of knowledge at that time, or at least the limit of knowledge the power that be, wanted the masses to have at that time. 2= I know what you mean, what I meant was by ingesting the fruit of wisdom will open up the secrets of the universe, and of hidden spiritual knowledge only allowed by god. 3= Again, I know what you mean. But I should mention god also said by eating of the fruit you will become like gods. Thats what I meant by where is the power. 4= I am not accusing anything, I am relaying information. 5= No it was not the best kept secret. Read, Sacred Mushroom and The Cross. Read, Magic Mushrooms in Religion and Alchemy. Read, In Apples of Apollo. 6= It is not new at all. It is written in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Also is the Soma talked about in the ancient Rig Veda texts of India, book IX. 3000 years ago. 7= “Your Quote” I gave (give or take) 100-200years, OK, Ill add 500 years more! again so what?? 1300 years no one mentioned this religion starter…..You are postulating a time span to suit your fancy, which is a blatant unconvincing pseudo-argument from your vague authority. I consider your argument MOOT! 9= There was no number 8 on your post. This rebuttal I will grant you but I am still looking. regards.

  • Joe

    Dear dear Alex

    First of all, I have no idea what you are trying to say.
    And second, you are a bit confrontational.
    Lastly, "You just gotta laugh.Those who follow a religion should be taken out in the street a bummed in public." I never wrote that. A reasonable explanation would be that there is another ID with "Joe" who made that comment.

    Now that is out of the way...

    You speak of "morality", "hypocrisy", "hate fill self", and
    "you too need god(note "g"-not capitalized)".
    First, look them up in a dictionary (free internet) and learn their meanings. And once you comprehend their slightest meanings then use them carefully in your life because these words are very tricky. They will deceive you.

    Hope I didn't belittled you (eye for an eye?).

    All I am saying is that you like apples and I like oranges.
    Let's not throw expensive fruits at each other but lets just
    make a nice fruit salad.

    Doesn't that sound yummy?
    Or is the bible too deep in your ass to understand reason?

  • Alex

    Max, hi!
    Sorry, I didn't realize I didn't comment on you 2nd paragraph:
    So (you write),
    1)"If God created the universe he must exist outside of the universe."
    True, but why mustn't He exist inside it as well? See it this way: If a woman is pregnant, yes she is "outside" the baby, "sorrounding" it, and at the same time the baby is inside her and she is connected to it to the point that the baby's life depends on her nurishment, protection etc. for it is connected to "her" laws of nature.
    Likewise,why should it be that the universe/energy bare no connection whatsoever to the creator?
    Another way of looking at it is: God is one dimension, unto which all other dimensions are attached and owe all the aspects of their existence to. In an -let's say- "infinite" (not exactly infinite) microscopic level all is sustained by God's power/existence. He can practically interweave with us whenever He chooses to.
    2) "It is not logical to exist with in the universe and create the universe at the same time."
    See the axamples again. Seems logical to me.
    3)"He must therefore transcend the universe."
    He does transcend the universe, but in what manner? Knowledge and ability (and we can add: time).
    But this transcendence does not cut Him off from us. Logically why must it? Think Max, is there anything outside God? Is He smaller than anything? No. Hence, "Outside of God", is a contradiction in terms. Therefore, everything created is derivative of His Essence... THAT'S ALL THERE IS: His Essence... HE COMPOSES SPACE (this is how He is omni-present). There is nothing outside of His Space, if you can imagine that (this is how dimensions are). Now, His Essence has levels of expressions in microscopic and macroscopic creation (probably infinite levels of expression). It is His energy that takes up various of forms whether it is from a quark in an atom to the biggest planet/sun in space to all (!)that connects the two (His "space"/self).
    Hope I've helped.
    May He give you His increase.

  • Alex

    Joe,
    1) Two Joes' on the same day, one hour apart. Well, Vlatco can clear that up for us.
    2) I am not confrontational but I can be. If you read all my comments you'll get a more balanced idea. Also don't forget that most are on the attack something that I have to "confront"; I am not disrespecting anybody, but there comes a time when arrogance crosses the line and things must be out in the open. There are people behind "arrogant arguments" and at some time I will let them know what I see in them... just a)so they know someone discerns their real self, b)they are helped to see their real self, and c)someone exposes them. But why should I go to the hassle? Because they are attempting to destroy truth, just because they are too immature to handle it. A truth that is actually the greatest blessing one can apply... the Gospel of Jesus Christ unto their salvation. -Christians (and Biblical Christianity) become mocked, cursed, kicked around, disrespected, (killed in other cases) hence being "a bit confrontational" means nothing to me, as long as everybody knows that I -at least- believe that I am serving your best interests (eternal life far far from eternal condemnation), something I've made clear. If you knew the truth Joe, you'd thank me, everybody would.
    God bless you Joe!

  • Alex

    Max sorry,
    in the last sentence I meant to write:
    It is His energy, that manifests in the greatest variety of forms; whether it is in the form of a quark in an atom or in the form of the biggest planet/sun in space, or in the form of all that connects the two, it is His energy that is applied and manifested.
    (Hope it's clearer)

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    Hi guys,

    I'm very sorry for the little mess up in the comments here (especially to Achems Razor). The reason is that TDF was undergoing transfer to a new host and all ended up very successfully except that I lost 4-5 new comments today on several posts during the transfer. Some of them I managed to restore but 1 or 2 comments were permanently lost. Uuuups.

    Again I'm very sorry for the inconvenience but now TDF should run faster and smoother.

    Cheers

  • nick

    Okay, for anybody who wants to learn about and study the Bible I think that these audio files should help. My recommendation is to start with the Study of Romans. The guy talking has a good understanding of the Bible. Also, I suggest using windows media player so that you can use the graphic equalizer to clean up the sound a bit. Anyone who doesn't know how to do this follow these direction. Open media player and go to the top where it says view, select enhancements and then open the graphic equalizer. The eq should pop up at the bottom of the media screen. Now, turn on the eq and then set the sliders to move independent of one another, their are three options to choose from when it comes to the sliders. Now set all of the sliders to the very bottom except 2,4,8, and 16 KHz, move these 4 sliders all the way up to the top. This should clean up the audio and allow you to understand the speech clearly. You can play around with them if you like to try an tweek it to your individual speakers. Anyway, good luck to those of you who try and seek the truth of God's word.

  • Achems Razor

    Hi Vlatko: I have my post back. Thank you for your great docs...."No Harm. no Foul"

  • Alex

    Achem's razor,
    thanks for your time.
    (my comments after the three dashes)
    1= I did not say the bible taught that, it was the limit of knowledge at that time, or at least the limit of knowledge the power that be, wanted the masses to have at that time.
    ---True. It just seemed you wanted to make that connection. Sorry, if you didn’t.

    3= Again, I know what you mean. But I should mention god also said by eating of the fruit you will become like gods. Thats what I meant by where is the power.
    ---No God didn’t say that to them. The devil did. God later said that “they have become like us”, that is, in the knowledge of good and evil.

    4= I am not accusing anything, I am relaying information.
    ---Yes, but the aspirin bit (as information, its side efects etc.) was irrelevant.

    5= No it was not the best kept secret. Read, Sacred Mushroom and The Cross. Read, Magic Mushrooms in Religion and Alchemy. Read, In Apples of Apollo.
    ---Achem’s razor, the bit about people using Amanita Mascaria for “personal” and religious reasons, is not of importance and it is not the “best kept secret” in history as the writer is talking about. The best kept secret would have been that Am. Masc. was the originator of all religions as you believe. There is no such proof. But again if it was, then it is the best kept secret since thousands of years no body ever said anything about it being such (religion originator [not just favourite -though dangerous- pass time] ). Showing an icon of Christ holding something like a nushroom or even that particular one, is just the artists (way later!!!) hidden input based on his ideas; it comes nothing close to being serious evidence. No father of the church ever gave even a hint on it.

    6= It is not new at all. It is written in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Also is the Soma talked about in the ancient Rig Veda texts of India, book IX. 3000 years ago.
    ---Again, see my previous comment. Even if we had a manuscript that said “This religion originated from the use of the magic mushroom”. This doesn’t mean it did (!), and it certainly doesn’t mean that all other religions did either!! I mean, Christianity started from mushrooms?… Has anyone of those making such ludicrous accusations ever read the “fathers” of the church (of the first century even) on Christianity, or even just the New Testament for that matter???????? Please!

    7= “Your Quote” I gave (give or take) 100-200years, OK, Ill add 500 years more! again so what?? 1300 years no one mentioned this religion starter…..You are postulating a time span to suit your fancy, which is a blatant unconvincing pseudo-argument from your vague authority. I consider your argument MOOT!
    ---No. You obviously didn’t grasp the fact that I was referring to the mushroom being the originator of all religions. I was not just talking about the use of the mushroom by some. I hope that now it is cleared up.
    -“Moot” as in controversial? No it isn’t. The mushroom idea is one of the worst case scenarios that arbitrary hearsay (!) has to offer!

    9= There was no number 8 on your post. This rebuttal I will grant you but I am still looking. regards.
    ---I had placed an eight it was just automatically replaced by a smiley face. That was number eight.

    Don’t just react “Achem”, give time and think it over.
    God bless you!

  • nir

    Hi all,

    In order for the "Elite" to master us all they need to use the method of "Divide & Conquer".
    The best way to do so is by religions. All over the world there are many religions and all of them are meant to "wash" their belivers brain and by that to manipulate them to do what ever the rabbi/priest/maharaga/kaddi/ayatulla tells them to do (many times it involves murder of "enemies" to the religion).

    This way of dividing the world into many religions that hate each other is very good for the "Elite" group and very bad for all the rest of us.

    We should unite and stop the hate. this is the only way we have a chance.

    Peace & Love to you all

  • Alex

    Vlatco,
    thank you for removing Jonathan Karl's obscene blasphemy towards Christ and The Holy Spirit!
    God bless you for it!

  • Alex

    Nir welcome!
    1)Religion is not the mother of all evil. A spiritual force (satan and the forces of darkness) and man's corrupt heart, is the mother of all evil. Satan is the master mind behind all religions (not necessarrily their followers) other than Biblical Christianity in order "divide and conquer man" man away form God's salvation.
    The devil can use anything, politics, money, governments, and yes, religious people.
    2) I agree that an elite group is behind alot of things.
    I also believe that all religions can be influenced from a variety of sources, but to a small scale. Think that people who are religious come from all walks of life (classes/education etc.). They just can't all be munipulated, and it only needs just a few to wake the others up! I mean, ok, -for the sci fi, rather religion fiction (re fi :) )- let's say their priests can be "pursuaded" (financially), but all of their followers?? To do what exactly? No, this is too theoretical, to simple, I can't accept it.
    3) Most of the dividing is done by man's ignorance, hatred, arrogance, self love.
    4) Biblical Christianity never conquered anyone by the sword. NEVER. So Nir, give it a chance, learn about it
    God bless you!

  • Alex

    Nir,
    you also write:
    "All over the world there are many religions and all of them are meant to “wash” their belivers brain and by that to manipulate them"
    Have you ever thought that you yourself have been brainwashed into believing that?? Have you ever really thought about it? If you have been brainwashed into this position of yours, then do you know that you are spreading around an evil propaganda? Just a good theory, think it over.
    God bless you!

  • Joe

    Dear Nir

    I just would like to add to your comment.
    It seems to me religion starts good and natural to human. Every early civilization had some sort.
    But as time passes the religion transforms into something
    different. It's like gentle stream becoming roaring river. They might seem same but they are quiet different.

    And it is so easy to misunderstand and abuse religion.
    At modern time we see too many examples of this.

    Long time ago someone taught to love one another.
    We don't see that but rather we see people hating one another.

    I am sure that someone here can convincingly explain how love can become hate.

    Forum like here is good that we, as different as we are, can share ideas and learn.

    LETS GIVE LOVE ONE MORE CHANCE.

  • Achems Razor

    To Alex: I will address your number 6 and 7...6= You contradicted yourself. Your quote: (Even if we had a manuscript that said "this religion originated from the use of the magic mushroom" this doesn`t mean it did (!)....) That was your quote! Note your word manuscript. By your own words you have put in doubt everything written on manuscripts! Now your other quote on number 6= (...has anyone of those making such ludicrous accusations ever read the "fathers" of the church (of the first century even) on Christianity, or even just the New Testament for that matter???????? Please.....) Unquote...Why should anyone believe it! after all it was written on manuscripts. And the New testament was changed by"Constantine The Great"...7= You say I hope it is cleared up. It is not cleared up! anyone reading that will know you backed yourself into a corner! Also when you say arbitrary hearsay, The whole Bible.Bibles, the 4 gospels, and the other 30 or so gospels that are suppressed, are also arbitrary hearsay passed down by word of mouth. I am done with you. I will not reply to your posts anymore. Thank you for your time!

  • Tyler

    This was a very persuasive film and I'm glad I watched it, if only for an alternative perspective. I don't agree with anyone who thinks this should be taken down, because it's no more biased than the original.
    I'm sure the disciples were perfectly genuine in their beliefs, but I'm not taking their word for it. I need to know for myself.

  • Alex

    Achem’s razor
    Please calm down. It's not putting in a good light...
    You write:
    (regarding my point 6 and 7)
    1)“6= You contradicted yourself. Your quote: (Even if we had a manuscript that said “this religion originated from the use of the magic mushroom” this doesn`t mean it did (!)….) That was your quote! Note your word manuscript. By your own words you have put in doubt everything written on manuscripts!”
    ---What are you talking about??
    a) No, you note (!): I said “a manuscript”, one manuscript that is, not all manuscripts in general!!! Oh please!
    b) Anyone can see that my emphasis was not on the manuscript but on the supposed words on it:
    “this religion originated from the use of the magic mushroom”.
    c) You made it seem I am trashing ancient manuscripts… (go figure). It reminds me when they tried to cling on Jesus’ words in order to accuse Him of something… therefore, for this reason, I’m much obliged!
    d) I “put in doubt” those particular words because if we found just one such manuscript, on one hand IT WOULD BE THE ONLY ONE with such an outlandish statement and on the other hand it would only speak of that particular religion (I said: “THIS religion originated”), and not of all other religions!!
    (you continue)

    2) “Now your other quote on number 6= (…has anyone of those making such ludicrous accusations ever read the “fathers” of the church (of the first century even) on Christianity, or even just the New Testament for that matter???????? Please…..) Unquote…Why should anyone believe it! after all it was written on manuscripts.”
    ---Again, are you for real my friend? Nobody said don’t believe anything written on manuscripts. Read again what I just previously said.

    3) “And the New testament was changed by”Constantine The Great…”
    ---Another funny one by Dan Brown. Real scholarly of you… Anyway:
    “Constantine did not "edit" or change the New Testament in any way. Neither did the Council at Nicaea change the New Testament in any way whatsoever. This is a false rumor which has been supported by a number of people. Most famous of these is Dan Brown in his book The DaVinci Code. From a scholarly point of view the idea that the Council of Nicaea changed the New Testament is sheer nonsense. We have dozens of manuscripts in Greek of the New Testament from the second and third century--generations before Constantine was even born! If Constantine changed the New Testament or if he excised whole portions, surely there would be some evidence in these earlier manuscripts. We have a nearly complete New Testament (Codex Bezae) from about AD 300, which is before the Council of Nicaea took place. Again, there is not a shred of evidence that anything was either added to or taken from the New Testament by the Council of Nicaea. In fact, if these bishops had tried to change the New Testament, you can be assured that this move would not have been accepted by the church as a whole, for which the canon of the New Testament had already been fixed for well over one hundred years before the council was held. Add to this the fact that we have tens of thousands of quotes from the New Testament from the early church fathers. If there were some hidden or removed section of the New Testament, there would be some evidence of this fact from the innumerable quotes we have from the early Christian writers. Again, such evidence is completely lacking.”

    4) “7= You say I hope it is cleared up. It is not cleared up! anyone reading that will know you backed yourself into a corner!”
    ---Oh foolish me! I really did it this time. How I am going to get out of this mess I got myself into? ?

    5) “Also when you say arbitrary hearsay, The whole Bible.Bibles, the 4 gospels, and the other 30 or so gospels that are suppressed, are also arbitrary hearsay passed down by word of mouth.”
    ---You definitely sound too young to know anything about these things. You are just repeating what you have heard and cutting yourself with your “razor”. Real bloodshed. It is clear you have no idea. a) Gnostics suppressed?? Yeah ok..! There were no gospels suppressed; there were gospels rejected due to their foolishness, false claims, etc. But that’s a different story. Any scholar/theologian would laugh with this conspiracy theory of supposed suppression of false gospels!! I mean some “fathers” even openly took a stand against their statements! All so called “gospels” were out there for anyone to see!... And still are!!!!! And?? They pop up every Christmas and Easter!... Isn’t that just dandy!... You think it’s a coincidence? Yeah o.k.! b) Why don’t we find any manuscripts of the time that say that these “gospels” were suppressed, hidden away?

    c) gospels written over 100 and 200, after Christ’s death (!!!)… were rejected -among other reasons- due to the fact that they contradicted the four standard gospels of the first century!!

    Sorry, but these are just silly over repeated jokes. Hope I’m entertaining some Christian out there at least, or even an atheist at that!

    6) “I am done with you.”
    ---Something like that. (There was no need to overreact. But suit yourself.)
    7) “I will not reply to your posts anymore.”
    ---Indeed, time is precious.
    8) “Thank you for your time!”
    ---Thank you for yours. Glad to be of any service (hopefully)
    God bless you!

  • Alex

    Tyler hi!
    Try to see the second film posted under Zeitgeist refuted. It's called Zeitgeist Exposed. It's way more complete.
    God bless you!

  • kev

    there are many things going on like the NWO conspiricy and such but God is not one of them.

  • WTC7

    The AGE concept is a MODERN one????!!!! Ask the Mayans, for example, you silly, ignorant, poor fella! If all your claims are as valid as this one, and if the best "expert" on astronomy you could find is this White guy.... sorry, but it's hard to make anybody looking for some good challenge watch it further, it's painfully boring...

  • Alex

    WTC7 hi!
    Although I don't remember the following points you mention and where they are found in the films,
    you write (obviously quoting someone):
    1)"The AGE concept is a MODERN one????!!!!"
    If possible, I would like to know from which of the two films, and where exactly (time) is it found, so I can hear myself. Thanks.
    Also,
    2)What's wrong with the -as you say- astronomer mentioned (White)? Would other astronomers disagree with him? Is there proof for this?

  • WTC7

    Hi Alex!
    The quote I cite is said in the Zeitgeist exposed, and obviously related to the part which speaks about the way they interpret age in the Zeitgeist (certainly not in part 1 & 2, but I couldn't say which one - anyway, when I heard the author saying that I stopped watching).

    But, for example:
    White says: people were worshipping sun for a long time but usually not the sun itself but something it represents! Now, I'm sorry Alex, but if that is a statement of a scientist, that I can call myself president of the United States. People were worshipping the Sun and its various aspects since the times immemorial, NOT what it represents. Find ANY reference for ANY period and that's what you will find.

    White: the halos around heads and on crosses is not a proof that Jesus was the sun god, but simply means that sun-worshippers were paying the artist to make their work more to the liking of the latter!!! Now, Alex, please! I don't think that you would seriously want me to explain what is wrong with this statement. I could find plenty of ways to describe someone who stated it, but will try to be polite and just say that he doesn't provide a single proof or source for this incredibly unscientific statement. He says is and just moves on to a different subject.

    The last White's "pearl" that I can remember before saying to myself that I'd seen enough of this "exposure", was that age is a modern concept. I really couldn't listen to any more scientific refutal of the Zeitgeist.

    I'd seriously like to hear your opinion on the statements I mentioned above, and your honest reply as to whether you find them scientific.

  • Alex

    WTC7 HI!
    WTC7, HI!
    This about "duplicating my comment" has happened to me as well. But ok, it got through so problem solved.
    Now, first of all, I have to get something straight. I did not say I agree with all that is said on this film. I said it was definitely more complete than Zeitgeist refuted. If there are some points made that are wrong, then they are wrong. BUT if someone in the film says something that he doesn't prove, this doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong, although it can mean that. I would have to ask my self then, how important are his words at that point in the light of all else. If they are very important, then I'd have to check them out, if they aren't then, I'd stick to the bigger picture painted (most painted pictures when seen up close have some "no so good looking" details.)
    Also, I disagree with you not seeing all the parts. This in itself is very suspicious to me I must say. I just don't buy it that you felt he was so unscientific that you just turned him off. I saw all of Zeitgeist The Movie, although from the beginning it was COMPLETELY shallow propaganda to me (proven as such later by Zeitgeist Refuted to a good degree, and later on as a "case closed" by Zeitgeist exposed). You can even see my refutation on top (June 19th). I "insist" WTC7 that you give the whole thing a chance, and this, only if you are in a position (I'm talking about being in a -love for truth- position) to honestly say that Zeitgeist is proven false by it (if that's the case) or say it is so to a good point or it isn't at all false. If you are in such a position then, only then, see the whole thing. If not, you will just trash it, clinging on secondary details, just to resist it's whole message. This of course is not fair nor honest. Hence it has to do with knowing and respecting one's self as well as the truth.
    I will comment on the comments you requested in a day of two. I gotta check it out first. So keep me in mind.
    God bless you!

  • WTC7

    Hi Alex,

    I really appreciate your response, especially because I find it measured and honest, from what I can tell.

    And that brings me to something I often think about - the fact that different people with no hidden agenda and well intended often have radically opposite views on things that appear to be quite important in our lives. I'm one of those (with no hidden agenda) and for some reason, I have a feeling that you are the same. (Might be wrong but I allow my instincts take the lead from time to time :-)).

    You will forgive me if I cover some issues of my concern here, that are of general nature and that do not necessarily touch the specific points raised in Zeitgeist or its refutal. For, I'm quite certain that we both can point to claims in both documentaries, which their authors had not researched to the detail and which can be disputed by the, let's say, experts of the "opposing camps". In both "camps" you will find scientists that will substantiate their claims with some sort of evidence. Even if that means simply that the "others" have no evidence for their claims. But, Alex, let's be honest, it is all a matter of where one stands - it's my perspective, it is your perspective.... We can all refer to some expert who said this or that about an issue, and still, we will rarely be able to conclude the subject with certainty in our hearts and minds. Because we feel the need to prove that what we believe in is the ultimate truth. And that goes for you as well as for me... But we don't know, neither me nor you, if what we perceive as "truth", is really that.

    For example, I do believe in God, though in a drastically different way than you do (well, I assume). I don't believe in Christ as the Son of God (although I'm not saying he didn't exist, please note that), but do I have any evidence that this is not so? Of course I don't, and of course nobody does. It's just the way I FEEL about it. Organized religion, an institution which, in my opinion, has as much to do with God as a rocket scientist has with gardening, is just not something I can accept and adhere to just "because it's the way it is". And please, don't confuse my feelings about organized religion and what I believe to be Christian (or any other religion's) dogma, with my belief in a spiritual connection between all that exists. It may sound unacceptable to you, but to me it sounds perfectly natural.

    On the other hand, you, as a Christian (I assume), accept the Bible for the same reason - because you FEEL it is THE truth about life and existence in general. Do you have any proof to claim it's the ultimate truth? Of course you don't and of course nobody does. (With all respect, I hope you won't bring Bible as a proof here, since Jews could then bring Tora, or Muslims the Quran, or Hindus or Budhists their respective rules and regulations and all could claim the knowledge of the ultimate truth - all would be self-serving evidence recognized only by those who believe in their content).

    My point here is that we are all products of certain factors such as environment we grew up in, education, life experiences, and many others, and we cannot deny that we have been "contaminated" in one way or another and as a result reached certain conclusions which reflect that development.

    In the end, from the position where I stand, it would require evidence that shatters my deepest beliefs, my inner self, not evidence that proves Zeitgeist wrong in details. Because, you see, it is not important whether there are connections between Horus and Christ, or any of the other connections mentioned in the Zeitgeist or refuted in the above documentary, these details are secondary for someone with my beliefs (I don't see Zeitgeist as the ultimate truth to the detail, you know, Zeitgeist is not my religion). It's the Zeitgeist 's ultimate message, which bids farewell to the dogmatic, eternal, "truths" and world views, and opens the doors to the hearts and minds of those who are fed up with them, that is appealing and attractive.

  • Ben Newman

    This documentary is just plain retarded. Desperate Christian apologetics will go to insane lengths to hold on to their imaginary fantasies.

    God is imaginary, and the story of Jesus is fictional - any rational adult can see it. Grow up!

  • Joe

    Dear WTC7

    Enjoyed your comment. It respected both views.
    But I have to say that sometimes it is difficult to reason with some people who believe satan buried all those dinosaur bones. That doesn't mean that we should stop talking. Talking is always good. We just have to try to understand why and how some people use "faith" to justify their actions and arguments.

  • WTC7

    Hi Joe,

    Thank you, I really appreciate what you said. Talking is much better than fighting, otherwise what would we need the intellect for? Although, whoever was distributing it among people wasn't fair to some poor souls :-). Like to those from your example with dinosaur bones :-). Had not heard that one before :-).

  • Alex

    For WTC7 (first part),
    Getting back to you on your comment on August 11
    You write:
    1) "(certainly not in part 1 & 2, but I couldn’t say which one".
    ---Yes, but what am I suppose to do, see the whole film again, to find those words? You made the claims, so you have to provide at least where they are found, if you want me to be able to comment on them.
    2) "people were worshipping sun for a long time but usually not the sun itself but something it represents! Now, I’m sorry Alex, but if that is a statement of a scientist,"
    ---Actually it can be a statement of a scientist BUT this depends on what his sources are. The fact that he doesn't provide them (as you say) can mean that they don't exist or that they do but he didn't think it was necessary at that point or just didn’t get into it for another reason. But he does say “USUALLY” which goes to say most of the time, not all of the times. I doubt that he just conjured it up... Maybe he has sources you are just not aware of. (I said "maybe".)
    3) "the halos around heads and on crosses is not a proof that Jesus was the sun god, but simply means that sun-worshippers were paying the artist to make their work more to the liking of the latter!!! Now, Alex, please! I don’t think that you would seriously want me to explain what is wrong with this statement."
    --- Well, I’ll tell you how I see it and you can comment on my explanation if you like.
    a) Regarding the first part of the first sentence, it is simply reasonable to say that "the halos around heads and on crosses is NOT a proof that Jesus was the sun god", since this can be interpreted in different ways. I mean, is it proof to you??
    b) he continues: "but simply means that sun-worshippers were paying the artist to make their work more to the liking of the latter!!"
    ---I believe that this is just his opinion and this based on his words: "but simply means". He is not making a scientific claim. His point was to explain why -according to him- some artist painted those halos. He is not claiming his belief is a proven fact. To him, it is probably just an educated guess. So to answer your question, it is not a scientific explanation (if he can’t back it up), because it wasn’t meant to be.
    4) I look around a little and couldn’t find that about “the age concept is a modern one”. Please let me know when you find it.
    These WTC7 were -as you requested- my honest objective replies.
    Now let me ask you this:
    1) Did you realize the unscientific comments on Zeitgeist as well (some of which I exposed)?? Do you agree it is filled with such? And that it lacks many references regarding its claims?
    2) From the parts that you saw (of Zeitgeist exposed), SOME DETAILS ASIDE, you honestly can say that they were not exposing the lies of Zeitgeist (the first part)?? Did you realize the weight of the particular claims in those parts you saw?
    Please be honest.
    3) Is there any comparison to be made, in scientific research and evidence put forth by both films (Zeitgeist: The Movie and Zeitgeist Exposed)?? My answer is, there is no comparison AT ALL. Let's lay it to rest.

    Second part following.

  • Alex

    Fow WTC7 (second part)
    Now, my reply to your comment on August 13:
    To begin with, please realize that I cannot and will not repeat my self over and over. If you really want my opinion on something, please read all my comments on this thread (or even on “Zeitgeist the movie” and “Zeitgeist addendum”). This will help you and me a great deal. If you see that I don’t answer something you say, it is probably because I’ve done so elsewhere (or simply because I feel I would be wasting my time).
    Now, you write:
    1) “But, Alex, let’s be honest, it is all a matter of where one stands – it’s my perspective, it is your perspective…”
    ---True to some degree. The problem is found on that: “where one stands”. That is, am I standing on where I feel comfortable (for various reasons), or am I standing on facts? Unfortunately many times “perspectives” can be “what one prefers to see”, rather than “what one sincerely sees”. This is the problem. Non the less, the evidence remains evidence for those who can and want to see it.

    2) “We can all refer to some expert who said this or that about an issue, and still, we will rarely be able to conclude the subject with certainty in our hearts and minds.”
    ---a) Is it wise though or even fair to the truth for that matter, to imply that no one can have complete certainty on a topic such as the existence of God or Who is He? Objectively speaking, it isn’t.
    b) I would never refer “to some experts” without first being sure on where I stand and why. Yet, me citing them, is usually done when this is asked for or I find it usefull in order for one to just realize that my view has some scientific validity “outside of me” and this to help someone else to lower his guard and listen to scientific reason/facts, since my points “may not be” enough for him. I myself, don’t need the experts, I just use them. That’s the bottom line. They are just the cherry on top of the ice-cream. Not the other way around.
    c) I am 1000% certain of what I believe to be the truth, and it is not just a gut feeling driving me. I say this in all honesty before The God I believe.

    3) “Because we feel the need to prove that what we believe in is the ultimate truth. And that goes for you as well as for me…”
    ---Again though, why generalize? Why must everyone be “grey”? I would not even apply this statement on believers of other religions. I don’t have “a need to prove that what I believe is the ultimate truth” so I can feel safe, wise, special. No. I have the need to prove that what I believe is the ultimate truth simply because, I -having no doubt about it- want to help people come to salvation through it. In all sincerity it is not about me, but about them.

    4) “But we don’t know, neither me nor you, if what we perceive as “truth”, is really that.”
    ---a) It would be wise of you if you stop considering yourself the measure for everybody else. If you doubt what you believe (this is what you are actually implying), that doesn’t mean someone else who doesn’t doubt his belief is arbitrary in not doing so.
    b) I know what I believe is 100% real! As real as you are though I cannot see you nor know all the details about you. I know some few things about you which indeed are 100% correct (you are 1. a human [with all other details concerning a human, (birth, parents, etc.)], 2) You believe in some form of god [my evidence for that is your statement]). Likewise, I don’t claim to know my God 100%, but I know -without a microscopic doubt- aspects/attributes/properties of His Existence and Personality and will. What I don’t know about Him, cannot negate His person at all, just as not knowing you 100% doesn’t negate your person either.
    c) Regarding the reality of what we perceive, firstly the word “perceive” needs to be clearly defined. If you are not implying “guessing/feeling”, that is, a vague perception, a somewhat subjective one, but an actual solid perception, then, yes, you have every reason based on your perception mechanisms, that is, your senses, to accept something as reality. This issue therefore boils down to whether we can talk about “objectiveness” as a solid ability or not, whether our senses are able to perceive reality or not. In other words, are we able to be objective or are just fooled to believing we are objective by our senses or maybe a divine being? Me answer is, I have no reason at all, to doubt my ability of objectiveness, to doubt my senses. If I had such a reason, then I would have doubts regarding my perception of reality. Does anyone have scientific or any other reason to doubt the objectiveness of their senses?? Do you?? Give one solid reason. --Keep in mind by someone telling me that there are more things to see that can’t, doesn’t mean my senses have a problem, it just means that my senses were not made to see those “more things”, but to actually see the things I do see. Please read it again, so not to misunderstand my point.

    5) “I don’t believe in Christ as the Son of God (although I’m not saying he didn’t exist, please note that), but do I have any evidence that this is not so? Of course I don’t, and of course nobody does. It’s just the way I FEEL about it.”
    ---a) Ok, it is “just the way you FEEL about it”, but it, at the same time, is just contrary to what I personally have come to know about Him. But anyway, think about the following:
    ***accepting that you are being 100% precise in your wording, there are reasons “you feel” Jesus is not The Son of God. This feeling is derivative of other conscious or subconscious factors. Could those factors have originated from misinterpreted elements or phenomena, misinterpretation that became established in you maybe from a young or not so young age? This is something you have to find in you and outside of you. I mean really put yourself in the nude!
    ***But I’ll ask you a simple yet profound question (to answer to yourself), but before answering it I want you to realize the feelings (if any) that spark up when hearing it (!) just before you rationalize and compose an answer. In those feelings, the real you -along with your motives- exists. The question is: Would it bother you if you found out that Jesus Christ was indeed The Son of God? If so, why so? If not, why not?
    b) Is it possible you learned about Jesus from bad sources? Is it possible? Is it possible? Need guts to answer positive to such a question, if that is the case.

    6) “Organized religion, an institution which, in my opinion, has as much to do with God as a rocket scientist has with gardening, is just not something I can accept and adhere to just “because it’s the way it is”.”
    ---WTC7 listen to me. Don't get sucked in by propaganda.
    a) Most people who disagree with religions and use the term “organized religion” have filled it up with so much negative emotions and so little facts. They use the term over and over and don’t stop to think “what exactly is wrong with a religion being organized??” I on the other hand, disagree with religions not because they are “organized” but because of their contents, which I consider contradicting to what I know about reality. Being organized with priests or whatever means nothing to me. All “societies” within a larger secular society, need laws to maintain themeselves, hence order, hence priests of a kind to enforce them. This is reasonable and not negative in itself.
    b) If on the other hand by “organized religion” one implies a religion with a specific “organized” doctrine, again, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? WHAT'S THE FUSS ABOUT?? There is no actual problem at all!! The problem would be, if in its organized doctrine (nothing wrong with that in itself), it leads people to harm themselves or others.
    Also, the fact that some gullible religionists (not whole [!] religions!) may at times be manipulated/influenced by politicians or “conspiracists” of all kind, says absolutely nothing about that religion itself, unless its contents invite such people to do evil through them (the religionists). The only religion that fits that description to me is Satanism; don’t know of any other.
    Speaking of myself and most I know, there is no way a politician or anyone else can manipulate me in doing wrong. But hypothetically speaking, if a politician influenced me to gather many to vote for him because he promised me he will do things that I believe God finds pleasing, and after I had done so and he is elected, he turns his back on his promises, then this is not my “religions” fault, but either my poor judgements fault or his expertise in conning people! Of course if a big part of the followers of my “religion” votes for him, my religion itself will be accused by some who haven’t got a clue about how he conned us and his expertise in doing so. Did you ever think of how many people -atheists or theists- who don’t belong to any religions become influenced non the less to vote for someone who rips them off -let’s say- every four years…? If you have not thought about it, it is just because religionists are the beloved target not atheist! Atheists can be fanatics, brainwashed, organized, foolish, deceived to vote for someone etc. and -under the radar- get away with it! -So, in closing this part, it’s about people conning people, not religion.

    7) “On the other hand, you, as a Christian (I assume), accept the Bible for the same reason – because you FEEL it is THE truth about life and existence in general. Do you have any proof to claim it’s the ultimate truth? Of course you don’t and of course nobody does.”
    ---a) “Of course” :) you’re wrong, I do. As I said I don’t believe in Christ because I have a gut feeling. Revelation, experience (mine and many others), observation, evidence, all lead to that Jesus is The Son of God. Read my following comments on the issue (the least you can do since I went and picked some of them out for you):
    (write them down on a piece of paper so you don’t have to go back and forth)
    From Zeitgeist Addendum: July 5th point 12 / July 14th point 40. //// From this thread: June 20th 21:42 (read from where I say: “So, the idea…”, and after) / June 21st 21:15 point 2 (note 3-4) / July 6th 18:52 point 9 and (in the next comment) point 11, July 9th 20:01 point 2 / August 1st 23:02 (all of it) / August 2nd 23:06 (all of it)/ August 3rd 16:17 point 1.
    The best thing for me is that you read all my comments at least here on “refuted”. I believe they will all benefit you to a good degree.
    b) What to you, would compose proof of the ultimate truth?? This is one of the most important key questions there are!! This is the question that most -if not all- of those who oppose Christianity dodge. I know why. Note that if you don’t answer this with a clear answer, YOU CAN NEVER SAY TO ANYONE THAT THEY DON’T HAVE “SUCH” PROOF.

    8. "(With all respect, I hope you won’t bring Bible as a proof here, since Jews could then bring Tora, or Muslims the Quran, or Hindus or Budhists their respective rules and regulations and all could claim the knowledge of the ultimate truth – all would be self-serving evidence recognized only by those who believe in their content)."
    ---No. They don’t have evidence of the reality of their God in their Scriptures. Even if they did, objectively, this alone cannot negate the Biblical evidence for The Biblical God. See the comments I cited for you, to get a small glimpse.

    9) "In the end, from the position where I stand, it would require evidence that shatters my deepest beliefs, my inner self, not evidence that proves Zeitgeist wrong in details."
    ---a) Of course, I totally agree! We talk about Zeitgeist simply because this is what we are suppose to do here to begin with.
    b) What would “evidence that shatter your deepest beliefs” etc, be composed most likely of?? This is THE QUESTION THAT DEMANDS AN HONEST ANSWER! So we don’t go around in circles saying “this is evidence!”… “no it’s not!” and so on.

    WTC7, I did more than you probably bargained for in answering your comments (in two parts). The least you can do, is understand my words, and be 100% honest towards them as you believe you are towards the truth. Time will tell.
    Till then,
    may God give you his increase.

  • Gordon

    When "Christ" (greek misunderstanding of "annointed"- all jewish kings were thus "CHRISTS")Returns, the first people- after the shady power elite- to dismiss & even HATE him will be Christians. He's points the way to achieving oneness with God, but will waste no time on those "Believers" who think just by believing a dead teacher existed you a achieve eternal life..... funny the sh!t some people believe!!. You gotta change, be a caring person & crush your false ego as he did OR WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT HIM!!!!! apart from sentimental mistranslations & even doctored (HEARD ABOUT THE COUNCIL OF NICEA) sayings from the bible. By the way he won't be called "Jesus" either, AS he wasn't then- a more correct translation of his name into English is Joshua, forget the greek translation into "jesus"...LOL!!!MORONS!!!!!wake up to yourselves.

    Cristianity has been utterly useless & even a tool used by self-serving tyrants to control the masses for hundreds of years. Don't believe me study history more. praise jesus?... lol.

  • Nameless

    To WTC7:
    ------------------

    WTC - 8. “(With all respect, I hope you won’t bring Bible as a proof here, since Jews could then bring Tora, or Muslims the Quran, or Hindus or Budhists their respective rules and regulations and all could claim the knowledge of the ultimate truth – all would be self-serving evidence recognized only by those who believe in their content).”

    Alex
    —No. They don’t have evidence of the reality of their God in their Scriptures. Even if they did, objectively, this alone cannot negate the Biblical evidence for The Biblical God. See the comments I cited for you, to get a small glimpse.

    . . .

    WTC7 I feel sorry for you, but it seems you have thrown a stone in the mud. Refer to my and several other's earlier comments explicitly warning sane minds not to indulge themselves with this idiot.

    Look at the amount of ignorance this idiot has and how shamelessly and desparately he keeps defending his version of God using absolute nonsense and horse crap. He thinks only Bible has evidence of reality in their scriptures and rest of the religion doesnt when it is so certain that this moron doesnt even know a single shit about any other religion or their religious books with the precision of an insider knowledge. I mean does he even know anything about Hindu mythology or Vedic knowledge or Buddhist principal stages of life.If he had studied with an unbiased approach about all the religions he wont be saying this kind of illiterate statement with such confidence. So "fundamentalist".

    And in the second line he says "even if they did it doesnt negate this alone cannot negate the Biblical evidence for The Biblical God." See he is not even sure of what he said earlier. Trying to justify the proof of Bible using comments from the Bible. And then at the same time accepting that scriptures from other religious books cannot be cited as the truth or for that matter even cannot accepted as evidence for their respective religion.

    This is just a brief demonstration of what you are dealing with. Ofcourse if one tries and has all the time in the world , can actually sit and rip all his claims and statements for eternity but no one has the amount of mental patience nor privileged time to reply this tireless fundamentalist.

    I think WTC7 that you have mentioned some valuable points in your earlier comments but I just think you were a little too quick in coming up with this idea that Alex is not a part of some hidden agenda. If you have noticed this guy doesnt have anything to share on documentaries from various topics expect for those dealing with Christianity.

    Please check the above discussions where people gave up on a rational discussion because of his perpetual irrational circular logic.

  • WTC7

    Alex,

    What a miserable little piece of work you are!

    Do you really think I'm going to sit and answer to all this nonsence you wrote????

    YOU want to help others?! I think you should ask your god to help YOU, it is obvious that you urgently need it.

    Nameless - I absolutely accept your criticizing me for having attempted to discuss with this guy. But I'm still convinced that he's not part of any hidden agenda - he's just simply stupid.

  • WTC7

    Nameless - ... and yes you're right, he's a fundamentalist too, a stupid fundamentalist.

  • Alex

    I love you too guys!
    You are really intelligent, objective, kind, considerate, mature, "believers in a god". Anyone can see that from your comments :)
    I had a feeling this was a set up. But anyway those who are truely intelligent will realize that you did this just because you couldn't handle me. You JUST COULDN'T handle me, that is, your arrogance and ignorance couldn't.
    Are you from the same "religious club" by the way?

    Vlatco,
    these guys are really trashing this thread. They are a real turn off to serious discussion.
    Now garbage aside...
    could it be that WTC7, Nameless, Achem's razor, and Vilya, are the same person?????????????? This is my hunch(...), I gotta to check it out...

    Pity just pity.
    May God forgive you (I have)
    ...but all liars will end up in hell.
    So, unfortunately, you will not have the "Last" laugh.

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    Yeap. This discussion begins to deteriorate and if it continues I will have to close the comments on this post.

  • Alex

    Achem's razor,
    1) Would you write a book and it mention another book in a good way, when you want that book "banned"?
    2) If others after you, way later, wanted that book definitely "banned" but not yours, wouldn't they try to erase any mention of that book from your boook as well?
    3) If some wanted these books banned from the Bible, would they allow these books to be circulating among the people (as they did!)? These books were always around!
    4) Why would you "ban" a book that does not contradict or add anything of special importance to the rest of what is said in the Bible? The fact that angels came in contact with humans is mentioned in the Bible as well!
    5) Could there be a more simple answer, instead of conspiracy to hide (...?) something?
    A simple thought: There are already 50 books in the Old Testament, what would the reason be to add more? On the other hand if you believe these books were inspired by God, then could it be that God didn't want them to be included, simply because they didn't add anything needed for all times, but were inpired for purposes of a particular period, not for all ages?
    6) Is it possible that God wanted those books to be included, but He -ooops!- couldn't manage it? Please people! Be sensible, not gullible.
    ...Much much more can be said!
    I told you to watch yourself with that razor! :)
    God bless you!

  • Achems Razor

    Alex: I am not exactly illiterate, but I have no idea what you are talking about! Nor do I want to know! If you have concerns, ask "You Tube" It is their Video's. End of discussion!

  • Alex

    Vlatko hi!
    From my perspective, most readers and participators do not go to the trouble of reading all previous comments. If they read the last ones and see the discussion deteriorating then this will turn them off, that is, it will make them be afraid of posting a comment since they see a lot of “trampling over” already, something that is a waste of precious time and space. Especially if he is a Christian or from another religion he will think it twice or three times before commenting (maybe this is their agenda...). Even if he is just an honest person with dignity and respect for others, searching for answers, again, this kind of “filthy war” will tire him out eventually. I mean I find this thread a complete waste of time if “it becomes restricted” only to atheists and others who curse, lie, and just don’t want to hear the other side. If the people who participate promote civilized discussion then this can benefit all sides in the long run. So my opinion, is just give a test run for a little while and if it continues to deteriorate, then -I agree with you- do what you have to do, but at least don’t take off the comments already posted or even just those you think represent the kind of civilized material you want to be read on this thread. I disagree with Nameless when he says: “But still as an honest feedback , I will suggest you to keep all the posts coming (whether they are stupid,vulgar,irrational or rationally debate intensive)……………. Let the discussions deteriorate.”
    No. Honesty is not enough. People have to learn to respect those who hear them and those who respond to them. They can't just enforce their language on others, especially since this is not done in their "house", but in somebody else's (Vlatko's). They can say anything (!) but in a wise measured manner. Then He adds:
    “This way it helps the reader to make up their own minds when they start following a thread. Let them see all the sides irrespective of the gravity or the seriousness of the posts.”
    I disagree. The reader can “make up his mind” when listening and taking part in a civilized conversation. The fact that I choose not to curse at anybody or make them to be trash, doesn’t mean my arguments are less interesting or accurate or passionate or helpful. People who resort to trash talk need to resort to it (!) because they are uncivilized or immature or hate filled or just want to win a discussion by projecting their emotions with out sound arguments in order to fog what is actually happening. Why should they -at the expense of others- be given the right to?? Anyway Vlatko, I hope my view has been of help to you. As I said, the "house" is yours. God bless you!

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    Thanks Nameless for your sincere comment .

    I already answered to Alex that you and others mentioned are different persons.

    I'll live the thread open unless it deteriorates heavily.

    Cheers

  • Alex

    Achem's razor,
    sorry about my comment on August 15th. It was to a degree irrelevant. I had something else in mind when I saw your link. Again, sorry.

  • Adrian Bledsoe

    Hmmm. I thought the number one most commented Doc would be a good one. This was a waste of my time. The narrator even sounded mentally i'll. It was a challenge to listen to him drone for an hour and a half. Also if you actually think about it, you'll find that most of you that are arguing to support the same side of the story in your comments. So thank you Top Documentary Films for a real gem.

  • http://TYSPK.com Ashangel

    This is a joke, just face it, religion and facts will never be compatible. What a waste of everyones time.

    "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it 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." - Steven Weinberg (Nobel prize winner and world renound physicist)

    I'm sorry if you're religious.

    I'm not sorry if I've offended you.
    I'm just sorry if you're religious

  • Joe

    Dear Vlatko

    Please do not close. Even though it seems like it is deteriorating into one-sided badgering there are people like myself who appreciate frank and passionate discussions.
    It seems like there are many against a lone fundamentalist. I hope more people can join in to even out the ratio.

    I, myself, is 90% Christian, 2% atheist, 2% Buddhist, 2% spiritual, 2% Muslim, and 100% logical. And I live under a fundamentalist government, enforced by idealists, and surrounded by liberals.

    First time I saw Zeitgeist was 5 years ago. It was absolutely eye opening. Since I was a born again christian the doc had hit a very sensitive cord. I asked many fundamentalists around me about my new found knowledge. Suddenly, I became a devil worshiper. Even my own mother seemed very troubled by me and I tried to convince myself that the doc is a work of satan. You see, it is very hard, if not impossible, to "un-faith" oneself when all your life you been taught to just accept and believe and if you don't you will go to hell for eternity. But, slowly, my hunger for reason and logic prevailed over my "faith". As I dug for more information I realized there were all these books that I had to read - being an atheist is a hard work. One day I discovered a doc by Richard Dawkins. It was brilliant and less time consuming.

    RD really challenges your mind to investigate; both science and religion. I was angry at religion but through websites and forums such as yours now I try to be a more open minded person.

    Keep up the good work here!

    Dear Alex

    As long as you not b/shitting I would love to read your comments.

  • Alex

    Joe hi! (again?)
    Are you the same Joe I’ve already responded to above?
    You write:
    1) “Dear Alex
    As long as you not b/shitting I would love to read your comments.”
    ---a) You’re not doing me any favour you know! So what's with the attitude? With what right do you address me in this manner?? Have I done anything to you?? Where did you see “b/shitting” in any of my comments?? If someone disagrees with you he must be “b/shitting”?? Or maybe you think you can intimidate me???????????? YOU CAN’T!! How old are you? 20-23? Please!
    b) It sounds like: “Dear Alex, As long as you not b/shitting I would love to attack you like most others! Just give me a chance!” Take your best shot!
    c) I see your hate as well.

    2) “…there are people like myself that appreciate frank and passionate discussions”.
    I do too (as you can see), but respectful frank and passionate. If someone wants to get in a “fist fight”, this is not the place to do it, that is, if the purpose of discussion is truth not disrespect in order to hide ignorance.

    3) “It seems like there are many against a lone fundamentalist. I hope more people can join in to even out the ratio.”
    ---I don’t need anyone’s help. All I ask for is honesty and a civilized discussion, and we can disagree on anything! No problem!

    4) “I, myself, is 90% Christian, 2% atheist, 2% Buddhist, 2% spiritual, 2% Muslim, and 100% logical.”
    ---Please clarify what a 90% Christian is….

    5) “First time I saw Zeitgeist was 5 years ago. It was absolutely eye opening. Since I was a born again christian the doc had hit a very sensitive cord.”
    ---a)You were “a born again Christian” and now you are 90% Christian 2% Buddhist, etc.?? I have news for you Joe, that I’m probably going to pay for, but no problem: You were never born again by God. At most your church made you think you were “born again” (maybe you agree). Think about it please. I have seen too many of those. This is the pseudo Christianity that so many churches today cultivate. The reasons is false theologies. Hence, they make “Christians”, instead of The Holy Spirit making them. Just for the record Joe, being “born again” is a process completed by receiving The Holy Spirit in you. Having repented and believed and maybe even seen God’s Hand occasionally and going to church, reading the Bible, is not being born again.
    b) I was wondering, how old were you 5 years ago? I ask because it does matter. Answer if you want of course.

    6) “I asked many fundamentalists around me about my new found knowledge. Suddenly, I became a devil worshiper. Even my own mother seemed very troubled by me and I tried to convince myself that the doc is a work of satan.”
    ---a) Joe, someone being a fundamentalist pastor or teacher, doesn’t mean he knows how to answer issues such as Zeitgeist. So, they just throw at you what silly (many times) little they know. I mean, there are apologists for such issues. To them Zeitgeist (the first part) is an “case closed” topic.
    b) I understand though, that you were surprised with the reactions of others, but I believe their intentions were good (although that’s not enough).
    c) Have you seen “Zeitgeist exposed”? It’s the first one on top of the page of Zeitgeist Refuted. Vlatko changed the order. Zeitgeist refuted is good too, but “Exposed” is more complete. Do see it if you haven’t.
    d) Since you believe the first part of Zeitgeist, what to you is Jesus Christ and the apostles?

    7) “You see, it is very hard, if not impossible, to “un-faith” oneself when all your life you been taught to just accept and believe and if you don’t you will go to hell for eternity.”
    ---a) Not really. If one’s faith, does not have a strong foundation in truth (it has many aspects/parameters), it becomes “shaken” pretty easy. One must understand that most Christians work on improving their understanding of God and His will, rather than improving their understanding of -let’s say- the atheists’ amo (if you know what I mean). This is COMPLETELY normal! So, when someone confronts them with “ideas” like Zeitgeist, they are not in a position to answer. This though, doesn’t mean they are stupid, or that their belief is wrong, it just means they have not searched to find answers on such issues, simply because they don’t care about it and this because they have seen the God of Christianity in their life so many times, that ideas like Zeitgeist seem to be irrelevant, absurd. Some Christians though, do both: understand God and His will as well as understand “the other side of the story”.
    b) Although it usually doesn’t happen that way (…) in reality, being “taught to just accept and believe and if you don’t you will go to hell for eternity.” is not a Christian way of dealing with anything I must insist!!! Most of the times, from my experience, this is just how atheists smother Christians. O.k. maybe this is how one’s family deals with things they can’t answer, but to generalize and say that all the elders and pastors and teachers do this, is just a suspicious injustice. Even if the leaders of a church don’t care much about such issues, they will never prevent (by rule) prevent someone from doing his own research.

    8) “But, slowly, my hunger for reason and logic prevailed over my “faith”.”
    Reason and logic never prevails over a reasonable and logical faith. NEVER.
    What actually happened is that your “reason and logic” prevailed over your very weak in foundation faith, unless you can prove otherwise.

    9) “As I dug for more information I realized there were all these books that I had to read – being an atheist is a hard work.”
    a) Ok, but you did not realize that there just as many books countering them. think that if you, you’d be a different you now.
    b) Being a Christian is hard work too.

    10) “One day I discovered a doc by Richard Dawkins. It was brilliant and less time consuming.
    RD really challenges your mind to investigate; both science and religion.”
    ---If you don’t mind I’d like for you to give me the best -according to you- principle from Richard Dawkin’s book/s which may have made you “less of a Christian” after reading it.

    Well Joe, these were my comments that you’d “love to here” .
    Do what you have to do, but at least try to be “100% logical” while you’re at it; if respectful as well, it would be much appreciated.
    God bless you!

  • Alex

    Joe,
    In point 9 a) 2nd sentence, I meant to write: Ok, but you did not realize that there just as many books countering them. I think that if you were aware of them, you’d be a different you now.
    Sorry.

  • Gordon

    "Reason and logic never prevails over a reasonable and logical faith. NEVER.
    What actually happened is that your “reason and logic” prevailed over your very weak in foundation faith, unless you can prove otherwise."

    What the hell is a "reasonable & logical faith" There is seldom ever such a thing, you either KNOW from direct contact(meditation etc),observance of the cosmos should convince the intelligent... or you "believe"/"have faith"- which is typically always either fear-based, peer-pressured or "cultured", or just a sentimental fancy built on sandy shores.

    why pull this guy down cos he wants to use his intellect & reason to look into & test things out for his own???,
    instead of just believing what others give him as most do.

    One thing, you use the word " atheist" a lot, some of the most kindest & considerate people I know are such. Are they going to "hell" cos they don't "believe" ... NO!

  • Joe

    Dear Alex

    Before I refute every comment you made I need to ask you a sincere question.

    Have you read the bible cover to cover?
    If yes then which version(s), how many times, and how many different languages?

    ps
    I apologize.
    As long as you speak from heart then your bs is my bs.....
    Yes-I do love your comment.

  • Alex

    Joe
    You write:
    1) "Have you read the bible cover to cover?"
    ---Although you say your question is sincere, it still sounds like a belittling question, but maybe it isn't, so I'll entertain it. If you happened to read my comments on this thread, and on all other Zeitgeist related threads you'd pretty much get the idea that I have read the Bible a great many times (haven’t counted them), and continue to do so… every day!
    I am Greek and I read the New Testament directly from the Nestle-Aland Critical Apparatus, and the Old Testament from both the Septuagint (Hebrew translated into Greek) and Hebrew Version called Vamvas (named after its translator).
    2) I don’t get this comment: “As long as you speak from heart then your bs is my bs…..” But let’s go on.

    Gordon hi!
    You write:
    1) “What the hell is a “reasonable & logical faith”
    ---To begin with, please calm down. If you’re actually interested in an answer, read my comments on: June 20th, 2009 at 21:42, July 6th, 2009 at 18:52, also on Addendum July 17th, 2009 at 12:06 and maybe elsewhere. I can’t keep repeating myself and be answering to everybody at the same time.

    2) “why pull this guy down cos he wants to use his intellect & reason to look into & test things out for his own???,
    instead of just believing what others give him as most do.”
    ---How nice of you (…) to want to protect Joe… but against who?? This is what you got… FROM MY WORDS?? I never said to him not to do his research and just believe. Why would I??

    3) “One thing, you use the word ” atheist” a lot, some of the most kindest & considerate people I know are such.”
    ---Of course, I agree! I’ve already mentioned somewhere that there are good people on both sides!! When I am referring to atheists I make it clear in the context of my words that I am referring to the ignorant ones or the arrogant ones, or both in one. Just as I make clear that many Christians are at fault as well for the misunderstandings of many atheists.

    4) “Are they going to “hell” cos they don’t “believe” … NO!”
    ---Well, do you believe in hell? If so, where do you get your teaching on hell?? If from the Bible, then you know that YES they WILL end up in hell. On the other hand, if you don’t actually believe in the existence of hell then…. what’s it to you? (Don’t take it the wrong way.)
    Also, being a good person when in contact with people, doesn’t mean you are indeed good since it can be superficial. A person who is truly good, is so, in The Eyes of God as well, not just people. The Lord God has his own standards in who is good. I add that there are many atheist who devoted themselves to Christ.
    God bless you.

  • Mickey

    stop arguing about things, it's a waste of energy.

    you believe one thing, and another believes another. it will always be that way... do something more constructive with your time!

  • Joe

    Dear Alex

    It was a sincere question. Reason I asked was because I find many so called fundamentalists never read the bible cover to cover and they tend to be stubborn about their religion. However; those few who did read the bible are more open minded imo.

    Alex, since you read and studied the bible, don't you find book of Genesis strange? Something about it it's very mythical.
    As if someone made it up to explain the beginning of time.
    First time I read it it was more than 20 years ago. Back then I just accepted word for word even though some of the stories were puzzling.
    For example - Noah's Ark
    This used to be one of my favorite sunday school story.
    Alex, without getting all religious, think about it. All those animals cramped in the Ark (Please spare me of any band-aid explanations). Does it make sense to you? Another one is "incest". C'mon Alex, even a third grader would know something is not right. I could go on and on about Genesis. Once Genesis fails then rest of the old testaments become impossible to stomach. I truly believe book of Genesis was fabricated just like any other mythical books.

    Funny thing is I used to be like you and I don't entirely dismiss you. Nor am I trying to convert you..no no no

    "As long as you speak from heart then your bs is my bs….."
    Personally, I find too many fundamentalists speak out of their asses than their mouths. And as long as you are honest then I will reciprocate.

  • Gordon

    Alex, I read said post, You quote various belief sentences from the bible... don't you think that is a little naive, considering its proven fact that the new testament was modified- Nay virtually re-written by the council of Nicea?? & who knows who else. There have always been tyrants who sink to any low to get more power.

    Regarding 2.. idid read that from your words , to me you sound SOMEWHAT pompous & condescending- from that & other posts( but of course many Zeolous Cristians do- GOD's chosen & all... LOL)

    Re 3.. fair nuff , " both sides" though , i hope you don't divide the world into these 2 camps , stone age stuff that.

    look about 4 ...lol , Hell??? its here turn on yer evenin' news. Man kind has NO EQUILIBRIUM we've just about stuffed this entire planet. Prophecies from all cultures concur that Massive Earth changes & Cataclysms are due. the times of the great purification are indeed nigh. Its a universal law - CAUSE & EFFECT the ripples are heading back , so we must do all we can to be better people.
    If Christ returns he won't help mere "believers" but rather those who took His( & other guides for different cultures) example & lived UNselfishly & with humility.

  • Gordon

    Mickey, critisim accepted- i agree & i will leave it at that.

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    I'll have to add a forum to this website where people can engage in deeper, longer and wider debates on various topics triggered by the docs. Maybe some of the loyal visitors can be moderators? Anyone volunteers?

  • Alex

    Gordon hi!
    You write:
    1) “Alex, I read said post, You quote various belief sentences from the bible… don’t you think that is a little naive, considering its proven fact that the new testament was modified- Nay virtually re-written by the council of Nicea?? & who knows who else.”
    ---I am really amazed and amused how you can say “a proven fact”. That, to me, is what seems naïve. Why?
    Do you know that we can make a new New Testament (the same one we have!) just by using passages quoted by the so called “fathers” of the church, many of which predate that Synod??
    “It is estimated by experts that 97-99% of the original text of the Gospels is known to us in its original wording. In the remaining verses the uncertainties do not affect any fundamental aspects of the Christian faith. We may explain this accuracy by remembering that the Christians who copied the manuscripts through the ages themselves thought that the text they were reproducing was the very words of God himself, which would be enough to make anyone work carefully.”(By Garry Williams, Ph.D. , Tutor in Church History and Doctrine at Oak Hill Theological College in London.)

    But I have a question. What was taken out of The New Testament and why? And most importantly, WHERE IS THE PROOF?? If you want somebody to drop out of Christianity, oh you definitely need proof!

    2) “There have always been tyrants who sink to any low to get more power.”
    ---This is true.

    3) Your civilized enough criticism of me is accepted.

    4) The way you compose your comments Gordon, really needs help… fast!...

    5) “If Christ returns he won’t help mere “believers” but rather those who took His( & other guides for different cultures) example & lived UNselfishly & with humility.”
    ---You wish my friend! This is just a lie. I have warned you, laugh all you want. Save yourself in time.
    Stop trusting atheistic literature. It will lead to you to hell. At least do research on what the other side has to say afterwards.
    God bless you!

  • Joe

    Dear Alex

    1. STRANGE - Lord of the Rings is a strange fiction as in not real and only made up.
    2. MYTHICAL - Things that are supernatural and superhuman. All mythical things are fabricated.
    3. ANCIENT RELIGION - All dead with a few exceptions.
    4. Biblical god = Mythical = Strange = Not real
    5. Ron Wyatt - If true then ark would have been excavated and displayed around the museums.
    6. INCEST - Alex, don't you dare try to have sex with your family just to prove a point. You win this one...please don't. (just kidding - incest is physically, genetically, and mentally wrong)
    7. RELIGIOUS DECEPTION - I was. After reading the bible few times NO MORE.

    Jesus practiced radicalism and told his followers to question and to challenge the norms. Shouldn't all christians do the same?

    Dear Vlatko

    Sounds like a good idea...Docs should have discussions. That is why they are called documentaries.
    I nominate Alex as a moderator - Neutrality is one of the hardest thing a person can strive to be - look at Swiss and Canada.

  • MiHo

    I have seen the first minutes of this mockumentary.. and decided that the extreme use of "lucifer" in it made it worthy not seeing it. Lucifer is actually based on Baal, Baal was a man who lived many many years before Christ was even thought of. Then the content in this piece is way out from being informative and else, it tries to brainwash you to feel guilty of thinking about explanations other than those inside the bible. I belive that if Lucifer from the bible is based on this man they say lived many many years before the roman empire (Baal), this whole "documentary" is just a useless piece of missinformation.

    Many of use should try to really get into science and stop being naive and believing in everythin ANYONE throws at us.

    In an age like ours, where information is available within clicks.. it's just annoying to see how many people rather give into blind faith instead of go read something.

    As long as we stay ignorant, ANYONE can sell us bull..

    so go on guys... keep on studying, reading, sharing.. and stop just being there using imagination. FACTS are the only real and plausible things.. the bible is full of stories with which they try to teach moral lessons to us all, but there is more fiction on it than facts. Sad but true. So stop waiting for the holy spirit to come in front of you and start reading and getting acquainted with facts....

    lovely page by the way Vlatko.. I have just recently discovered it and have been sharing with lots of friends ever since.

  • Alex

    Joe hi!
    You write: (the first parts are not comment worth. “Sorry.” But let’s see the rest.)
    1) “Ron Wyatt – If true then ark would have been excavated and displayed around the museums.”
    ---a) Joe you sound funny. Let me explain. The sad thing is, that you did not even see 3-4 film on youtube, because if you did, you wouldn’t be saying things like this. 1) First of all, excavate what? Did you see its condition?? “and displayed around the museums”??? I mean it wasn’t built today! And besides have you any idea how big it is?? There is no museum that can have it!! 2) The Turks built a museum close by to it, so people can see it. 3) The discoverer was interviewed on television, (I don’t remember whether on CNN or not; it’s in the film though). But unforunately you shrugged your shoulder at it.

    2) INCEST – Alex, don’t you dare try to have sex with your family just to prove a point. You win this one…please don’t. (just kidding – incest is physically, genetically, and mentally wrong).
    ---Best advice I’ve heard so far, I’ll follow it ? ! -But, again you didn’t read the article, nor did you grasp what I said. I feel I am wasting my time trying to help, thinking that you are really interested in the other side, since you were once “born again”…

    3) “Jesus practiced radicalism and told his followers to question and to challenge the norms. Shouldn’t all christians do the same?”
    a) From this statement I see (again) that your sources were never the Bible, I mean you never even read The New Testament...! If you had, you’d never say such a thing. Jesus NEVER “told his followers to question and to challenge the norms”!! This is hearsay! Although this is (!), what He (!) did, although not “question”, since He already knew the answers. And He didn’t really have to teach his followers what you say, because, it goes without saying for those who are to be follower of the truth!
    b) And of course yes Christians should do the same. Most of the ones I know do. But shouldn’t atheists and the rest do the same as well?? Most of the ones I know don’t! But yes, they should….

    4) I appreciate the thumbs up Joe concerning the moderator part. But I have never done such a thing (wonder what it’s about [practically I mean]), nor will I probably have the time for it; when I get my hands on something, I try to put my all in it or I don’t deal with it at all (I don’t like messy jobs, nor does God Whom I serve). Maybe in the future, if I have more free time, I’ll tell Vlatco, and give it a try, if the offer still stands. At this time, I am trying to make my own website (something I have to also fit in), where I will deal with the theological misinformation mainly in “Christianity” (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism), that is among “Christians” (in and out of quotes). Yes, you heard right. It will be in Greek, but there will be some articles by me in English.
    But again, thank you!

    Miho Hi!
    Just a few words.
    a) “Fiction” and “fact” is getting to be all the more a perspective type of thing don’t you think (one of the many examples is -as I have provided- Noah’s ark).
    b) You are talking about others not giving time to read the other side, but the question is, is what you’re saying “fact” or “fiction”? I mean, how do you know what everybody does? Why generalize so easy? Can you realize that there are people of all religions (and prior atheists) that have read extensively and do read, and can see no truth in atheism or agnosticism? Then, what is the point.
    God bless you!
    c) By openly calling this film a “mockumentary” (Did you see Refuted of Exposed [the first one on top]?), is simply arrogance and ignorance of the worst kind I must say. You write as someone who is afraid: “I have seen the first minutes of this mockumentary.. and decided that the extreme use of “lucifer” in it made it worthy not seeing it.”
    ---All the scientific effort put into it, especially in Exposed, down the drain because, you… heard the word “Lucifer” (!)… Real objective and opened minded and… frivolous of you! You who supposedly “preach” (I say it in a good way): “keep on studying, reading, sharing.. and stop just being there using imagination”
    I advise you to follow your advise: “stop being naive and believing in everything ANYONE throws at us.”, rather than accusing others (composers of Exposed and Refuted) who disagree with you, of having given into “blind faith”.
    In closing, I will parrot (yes I will) the beginning statement in Exposed, since it just fits the bill.:
    “The right to be heard doesn’t automatically include the right to be taken seriously”.
    So please be serious. No offence.
    God bless you Miho!

    Ps. Looking back to all the comments I wonder don’t people get tired of repeating the same comments (e.g. religion is evil, and other “ornaments”) that were previously repeated (!) again and again, without ever giving adding at least some beneficial comment/thought, answer, whatever?? Emotions/sentimentality at best. Unfortunately.

  • Gordon

    it was certainly a mockumentary , blind foraging christians trying to refute what they don't understand. SImply cos it threatens there religious "fire"(hell) insurance.
    How can they judge when all they'll read ( and not even understand) is the bible....from such a narrow minded perch the try to condemn broad minded & more mindful & intelligent people like Manly P Hall,Tim Freke & peter Gandy, Blavatsky etc. ohhhh satanists, Lucifer blah blah blah.
    funny how the bible never even uses those names anywhere.

    THe founding Fathers of America were all freemasons, who new more of the "deeper things of God" than any mere Cristian.
    THe constitution, bill of rights etc.(evil???) even the statue of liberty was setn to the USA by a secret society whom silly Christians would condemn.... Statue of liberty (evil????).....no of course not.
    Christians like you Alex are Ignorance & Arrogance of the worst kind.
    That is definetly it for me with this thread.

  • Nameless

    To Gordon: "The founding Fathers of America were all freemasons, who new more of the “deeper things of God” than any mere Christian."

    Correct me if I am wrong but when you say deeper things of God Are you talking about the illuminati here ?? Just a curious thing that struck me.

  • Dan

    There is a book by CS Lewis, "Mere Christianity," which Alex would be wise to refamiliarize himself with. Modern fundies, are actually a modern phenomena. They read the 13th Chapter of Paul's Epistle to the Romans and weirdly conclude that Mussolini had it right all the time. Arch Statists from Sun Myung Moon to George Bush, have used the Bible to further an agenda that is decidedly antithetical to the alleged "teachings of Christ."

  • Gordon

    Nameless, The illuminati, ( founded in Germany in the 1700's )
    were modelled after the freemasonic lodges- which were of the western mystery traditions ( the knowledge of which dates back to ancient Khem( now known as Egypt) I've read masonic literature & I believe they had the noblest of intentions.
    They talk about purifying oneself of selfish & the baser instincts etc. much the same as Christ or Buddha & there secrecy was to avoid the same sort of mass confusion & mis-judgement we see today.

    I think the NWO was originally a noble ideal, set forth by high-minded & spiritual people but has been Intercepted by those of The dark side, those - as Edgar Cayce called them-
    THe Sons of Belial....note the dead sea scrolls also talk about the "sons of light" warring against the " Sons of Belial" Cayce described them once as those who- "have no moral standard but self aggrandizement"

  • Gordon

    Anyway, I realize I'm starting to crap on like the "oracle of all knowledge".... I'm not, I'm just a reader .Opinions expressed may not be the whole truth.
    I'm off into the wilderness for the next week or so, so I'll leave it with you & cannot reply ( whatever.. bye! LOL)
    If I've helped anyone think outside the box a little then thats a good thing.
    BTW Dan thats a good point.

  • Alex

    Dan hi!
    1) “There is a book by CS Lewis, “Mere Christianity,” which Alex would be wise to refamiliarize himself with.”
    ---I am familiar with the book and it is a petty good one, and?

    2) “Modern fundies, are actually a modern phenomena.”
    ---If their modern… yes! :) If their not… no!
    Joking aside, the problem is not being a fundamentalist, since everyone cherishes some views which he thinks are a fundamental necessity, and hence is “a fundamentalist” whether he/she likes it or not. I mean, even an atheist is a fundamentalist. Think about it. So calling someone a “fundamentalist” says nothing in itself if we are to be objective about it. The problem arises if the fundamental aspects he views as necessary, are correct, are real, or not; this is another issue that need to be proven.

    3) “Arch Statists from Sun Myung Moon to George Bush, have used the Bible to further an agenda that is decidedly antithetical to the alleged “teachings of Christ.””
    ---This Dan, is true. It is as proclaimed by God in The Bible as well, concerning some of His followers: “Your leaders are misleading you!” The problem is that:
    a) Christians, all people, vote, “for a better tomorrow”. So they pick the candidate that "advances" to be closer to what they consider a better tomorrow (many times in the absence of a better choice). And when he is elected, he doesn’t pay up! So these Christians are conned, and he rules! But to be fair this is not a Christian phenomena (though this is how propaganda has it) since people of all religions as well as so many non-religious ones, vote for the same guy! This is a silenced reality.
    b) Christianity pays for it around the world because of some American Christians (in the case you mentioned) who in good faith chose someone who had a hidden agenda to go blow up people for oil and control (not even for terrorism as it was made to seem…). Tragic indeed. Note that Christian denominations from countries all over the world, took a stand against Bush and his pals addressing congress about him. But this -from what I know- was apparently “not intersting”.

    God bless you!

  • Joe

    Just read the Amazon reviews on "Mere Christianity". Looks interesting. Will read this weekend.
    Thanks Dan

  • Joe

    Hey guys can someone recommend docs on Zionism?
    Lately, I became fascinated with middle eastern conflict and so far from what docs I have seen it seems like Zionism is playing a big role.

  • Joe

    Dear Alex

    "There is no museum that can have it!"
    There is an abandoned warehouse in Elizabeth, NJ, that can house 10 jumbo planes. Certainly can fit the Ark in and I am more than sure local people would not object to it because Elizabeth has been hit hard with recession and they can surely use the tourism. In fact if it is the true ark then many nations and religions would be pouring money to have their claims on the ark. Just because CNN reported it that dosn't mean Saddam have WMD. Turks built a visitor's center and not a museum that looked like typical diner from Brooklyn. For god sake, Alex, it's your link. Look at it closely and use it carefully what you find in internet.

    Ron Wyatt and Tom Fenner(geologist in the video)
    Every one can free google these two characters and find out on their own.
    Interesting link below by a christian website debunking ark theory in Turkey.

    "But, again you didn’t read the article, nor did you grasp what I said."
    I read the article - twice, because of its absurdity.
    If you give me something to grasp I surely will grasp.

    "I feel I am wasting my time trying to help"
    Please - don't kid yourself. Perhaps you should help yourself first.
    You see, Alex, this is the problem. You THINK you can help others. No one asked for your help here...none whatsoever.
    If you truly want to help then I suggest you make donation or volunteer for some humanitarian causes.

    "From this statement I see (again) that your sources were never (read)the Bible"
    Because I enjoy your comments(okay, I admit it) and wanted to refresh my memory of the bible I reread 4 gospels again 2 nights ago.
    Please don't call me a liar. If you go around calling people liars just because you don't agree with them then what kind of world we would be living in.

    "Jesus NEVER “told his followers to question and to challenge the norms”!! "
    Jesus never told Alex to help others in this website(kidding).
    Jesus turned Old Testaments upside down. Jews were appalled and killed him. In modern times Jesus would have been called an anti-government/social/religious extremist. Jesus issued gentiles memberships into the exclusive jewish country club.
    Let me give you an example. I car pool. I choose the passengers because it's my car. And there are many days when my car isn't full. Wouldn't it be a radical idea if one day if a someone tells me to just pickup anybody who needs ride so my car would be full? It certainly makes sense because we get to be more efficient. How about this one. God tells to go kill your enemies. Jesus tells to love your enemies. In my book this is just RAD!!!!!!!!!

    "And of course yes Christians should do the same. Most of the ones I know do. But shouldn’t atheists and the rest do the same as well?? Most of the ones I know don’t! But yes, they should…."
    One of the reason I love you, Alex, is whenever I think you are unreachable I see a glimmer of light in you. You are absolutely right that atheists should never stop questioning.

  • Gordon

    Alex, I'm sorta half way out the door but I've got time for one last reply- Lucifer, Latin word meaning "bringer of light"
    (Lux- light, Fer- to bear/bring)... I don't associate this quality with a self-serving fallen angel or whatever the devil may be. Actually also the Romans called the planet Venus Lucifer.

    The closest mention of Lucifer in the bible is revelations, where Christ refers to himself as the bright morning star (Venus???)a long shot there perhaps.

    In light of the Edgar Cayce ( A Christian ) readings, The soul Known as Jesus had over a dozen lifetimes on the planet,
    Starting in Atlantis where he led a type of "rescue mission" to save a freshly fallen humanity ( fallen from a spiritual state to earthly flesh/ animal forms( btw maybe genesis is an allegorical story of that ) . SO who knows how many different names He goes by.

    I think that Whoever wrote the Matrix Knew a thing or 2 about this... as Neo was the "one" who "freed the first of us" & will be reborn in the end times to cancel the present world age & take on the "agents" , those shadowy gatekeepers... speculation ?? or something else...

  • Joe

    Dear Gordon

    Sorry but I am baffled by your comments.

    Free Mason, Illuminati, New World Order, and Matrix?

    I know I am not versed in these topics (except Matrix) and what I do know only comes from skimping few docs. How do they relate to each other. I thought these were conspiracy theories with circumstantial evidences. Although they are entertaining, aren't theories are just theories unless supported by irrefutable evidences? And don't atheists use same arguments to discredit religious beliefs? At glance, your comments seem self defeating but I am sure I misunderstood.

    Have a great time at woods. I, myself, also an avid nature hiker.

  • Alex

    Gordon hi!
    You write:
    1) “The closest mention of Lucifer in the bible is revelations, where Christ refers to himself as the bright morning star (Venus???)a long shot there perhaps.”
    --- This is not correct. The word is mentioned in Isaiah to symbolically speak of the fall of Nebuchadnezzar:
    Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
    a) As correctly translated here in the King James Bible, in the Greek Septuagint (translation of the O.T.) the word used is “????????” (hope it showed up in Greek = Eosforos - Light bearer) not (!) “morning star”, although both can refer to Venus as well and do so.
    b) To be accurate, note that in Rev.22:16 Christ is symbolically -in a good way- calls Himself “the bright and morning start” and again not “light bearer” (Lucifer). Nowhere is Christ directly called Lucifer (Light bearer). This distinction should be kept in mind.
    c) It seems that throughout history, the word Lucifer is applied to Satan. One reason can be an interpretation of the “thrown down” in Isaiah (above) and Ezekiel 28, where it is said that Nebuchadnezzar in the first case and the King of Tyre in the second, are spoken of as if Lucifer himself (the fallen angel).

    This being a fact (the interpretation), could be the reason why masons and satanists use this word (Lucifer), that is based prior interpretations.
    Having said that, a head mason, Albert Pike, uses this word to describe what “God” they follow. Masonry thus, has a “God” (hence is a religion), and -by the way- is against Adonai (The God of the Bible)! But who could that be??? Could this be my opinion? No. From WIKIPEDIA:
    “Leo Taxil (1854-1907) originated a theory that Freemasonry is associated with worshipping Lucifer. In what is known as the Taxil hoax, he claimed that leading Freemason Alebert Pike had addressed "The 23 Supreme Confederated Councils of the world" (allegedly an invention of Taxil), instructing them that Lucifer was God, and was in opposition to the evil god Adonai. Apologists of Freemasonry contend that, when Albert Pike and other Masonic scholars spoke about the "Luciferian path," or the "energies of Lucifer," they were referring to the morning star, the light bearer, the search for light; the very antithesis of dark, satanic evil. However, this thesis is redundant, in that it only serves to accentuate that Luciferianism —the worship of superior knowledge and wisdom—does indeed form an integral part of Freemasonry. Taxil promoted a book by Diana Vaughan (actually written by himself, as he later confessed publicly) that purported to reveal a highly secret ruling body called the Palladium which controlled the organization and had a Satanic agenda.”
    And later down on “occult beliefs”:
    “In the Satanic Bible of 1969, Lucifer is acknowledged as one of the Four Crown Princes of Hell, particularly that of the East. Lord of the Air, Lucifer has been named "Bringer of Light, the Morning Star, Intellectualism, Enlightenment."”
    So Masonry and Satanism use the same name not to refer to Christ, but to the Devil.
    There’s more to be said about “Lucifer” but this is enough.

    2) “In light of the Edgar Cayce ( A Christian ) readings, The soul Known as Jesus had over a dozen lifetimes on the planet, Starting in Atlantis where he led a type of “rescue mission” to save a freshly fallen humanity ( fallen from a spiritual state to earthly flesh/ animal forms( btw maybe genesis is an allegorical story of that ) . SO who knows how many different names He goes by.”
    ---So you believe him?? Edgar Cayce WAS -according to The Bible- NOT a Christian! But was a (“new age”) heretic and false teacher.
    But you check it all out Gordon,
    God bless you!

  • MiHo

    The FACT that i dont really get involved in this "forum" is that I currently know why i think the way I do, and i dont have the time to come and expose everything I have learnt. And yes, god bless us all!.. Anyone is free to believe in whatever we want... I only watched the first minutes of the documentary above (not the one below) and it was far from the ones I like best to spend my time with.

    Anyway, thanks for commenting on my comment. I do not preach nor do i accept being preached at, I rather sticking to my own conclusions, and sometimes they defer from what other people expect.

    I think that as long as i have freedom, i can think, express and behave in every way i like to..

    and so do you.. just please dont bug others trying to preach something to them.. expose your ideas and let us decide for ourselves.

    and for me every thing that tries to BRAINWASH me, is a mock..

  • steve

    ha, ha ,ha
    charly brooker actually watched 5 mins of this drivel,i just had it running in the background while i read the mails,George bush, biggest murderer from the last 30 years,gets messages from god nightly,need i go on,have a listen to SCRUBIOUS PIP (LETTER FROM GOD)on utube,better than zietgiest.............

  • Rachel

    Wow...I had some doubts about Zeitgeists' part I until I watched this. This is the worst refutation I've ever encountered. I was ready to hear some opposing point of view about Zeitgeist part I, and I think this is about the best refutation possible. It throws a ton of citations and recitation against Zeitgeist I, which, by the way, did a very good job at making its point entertaining *and* accurate.

    This refutation is a recycling of the most boring of Zeitgeist film clips and tons of verbage which reflects obscure citations without much organization.

    I could write a research paper that would give every citation I want to prove a point. But a good paper tells a story people want to read, and cites sources that are not obscure.

    Zeitgeist and the Addendum are superior films, because they tell a story that I want to hear and they source information and people that I consider relevant.

  • Alex

    Rachel hi!
    You write:
    1) “Wow…I had some doubts about Zeitgeists’ part I until I watched this. This is the worst refutation I’ve ever encountered.”
    ---You had doubts and those were cleared up when you watched Zeitgeist Exposed?? This is the worst refutation?? This is so bizarre, I sincerely don’t believe you.

    2) “It throws a ton of citations and recitation against Zeitgeist I, which, by the way, did a very good job at making its point entertaining *and* accurate.
    This refutation is a recycling of the most boring of Zeitgeist film clips and tons of verbage which reflects obscure citations without much organization.”
    ---It’s not even worth commenting, it’s just ridiculous, or should I openly say: a lie?

    3) “I could write a research paper that would give every citation I want to prove a point. But a good paper tells a story people want to read, and cites sources that are not obscure.”
    ---a) What are you talking about?? This is a refutation, not a novel! It’s purpose is to present facts that refute/expose, not make someone feel better or amaze them with science fiction.
    b) What’s obscure about the sources? Give us one such source (along with where to find it [which film of the two and the particular minute it is said]). Was it too much to give us one example at least?? I mean, all the time accusations without any cause!
    c) Acharia S. is not obscure???????????????????????????????

    4) “Zeitgeist and the Addendum are superior films, because they tell a story that I want to hear and they source information and people that I consider relevant.”
    ---a) This is why they are “superior films”? Real objective of you! :) b) Does this sound like an honest -thinking- researcher: “because they tell a story that I want to hear and they source information and people that I consider relevant”. Talk about putting your head in the ground! It doesn’t get any worse. Real unfair of you.
    My opinion Rachel is that your comment was just a waste of space here. Even an atheist can agree with me. I was wondering: Did you comment against Zeitgeist part 1 as well, or was all you saw there great?? (It sounds that to you it was… imagine that!!!!)
    You are just proof that there are people who just love fairytales instead of objective truth; the truth to them is just an inconvenience.
    Read my comment above on: June 19th, 2009 at 17:22 and on Addendum (go to that page) June 20th, 2009 at 04:47
    Real sad.

    Steve,
    1) ...what movie are you commenting on???...
    2) What does Bush have to do with this refutation film???????
    3) Havving seen (rather, heard...)5 minutes of the movie (about an hour and a half!), you are indeed an objective source, one we really can respect and learn from, one we can trust when it comes to the truth :) :) :) :) :) I can put my soul on the line just because of your credibility :) :)
    What a shame! Can't hide the fact.
    God bless you!

  • Max

    Hi Alex,

    I'm going to remark on your faith now so please forgive me me if I offend.

    I believe you are a clever witty intelligent individual who probably has an edge that has been forged in fear and pain.

    If your faith has given you relief from that, then hold on to it. You don't need any more.

    Rob.

  • Alex

    Max, no offence taken.
    But you're wrong.
    Hate to say it, but I see myself as a happy, delightful person, who loves people and loves to serve them any way he can. This is not just my view since others can vouch regarding its accuracy. What fear and pain are you talking about?? I mean, why fear and pain? And "forged" in it?? Don't know where you get this idea. But, you are entitled to it, as long as you're honest to your self regarding it.

    Ps. So Max is... Rob?? What for?
    --Could this mean you are in fear, since you hide your true identity?

  • Max

    Yes I have fears, joys, sadness, hopes but not superstitions. Max is my on line name in memory of my father, who never used the internet.

  • Alex

    Max
    I don't have any superstitions either.

  • Max

    That is why we're talking though isn't it.

  • Max

    Why were you converted in your twentys?

  • Achems Razor

    In the grand scheme of things we humans do not realize just how small and insignificant we really are. If you could build a one half mile square box you could fit every man, woman, and child on the planet into it and still have room to spare. We are tiny carbon based units of no consequence, to the rest of the Cosmos. Even our Sun is a small 4th grade star. There are stars that are up to 9,000,000 times brighter than our Sun. One teaspoon full of Neutron Star stuff would weigh as much as 200 million Elephants. There are billions of Galaxies with billions of stars, some of them up to 13 billion light years away, and because of inflation, are moving away close to the speed of light. And then we have the audacity to think we have a pipeline to God, and that everything revolves around us!

  • Max

    I agree. We are a social animal with a limited ability to understand the universe. Religion is quite provincial in its outlook. Out of proportion with what's out there.

  • Alex

    Rob (Max),
    by the way, accepting that that is the reason you use the name Max, it still does not negate the fact that you were deceptive, since you knew everyone would think your name is Max (and not Rob).
    Anyway, you write:
    1) “That is why we’re talking though isn’t it.”
    ---We are talking because you think I am superstitious, and you are ignoring the facts, not because I think I am superstitious.
    2) “Why where you converted in your twentys?”
    ---Actually the question is not just why but how. I was “converted” to Christianity a) by God and because b) He was revealed to me in my spirit, an experience that millions experience, an awakening (you can say) to His Person. One that you, as a materialist (could be wrong) cannot not accept. At the time, I was then studying on Buddhism (although an Orthodox Christian); I was always sincerely interested in the truth (something my God honours…). But when Biblical Christianity came along, it made -in comparison- simple good sense.

    As this experience took place, more things became revealed to me, like my need to repent and believe in Christ. And this I did. Since then, my personal changes and experiences with God, are increasing till this day!!!

    3) a) And no, I am not a social animal, but a person made in God’s Image. A social animal is a sorry way of viewing ourselves. Stop believing lies. Evolution is a lie! See the grand facts out there objectively. Why are you avoiding them??.....
    b) Contrary to what you say, *in a sense*, religion in general (not just Christianity) as an outlook is in greater proportion then science is with “what’s out there”, because religion acknowledges the Creator, and the fact that all are His creations, something that many scientists can’t or won’t grasp. Also, Christianity deals with man surviving this life in virtue while it simultaneously offer the Way to surviving the next one… hell! Many scientists is in the dark regarding it all this.

    Achem’s razor,
    A legitimate position, one though that is easily countered.
    You write:
    “We are tiny carbon based units of no consequence, to the rest of the Cosmos. Even our Sun is a small 4th grade star. There are stars that are up to 9,000,000 times brighter than our Sun……..… And then we have the audacity to think we have a pipeline to God, and that everything revolves around us!”
    ---1) You have to understand that the key in understanding our significance is hidden in the answer of whether the God of The Bible is the real God or not (wish I could underline that). If He was not, then I’d agree with you. But since he is, it all makes sense. (Today, things that make sense, are not welcomed “for people loved the darkness rather than the light”.) Let me elaborate. Our size does not matter, since:
    ** in The Eyes of The Creator we are far greater then all universes combined!! We were initially made in His Image.
    ** Be careful in thinking the following: Let’s say we were a millions of miles tall, each one of us, what would change in The Eyes of God?? Nothing! He could have made us that way, or He could have made us smaller than a cell, so what? Size has nothing to do with it. Whether a galactic giant or a microscopic being, He still stares man right in the face, in the manner he would look at an ant and the vastness of space at the same time! I hope you give time to this simple yet profound description.
    Christianity speaks of man as significant not just in the eyes of people, but in The Eyes of God!!!!!!!!!!! So, what cosmos?? We are significant... in The Eyes of God!!!!!!!

    2) “And then we have the audacity to think we have a pipeline to God, and that everything revolves around us!”
    ---a) Audacity has nothing to do with it. He is the One Who says we can talk directly to Him in prayer (not prefixed prayers by the way). Hence -in a way- audacity would be not to! Again the issue for you to find out is, if He is the real God or not.
    b) Indeed, Biblical Christianity agrees, man: 1) should not see everything as revolving around himself, but everything revolving AROUND GOD. 2) God does see everything revolving around Him, this is why He wants to… save man!! Figure it out.
    May God give you His increase.

  • Rachel

    Alex,

    I'm entitled to my opinion, just as you are to yours. You may call my words a waste of space, and I call the vast number of lengthy comments you have put up here a monumental waste of time (and space). I can't imagine what kind of life you lead if you're spending so much time here responding to people point-by-point about how they're wrong and you're right - truth, facts, perspective, insight, intuition, experience and good spelling/grammar be damned.

    You have your Jesus if he makes you happy. I don't have to have him though. And if efforts to prove his divinity or even existence to me don't convince me, then that's my business, and I have every right to feel how I feel. Additionally, I have the right express my feelings and opinions in a forum where my thoughts and feelings are invited - such as this one. And what's really nice is that I don't owe you or anyone else a detailed and sourced account for how I've come to my conclusions. I have a life, and my time is better spent living it than trying to convince someone that some apparition I believe in or don't believe in did or did not exist.

  • Alex

    Rachel
    you are entitled to your opinion and to your feelings. But you have to realize (I'm trying to help you so) that your biased opinion without any actual reason to back it up, has an effect on people reading here, young and old. You just trash Refuted and Exposed, just because you "feel" like it. You are actually -believe it or not- trashing the fact that Christ is The Son of God. So don't expect a smile and a pat on the back, don't even expect indifference. You can disagree but at least be soberly condiderate of the facts when doing so. Your kind of comments bring down the level of discussion. This is why -bored to do so- I'm replying again to your comment. So, when you want to say something be considerate to the truth (any truth) as well as to the people who might not be able to discern between "feeling"/hearsay and facts. Also, think that if you found out one day that Christianity is the real thing, in what position would that put you, and those whom you've influenced (not many, non the less). Be sober, why not? So, know that when you throw rocks at my house, I'm not going to sit back and watch. Atheist frivolously say whatever they want against my "house" all over the internet, just because they don't have a "house" of their own, that is, THEY HAVE NOTHING TO LOOSE (or at least that's what they think...!), they can just mock, and trash and make up things all day! Christians on the other hand are on the truth's side, and what they will loose is people's souls that will wind up in hell. Yeah, don't believe it, but see where I'm coming from.
    So yes your entitled to your opinion, but if you have integrity, make sure it is balanced one. Otherwise,speaking for myself, I'm not interested at all in hearing "wishful thinking". But you do what you want.
    God bless you!

  • Achems Razor

    To Alex: One thing that you said, I finally agree on, and I quote..."you have to understand that the key in understanding our significance is hidden in the answer of whether the God of the Bible is the real God or not. If he was not then I'd agree with you. But since he is, it all makes sense"...end of quote. Your viewpoint is that the GOD is real! Mine is that the God is not! Since I believe we are all entitled to our viewpoints, why do you insist of ramming your viewpoint home to all the people that are free thinkers on this forum! And you keep referring that God is a He. Since I am a man who loves women and to give women there proper due, if there is a God it should be a She, not a He!

  • Rachel

    I just endeavored upon the laborious and unpleasant task of reading through all of the comments to this documentary (which, I contend, still, was a terrible one). There is one person in particular that I will not engage with in discussion, but I would like, for the benefit of those who want balanced and truthful information, to make two points clarifying things he/she said:

    1. It was claimed in a debate with Achems Razor over the potential for psychoactive mushrooms having influenced the development of religions, that psilocybin was the psychoactive ingredient in the mushroom amanita muscaria. This is inaccurate information. The psychoactive ingredient in amanita muscaria is muscimol. There is no psilocybin in the amanita muscaria mushroom.

    This information is easily verified by a simple Google search or looking up amanita muscaria, muscimol and psilocybin in Wikipedia.

    2. Ron Wyatt, famed self-proclaimed discoverer of Noah's Ark, Sodom and Gomorrah, The Ten Commandments, The Ark of the Covenant, Christ's crucifixion location (and many others relevant biblical sites), has been widely dismissed by scientists, archaeologists, biblical scholars, religious leaders and his own church as being a con man.

    Answers in Genesis, the Christian organization that espouses Young Earth Creationism and a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis calls Wyatt's work fraudulent. A spokesperson for the Israel Antiquities Authority states, "Ron Wyatt is neither an archaeologist nor has he ever carried out a legally licensed excavation in Israel or Jerusalem. In order to excavate one must have at least a BA in archaeology which he does not possess despite his claims to the contrary. ... [His claims] fall into the category of trash which one finds in tabloids such as the National Enquirer, Sun etc."

    With regard to the Ark in particular, a Seventh Day Adventist professor of archaeology (Ron Wyatt was of the Seventh Day Adventist faith) states, "While the Durupinar site is about the right length for Noah's ark, [it is] ... too wide to be Noah's ark. Wyatt has claimed that the "boat-shapedness" of this formation can only be explained by its being Noah's ark, but both Shea and Morris have offered other plausible explanations. Likewise, Wyatt has argued that the standing stones he has found are anchors, while Terian is aware of similar stones outside the Durupinar site area that were pagan cultic stones later converted by Christians for Christian purposes."

    Note: William H. Shea is a Seventh Day Adventist scholar. John D. Morris is a geologist. Abraham Terian is a professor of Armenian Patristics.

    All of this information is neatly conglomerated in Ron Wyatt's Wikipedia article. Additional sources are linked there, and you can find more information by googling Ron Wyatt.

  • Max

    Hi Rachel,

    I have seen a couple of his You tube videos, and I concur with your statement. But I am lazy and do not have the patients to debate the basics of geology with others here.

  • Max

    Alex,

    I have some respect for you as an individual, please try not to question others integrity.

  • WTC7

    "... if there is a God it should be a She, not a He!"
    Achems Razor! You certainly are my man :-) :-) :-)! I myself find the notion that god is a male, by default, utterly chauvinistic and ungrounded :-).

  • Alex

    Achem’s razor,
    You write:
    “Since I believe we are all entitled to our viewpoints, why do you insist of ramming your viewpoint home to all the people that are free thinkers on this forum!”
    ---a) Razor you’re cutting your self up again and this time actually by a cheap shot like this one. The only reason you call it “ramming” is because it makes me the enemy but also because I make my case clear and strong, just as I will continue to do so. Yes, I know my existence bother you here because I don’t let you get away with the erroneous things you say, and this makes you uncomfortable, but as you say, I’m “entitled to my opinion”, right? Please be mature about it.
    b) By the way, what’s all this being “entitled to our viewpoints” about? If one can read, I NEVER said the opposite! So be fair and don’t lay this on me.
    c) You make it sound like you’re my victims on one hand and on the other that I am not a free thinker like the rest of you. This is a joke, and after all this time, a bad one.
    God bless you!

  • Alex

    Rachel
    Glad you finally gave an interesting comment we can talk about! :)
    Too bad you didn’t do that in the first place.
    You write:
    “There is one person in particular that I will not engage with in discussion, but I would like, for the benefit of those who want balanced and truthful information, to make two points clarifying things he/she said:
    1.It was claimed in a debate with Achems Razor over the potential for psychoactive mushrooms having influenced the development of religions, that psilocybin was the psychoactive ingredient in the mushroom amanita muscaria. This is inaccurate information. The psychoactive ingredient in amanita muscaria is muscimol. There is no psilocybin in the amanita muscaria mushroom.”
    ----1) Although you are right, you are the one whose information is inaccurate. I did not say psilocybin is from amanita muscaria! I said it is found in “magic mushroom”. Listen to what I said in talking to razor:
    “True you did not mention Psilocybin, but I did, so what’s the big deal? I mentioned it because it causes the mushroom’s hallucinating effect and to make known the great dangers of it, something that again hinders strongly the idea that it was a religion starter!” One of the books razor -previously to my comment- presented for me to read was “Magic Mushrooms in Religion and Alchemy”. I was referring to the magic mushroom in general as a “religion starter”. This is what I had in mind. Amanita muscaria is considered as well a “magic mushroom” and a very dangerous one as I’ve said. In particular, these dangers are (just google amanita mascuria, the first one on top):
    “These may include dizziness, confusion, dryness of the mouth, rapid breathing, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and muscular twitching, along with a general feeling of numbness in the limbs.” And even worse:
    “Back to the bad news: In some cases, users of Amanita muscaria have been known to become both paranoid and agressive during their trips. Red-faced, they have exhibited high levels of violence and self-destructiveness, even to the point of self-mutilation. Because things may be seriously distorted accidents of all sorts are not uncommon on this trip. Prolonged use can be debilitating mentally. For those who have consumed too much, raving madness may result. Overdose can cause delirium, convulsions, deep coma, and death as a result of heart failure. The only known antidote for overdose is atropine, but the effectiveness of this drug on Amanita muscaria "poisoning" is now being seriously questioned. Some profess that adding atropine may increase the chance of serious illness or death.
    Most important, one must know which mushroom to pick. A small mistake in-this regard can be deadly.”

    2) “Ron Wyatt, famed self-proclaimed discoverer of Noah’s Ark, Sodom and Gomorrah, The Ten Commandments, The Ark of the Covenant, Christ’s crucifixion location (and many others relevant biblical sites), has been widely dismissed by scientists, archaeologists, biblical scholars, religious leaders and his own church as being a con man.”
    ----Look, I’ve read what the other side says, but when looking at the finds, I’m not convinced. Sincerely I have no problem if all he says is wrong, the facts of Christianity are not effected. Note that there are scientists in the last link I gave on Sodom and Gomorrah that give contrary impressions. Also, I mean, they’re where the Bible says they are, and they bring such detail that fit the account. In that link some of the opposing arguments are met. There’s something fishy going on but I’m still not sure where! I have a clue but I can’t say for sure. Now, Wyatt being a con man I don’t have reason to believe, although I do not dismiss the possibility of him lying to achieve a find or for other purposes only he knows (he says he is not allowed by God to show some things, that it’s not time yet. Don’t know.). But a con man, is a strong accusation. I'll take a look into it, since you gave no helpful source on it. Also, you don’t have to be an archaeologist to find something, although you would need his assistance and validity. As to what was excavated and how (on the ark of The Covenant), that may have been done illegally, I don’t know.

    Max,
    You write:
    “…please try not to question others integrity.”
    ---Just hold on! I will expose anyone who is unfair. Unfairness does not equal integrity. So why hide it? Besides Max, I see other things, that -sorry- you don’t, when communicating with people; they though know what I’m talking about. But for the record, these are the words I said to Rachel:
    “So yes you’re entitled to your opinion, but if you have integrity, make sure it is balanced one. Otherwise,speaking for myself, I’m not interested at all in hearing “wishful thinking”. But you do what you want.”
    Indeed, her comment had no integrity, since it made “up in the air” accusations and absurd remarks. Read it and see my reply.
    Now, why shouldn’t we question someone’s integrity? When we have reason we should! And this openly. Why do we let people get away with crimes???? Sorry to sadden you, I won’t do it.

    God bless you!

  • Max

    I'm not convinced as to the strength of of your case as you seem to circumvent well documented pear reviewed research.

  • Achems Razor

    Alex: No one is making you an enemy but yourself. I do not consider you an enemy at all! You are not being very mature right now not me. You do not make me uncomfortable in the slightest! I have my story and I'm sticking to it! In fact I would miss you if you left these forums.

  • Juamnji

    I find this whole page funny. Most of the comments are anti-religious with good reason but the fact that religion can still attract so much attention is a win for religion. You know the type of kid that screams and cry's for attention? The best way of dealing with them is to let them scream and cry until they tire themselves out, could the same not be applied to religion? As anyone can see religion is fading(except for the middle-east where God is law), let them have their last tantrum and the world will be better for it.

  • Max

    I said others integrity and not the integrity of an individuals statements.

  • Gordon

    Joe asked:

    Dear Gordon

    Sorry but I am baffled by your comments.

    Free Mason, Illuminati, New World Order, and Matrix?

    I know I am not versed in these topics (except Matrix) and what I do know only comes from skimping few docs. How do they relate to each other. I thought these were conspiracy theories with circumstantial evidences. Although they are entertaining, aren’t theories are just theories unless supported by irrefutable evidences? And don’t atheists use same arguments to discredit religious beliefs? At glance, your comments seem self defeating but I am sure I misunderstood

    I brought up the FACT that the founding fathers of the USA were Freemasons (33rd Degree ones at that), For Alex to ponder whether these were actually "Satanists" AS why.... would supposed Devil-worshippers
    Give Americans the Bill of rights & COnstitution,( NOW BEING EVISCERATED BY CORPORATE ENTITIES) Hmmm..... doesn't sound like the conclusion of an INTELLIGENT person does it.

    As to the Christ & the Matrix, Well, I'm not an "atheist" or a Christian, but I know there is a One universal Force that many call "God" regardless of cultural differences its all from the same source.
    And My interpretaion of a messiah Is more of a representative, a setter of EXAMPLES ( who'll possibly re-incarnate, probably already has), rather than a modern day Idol we all bow down to & "believe" in. thats just stupid caveman SH!T.
    Although the "god " of many a ranting Cristian or Muslim would look something like one of HP Lovecraft's Demons from the Outer gulfs or something , with tentacles & a big leering grin full of blackened razor sharp teeth, considering all the Division & pain they cause AND HORRORS In the past like the inquisitions("god" sanctioned torture - to death more often than not), witch burnings ( BURNT ALIVE!)"Holy wars" etc etc i could go on....( In their HOLY name LOL)
    Hope that helps....

  • Rachel

    Max, I have really enjoyed reading your comments, and it's nice to have someone point out when someone else is being belligerent, insulting and self-righteous.

    I ship back to Iraq on Saturday, so no more time to waste here. Later.

  • Gordon

    "... why atheists go on to trash The Bible and Christianity, since that to them would be “second base”! (Could it be hate, ignorance and arrogance combined?)You have to pass by first base first, otherwise going around second base is useless, irrelevant(simple baseball :) ). But anyway, we Christians entertain (…) them, since hope dies last."

    My final comment on this page : Alex stop judging others according to your own personal beliefs, You think you know it all Cos A belief in Jesus or Monkey Magic, whatever... improved your life ??? great I'm happy for you. BUT you've fallen into the trap of the "SPIRITUAL KNOW-IT-ALL" try to understand that the right path for you, may NOT be the right path of another!! this is extremely egotistical & BLIND. think about it...you say "liar" criticize, scoff & condemn comments & opinions of others just cos they don't fall within the charmed circle of your approval???!!!!You are like Christ??.... serving the will of God???
    No, not for sh!t.

    Just holding up a mirror for you, But you go ahead & criticize the mirror cos you don't like what you see.

    By the way the "pagan" symbolism is not evil or satanic that is a typical fear-based reaction based on bad research from similar people. Like I suggested its not freemasons Or" Luciferians" that are behind the scenes Its as Washington(MASON 33rdegree)himself said "... i See in the future an era of corporations being enthroned..."( from memory)but you'll probably say that he couldn't give a prophecy cos he isn't in the bible...
    Anyway all the best & i hope you think about what I say.
    Instead of skimming whilst thinking up an ego-defense over-yarn...your trademark.

  • Max

    Alex,

    Once again, we are left with the dilema of trying to prove the existance of a transendent being. Who's existence is by definition equivical.

    We can not prove the existance of god it is a matter of faith.

    As to signs, of this transcendent being. There are non that I can think of that do not fit in to well understood naturally occurring processes, or fantasy.

    I'm not saying this being can not exist, but that it is highly improbable and by definition unprovable.

    Thats why we call it faith.

  • Alex

    Rachel
    You write:
    “Max, I have really enjoyed reading your comments, and it’s nice to have someone point out when someone else is being belligerent, insulting and self-righteous.”
    ----Yes its nice (cosy and convenient) when they agree with your manner or niews. But when they don't?

    Gordon
    1)“…..Alex stop judging others according to your own personal beliefs”
    ---- This is NORMAL and necessary. Everybody judges others according to their belief! (whether they admit it or not) But why do they lie about it?? So think outside the box please. Am I suppose to judge according to someone else’s beliefs? (But to answer your possible up coming question…) “judging” has to do having a prefixed model of morals. Almost everybody does! And morals are what define people. And defining people is necessary in communicating with them accordingly.
    You also write:
    2) “BUT you’ve fallen into the trap of the “SPIRITUAL KNOW-IT-ALL”…”
    ----Instead of saying I know it all, try to think: “Could I be wrong and Alex right?? Could it be that I don’t know it all and his responses just make the point??””
    I don’t know it all. But I know where you get this impression. You get it from the fact that I know what I believe and why I believe it very well (and still learning!).

    3) “try to understand that the right path for you, may NOT be the right path of another!!”
    ----Try to understand there only on path, the one The Real God has shown.

    4) “…….think about it…you say “liar” criticize, scoff & condemn comments & opinions of others just cos they don’t fall within the charmed circle of your approval???!!!!”
    ----No. I condemn biased without integrity comments, and put liars in the spotlight.

    5) “You are like Christ??…. serving the will of God???”
    ----You don’t know Christ and you don’t know God’s will. Learn about both from the source, and then read all of what I wrote again, so you’re excused.

    6) “By the way the “pagan” symbolism is not evil or satanic that is a typical fear-based reaction based on bad research from similar people.”
    ----No, you don’t get it. The idea that “christians” (?...) would promote pagan symbols/statues/images of false gods and built a Pentagram with streets is not evil? It is to a Christian!

    7. “Anyway all the best & i hope you think about what I say. Instead of skimming whilst thinking up an ego-defense over-yarn…your trademark..”
    ----Likewise I wish you the best, leading up to your salvation in time. The door will close. I did think about what you said and you are simply wrong on all accounts. My trademark by the way is “for the truth”.

    Max
    The following are false:
    “a transendent being. Who’s existence is by definition equivical.”
    “We can not prove the existance of god it is a matter of faith.”
    “I’m not saying this being can not exist, but that it is highly improbable and by definition unprovable. Thats why we call it faith.”
    (No, that’s why YOU call it “faith”.)

    You also write:
    “As to signs, of this transcendent being. There are non that I can think of that do not fit in to well understood naturally occurring processes, or fantasy.”
    ----a) “do not fit in to the…” This is your mistake Max. Try to figure it out.
    b) Already gave an excellent sign, or should I say signs, about particular prophecies fulfilled. (How can I doubt someone is lying when he does not admit that that is clear evidence [that no evolution can explain!] of The God of the Bible?)
    c) “well understood naturally occurring processes”
    Sincerely I CANNOT see how a common sensed person can believe in evolution. I really can’t.
    As I said elsewhere, see: ““Confessions of the evolutionists” by Harun Yahya (he’s a muslim). It’s the 3rd or 4th from the top. Find the index and choose the chapters you want to read on-line.”

    c) “or fantasy”??? The way I see it, this is an insult to your self. Think about it.

    God bless you!

  • Joe

    This thread is turning into more of personal attacks than a sound discussions.

  • Leonie

    Hello Vlatko/Alex!

    I want to thank you for providing this site where I am able watch much the documentary interesting ones. I am sorry that my English is not good. I generally speak French. I comment on here, because it seems that this thread is more in activity. I wonder whether I am allowed to present observations on the video here, because I have an opinion, but I do not wish offence you or anyone else which think differently. I am agree ing with Vlatko/Alex on the video, and me please express the ways in which I agree. Moreover, I want not to offend Vlatko/Alex (or anyone who think different to me) if this and mine is not your precise opinion. Is this allowed? Thank you, Leonie

  • Max

    Alex Hi,

    You are again circumventing a vast amount of up to date research and data in favour of a small selection of dubious merit.

    The degree of certainty for this small selection is very low indeed.

  • Alex

    Max hi!
    As I've made clear, I will be open for the purpose of awakening those who should be awakened.
    1) I have to openly say, that you are not interested in any degree of certainty that hinders your chosen beliefs. I was hoping you would. Time does tell.
    2) "Small selection"?? What are you talking about? I just gave 4 links so not to be accused of posting to many links, as I was already! Besides, it's not about how many links you can provide, it's about what is said in them! All this evidence against evolution and you say: "a small selection of dubious merit". Wow, what a comment. I mean if you realized that even if half were true(!!) on each link , you'd stand differently on the issue of evolution and God!
    So all the arguments made are false, "of dubius merit"?? YEAH, RIGHT! :) :)
    Like most, you are not interested in the truth. So, don't kid yourself. You just comment on me, just to say you did.

    God bless you!

    Leonie welcome!
    Since you address me: This site is Vlatko's NOT MINE (just making sure you understand this). I just comment here like everybody else. You don't need permission to comment here. Since you are already signed in, permission "is granted". It's open to all. Freely comment on anything you like.
    By the way, Vlatko and I do not share the same views.
    Again welcome and God bless you!

  • Max

    Alex,

    For me the controversy lies in so called intelligent design not evolution.

    No hard feelings though, after all I can not prove the non existence of a transcendent being. So its non existence is an article of faith on my part too.

  • Achems Razor

    Serious scientific publications disputing Evolution are all but nonexistent. Creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously. Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living World took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value!

  • Max

    I agree Razor,

    Theists always slide it to the gaps of our understanding. We can not understand every thing, and I think there will always be an element that will prey on that gap.

  • Max

    edit:- prey should read fall.

  • Alex

    Some facts:
    * Science is not evolution nor creationism nor ID. Science is science, as truth is truth and reality is reality.
    * ALL SCIENTISTS use the scientific method in their research. As I said, the interpretation of the finds is the problem.
    * All agree on microevolution/adaptation. Don't IDs use the scientific method then?? Suddenly they conveniently become “unscientific” when they show that the gap between microevolution and macroevolution is billions of miles long, to the point that it is realized that microevolution has nothing to do with macroevolution, and macroevolution is left out there, completely useless, rather useful to bad religion!...
    * Evolution doesn’t even provide proof for Macro-evolution, when it should not only be found, but found all over the place! Non at all. Don’t kid yourself. Look at what they offer. Ridiculous.
    * Evolution as a “theory” (…) does not answer the fundamental questions of life, and admit it, only ID does! Something that annoys all evolutionists, but it shouldn’t if it is science and truth that they want to promote.
    * The existence of so many people having out of body experiences (seeing things outside their body that they, according to evolution, could not have seen), proves the existence of the soul. The soul alone destroys materialism and evolution, not to mention that consciousness does so as well! And much more (!!), but I don’t want to scare you off with the rest!... ?
    * Science showing the existence of a Creator is and will be the number 1 “find” of all times. But then again, “find” what?? Creation is out there for anyone to conceive/perceive and not something hidden!!
    To me this “find” is inexcusably delayed (due to evolutionists) since everyone knows, EVERYONE who can observe that is (! -and is honest and -today- daring), that nothing living comes from non living and no form of intelligence comes from something that has a form of intelligence.
    *Evolutionists love to claim that Intelligent Design is the Trojan Horse of Creationism into science. This might seem true, but the fact remains, IDs never mention the Bible, even if they believe in it, they leave it aside, and talk science. And *this is what matters! * All else is fancy polemic to encourage the atheists’ stance to life and God. So *don’t be disorientated*.
    But there is another side that all should know.
    Evolution is -by rule- atheism Trojan Horse into science.

    God bless all ye honest thinkers ou there! :)

  • Achems Razor

    To Alex: Peace: I gave my viewpoint, and you gave yours. That is done! One thing that puzzles me is about your reference to O.B.E's, and astral projections, travel, as being Christian? unless I read it wrong. In my books it is Occult, or at least new age! Is it not detestable in the eyes of God?

    (Deuteronomy 18:9-11) (Galatians 5:19-26) (2 Chronicles 33:6) (1 Peter 1:13)

    Regards:

  • Achems Razor

    Max:

    Thanks for your support! :)

  • Alex

    Achem's razor hi!
    You outdone yourself in this one! Very good comment!
    Now,
    I did not mention astral projections/travel. This indeed is New Age and dangerous, physically and spiritually.
    Regarding the facts on O.B.Es':
    *it is something not provoked but completely natural (although we are not knowledgeable of those particular natural laws that allow or provoke it). This is something apparently allowed by God to happen for purposes I will not get into. It by the way gives testimony to the soul via a differnt means.
    * All of the Bible speaks of the existence of the soul
    * and it's seperation from the body when one dies.
    * Apostle Paul was aware of the possibility (!) of the seperation of body and soul in a living person without him finally dying. This is shown in 2Co 12:2 "I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth; such an one caught up to the third heaven."
    * Most of the million of people that experienced o.b.es know nothing of the occult/new age. They are guilty of nothing, even if they did know of the occult practices, since this is beyong their ability to control; the out of body experiences I am referring to are the near death experiences (NDE).

    The verses you point out say nothing about O.B.Es. especially the last one. But indeed they do warn against occult practices. Hence one must define occult practices. An occult practice is recognized in its total, not just a part of it. E.g. hypnotism could be of scientific use, but it can be of occult use.
    I hope you're not puzzled anymore on why I spoke of o.b.es.
    God bless!

  • Alex

    For Max
    All this time I couldn't get this 3rd part in Zeitgeist the Movie, I give up. That page might have a problem. So
    -part 3 (my friend continues, and I close)
    “When we say that God created life, we mean that He created even the principles by which life is organised and sustained. No matter how hard he tries, man can never, by definition, do better than that.”

    Hope I covered your question Max.
    God bless you!

  • Achems Razor

    I write this,"without Prejudice to everyone"! This forum is chocked full of Bible verses. So I thought I would lighten it up a little. These verses cannot be banned unless you want to ban the Bible!

    Great sex: in the Bible!
    Ezekiel 23:19-20
    Yet she became and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. There she lusted after her lover, whose genitals were like those of Donkeys and whose emission was like that of Horses!
    The entire Song Of Solomon is about Sex!

    Some kick ass verses:
    "Ezekiel 25:17"-Which is in the classic movie, Pulp Fiction.
    Davids Mighty Men "2 Samuel 23"-Movie in progress.
    "11 kings 2:23-24" "Exodus 2:11-12" "1 Kings 18:24, 38-40" '1 Samuel 18:25-27" "Judges 15:15-16" :)

  • Alex

    Razor
    You write:
    1) “This forum is chocked full of Bible verses.”
    ----Well, no it isn’t. In quantity, the Biblical passages in comparison to all the comments posted, are not note worthy. It’s just easy to “see” it that way…
    2) “So I thought I would lighten it up a little.”
    ----Oh, how very considerate of you razor :)
    3) “These verses cannot be banned unless you want to ban the Bible!”
    ----Banned??? For what?? Telling the facts as they are, as they happened???
    4) “Great sex: in the Bible!”
    ----You have a problem with great sex?? Don’t knock it till you try it :)
    Razor you have no idea of the Bible, like most of your stature.
    5) “Ezekiel 23:19-20”
    God is talking about Samaria and Jerusalem who were of Gods, but then apostatized having turned to idols etc., Spiritually “fornicating” against God (i.e. leaving God love). These vivid images serve the purpose of showing that as abominable is physical fornication to God, even more is spiritual fornication. These two cities lusted and turned to what the world offers. This was inspired to be written in the language and culture of times. These readings to them, were not of great significance, but they are today to today’s hypocrites who in their personal lives may do even worse, but are shocked when they read their doings in The Bible.
    6) “The entire Song Of Solomon is about Sex!”
    God being the Creator is not shocked with the aspect of sex in people lives. He is not dirty minded like some. But anyway, some insight into the allegorical aspects of “The Song of Songs” by Barnes:
    * “If in other Scriptures are found words of indignation and wrath and terrible threatenings, the characteristics of this book are sweetness, cheerfulness, and joy, characteristics somewhat at variance with “the hypothesis” so-called “of the shepherd lover.” According to the view taken in this commentary, there is only one lover in the Song, and one object of his affection, without rival or disturbing influence on either side. The beloved of the bride is in truth a king, and if she occasionally speaks of him as a shepherd, she intimates that she is speaking figuratively. Being herself a rustic maiden of comparatively lowly station she, by such an appellation, seeks to draw down him “whom her soul loveth”; though he be the king of Israel, within her narrower circle of thoughts and aspirations. And, therefore, while the whole poem breathes of almost more than regal splendor and magnificence, the bride is nowhere represented as dwelling with any pride or satisfaction on the riches or grandeur of her beloved, but only on what he is to her in his own person as” chiefest among ten thousand” and “altogether lovely”.”
    * “…the Song of Songs is in its essential character an ideal representation of human love in the relation of marriage (Song 8:6-7) ”
    * “It is then no mere fancy, which for so many ages past has been accustomed to find in the pictures and melodies of the Song of Songs types and echoes of the actings and emotions of the highest love - of Love Divine - in its relations to humanity. Christians may trace in the noble and gentle history thus presented foreshadowings of the infinite condescensions of Incarnate Love; - that Love which, first stooping in human form to visit us in our low estate in order to seek out and win its object (Psa 136:23), and then raising along with itself a sanctified humanity to the heavenly places (Eph 2:6), is finally awaiting there an invitation from the mystic Bride to return to earth once more and seal the union for eternity (Rev 22:17).”

    Part 2 comming up...

  • Achems Razor

    Alex: Yes, I respect your views!

    No. I have no problem with Great sex!

    And it seems you do not either!

    Again, I was relaying information! :)

  • Achems Razor

    ALEX:

    11-2 So what!I hit the wrong keys on the computer. At least I never have any spelling errors! Thanks for saving me the time on writing everything out! I do not know why my post should get you so discombobulated! Peace! :) :)

  • Alex

    Part 2 (last part)
    Razor continues and I answer:

    7) “Some kick ass verses:?”
    ----Should have written them out. So here are some of them at least. Learn form them. Learn that God WILL NOT be played with, and he is no emotional push around cry baby (I will comment on some):
    *Eze 25:17 And I will execute great vengeance upon them with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I shall lay my vengeance upon them.
    *2Sa 23:8-10 These be the names of the mighty men whom David had: The Tachmonite that sat in the seat, chief among the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite: he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time. 9 And after him was Eleazar the son of Dodo the Ahohite, one of the three mighty men with David, when they defied the Philistines that were there gathered together to battle, and the men of Israel were gone away: 10 He arose, and smote the Philistines until his hand was weary, and his hand clave unto the sword: and the LORD wrought a great victory that day; and the people returned after him only to spoil.
    *11 kings 2:23-24? (Note the “11” when it should have been as two: “II”. Just “razor” cut funny :) Apparently this is a man familiar with the Bible, ha, ha, :) ha ,ha, :)
    * “Exodus 2:11-12? You can’t even see the heart of Moses behind his act, can you?
    * “1 Kings 18:24, 38-40?: God did an amazing miracle for Elijah to prove to the people there that He is the real God and not Baal:
    * 1Ki 18:38 Then the fire of the LORD fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench. 39 And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces: and they said, The LORD, he is the God; the LORD, he is the God. 40 And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there.
    * ‘1 Samuel 18:25-27? This is how business was done then. You have to put your 3D glasses to understand it properly. God allowed these things all the time, in order to put fear in the hearts of all enemies who attempted to lure the tribes of Israel far from God’s will. Saul by the way wanted to humiliate the Philistines (those who remained living) in that manner, letting them know, that the people without the foreskins (Israel -Spiritual Israel = The Church // Cut off foreskin = cut off life “of the flesh”, repentance.)
    * “Judges 15:15-16?
    This a miracle which God carried out through Samson:
    “14…….and the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon him, and the cords that were upon his arms became as flax that was burnt with fire, and his bands loosed from off his hands. 15 And he found a new jawbone of an ass, and put forth his hand, and took it, and slew a thousand men therewith.

    As usual, let the record show :) you answer nothing, I answer everything!!!!!!!!! But don’t think I do it just for you. I do it for all to see.
    May this fearsome God give you His increase in time!

  • Hieronymus Bosch

    Has anyone seen the movie called 'Jesus Christ Vampire Slayer'? It's very enlightening.

  • Max

    We really should be using the forum I think, Anyone care to suggest a thread topic?

  • Achems Razor

    Alex:

    You seemed to have omitted 2 Kings 2:23-24.

    23-And he went up from thence unto Bethal: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, go up, thou bald head; go up,thou bald head.

    24-And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she Bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two of the children of them. :)

  • Alex

    I am already there, under discussions/philosophy. I answered Joe.
    See you there. Or here. Or both.

  • Achems Razor

    correction:

    Bethel, not Bethal.

  • Hieronymus Bosch

    I just finished 'Passion Of The Christ'. I think there should have been more blood and more beatings. Other than that, I give it four out of five stars.

  • Alex

    Razor,
    I also ommited the next one (Exodus 2:11-12) but just commented on it, just to save some space.
    Now, I ommited posting 2kings 2:23-24, but not dealing with it. This was done purposely. I thought of not putting just the whole passage but give a link that has the passage as well as its explanation, and this because the nature of the passage is indeed a controversial one and demands further elaboration.

    I wanted the people to get a more rounded answer, one that was in fact ready, instead of me having to write one down, and eat more space like I did in my comment on the Song of Songs. Believe it or not, I’m always under this pressure (if you can imagine!). Now and then, I make some small cutbacks here and there.
    So that’s what I did.
    Ps. when I said "Don't knock it till you try it!" I hoped you'd understand, being a Christian I meant within matrimony!! Just clarifying to make sure.
    God bless!

  • Max

    Does any one know why some posts have been partially censored?

  • Max

    Sorry, my mistake, it was just a read error.

  • Joe

    Hey Alex, Max, and everyone

    This thread has gotten so long the comments went astray long while ago. Why don't we move to the forum.

  • Max

    I agree Joe.

  • Achems Razor

    Alex:

    On your PS. Not to worry. I fully understood! Otherwise it would go against everything you say. :) :)

  • Nay

    "God won't heal amputees because the soul is forever and flesh is temporary?"

    Do you hear yourself when you speak? If that is true then why do Christians claim god heals cancer etc? If what you claim is your response then he wouldn't bother healing anyone.

    I'm so sick of you religious crack pots.

  • Max

    Death, for princes, kings and nobody's, for all ages and all occasions.
    As Socrates put it "Since we do not know what death is it is illogical to fear it".

    OK, that was plagiarised from Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. But I think its a good summation.

  • Max

    I've come to understand that religion is the ultimate marketing tool. In controlling idiots, who refuse to grow up.

  • Alex

    Nay hi!
    You write:
    September 2nd, 2009 at 20:09
    “God won’t heal amputees because the soul is forever and flesh is temporary?”

    Do you hear yourself when you speak?"
    ----Who said this? Who are you referring to?

  • jet

    B....cks... Religion is a hoax, god? I don't know, infact no one knows... But if god which has power of everything, would not bother to write books for us, or sends us some kind of messengers in order to pass his or it's messages. I am sure it can do that directly and immediately. Just like a baby snake just comes out of its shell; 1: knows how to swim 2: where to hide to protect it's self 3:whats edible basically whatever it needs to survive. Everything else we think is just imagination. We need food, air, water, shit, pee, sex and sleep... rest is not necessary. So I believe what Zeitgeist told us even if they are bullshit, the main thing is that, all the stories that we've heard is just a fiction, dream, imagination... Thats all. World must wake up. A.S.A.P

  • Charly

    ALEX!

    Wow! I have to applaud your gigantic efforts here. Just read through most of this posts here and have to say it's impressive to see. It's like watching a Jedi at work ;-)
    (Sorry for the blasphemous reference - but it's a good image). :-)

    Although I'm not a Christian (more like a philosopher) I think many could learn a lot from you. I certainly have. Thank YOU.

    One major question I have for you:
    You mention somewhere earlier in these posts, in response to someone who's faith was shaken by contrary ideas, it was because they were never really 'born again' by the holy spirit, but merely realying upon reason/ belief... (a quick paraphrase, I know)

    That's the thing that I don't get though. I have tried to get 'born again', I have prayed for the holy spirit to renew me, but nothing happens. What happens when you want to believe, you want to go there and have that religious experience - and nothing happens?
    At the end of the day I''m left to the good old ability to reason...

    As such, I cannot honestly say that Christianity or Christ for that matter is the son of God, because he has made no contact with me... even though I have tried to contact Him.
    What's your take on this?

    God bless you.

  • http://www.jeffersonm.com Jefferson Montoya

    Um..
    This is a good attempt but this entire film is pretty pathetic.

    You know, there doesn't need to be a "Zeitgiest" theory to disprove Christianity. All that needs to be proven is that the nativity story never happened. Contemporary historians disprove the story for us. Their writings are older, and far more verifiable, than the oldest scrolls of the new testament.

    If that story is false (and it is) Jesus can not be the Christ. If Jesus is not the Christ there is no point to Christianity.

    So you don't need Zeitgeist, which does have plenty of holes in it, but you also don't need crap like this....

  • Alex

    Jefferson,
    if you only knew how ignorant and arrogant your comment is, you'd blush. Much on this on the net that destroys your simplistic reaction, but you can see the film on TDF "The case for Christ". Not that it will help you, since you don't want to be helped
    Go do your research and stop joking around.
    But speaking of jokes, have you heard the other one? Listen:

    A blonde calls her boyfriend and says, “Please come over, I need help urgently! I bought a jigsaw puzzle, and I can’t even start it. Her boyfriend asks, “What is it supposed to be when it’s finished?”
    The blonde replies, “According to the picture on the box, it’s a big chicken.” Her boyfriend hurries over to find the puzzle spread over the table. He studies the pieces for a moment, then looks at the box. Turning to his girlfriend he says, “First of all, no matter what we do, we’re not going to be able to assemble these pieces into anything resembling a chicken”
    He takes her hand and says, “Secondly, I’d advise you to relax. Let’s have a cup of coffee, and then…” he sighs, “let’s put all these Corn Flakes back in the box…”

    Smile but think pal! ;)

  • Alex

    Charly hi!
    I appreciate your kind words. God bless you for them.
    (Your referrence to Jedi, is not blasphemous, but just funny :) Did you know that Jedi was an ancient monastic peacekeeping organization? I didn't. This is where star wars got the idea.)
    Now, you write:

    1)“One major question I have for you:…
    ………That’s the thing that I don’t get though. I have tried to get ‘born again’, I have prayed for the holy spirit to renew me, but nothing happens. What happens when you want to believe, you want to go there and have that religious experience – and nothing happens?”
    ----Charly, that is what is suppose to happen…! Hold on, allow me to explain. Now, many people who attempt to be born-again do not know that they cannot born themselves again! They cannot do this. This is supernatural and this is why it is God’s job and promise. Being born-again, that is, of God, means receiving the identity of a son. This identity is given to you, when you enter in His Son! As you do that, He gives you The Holy Spirit to reside in you, then the “birth/identity” process is complete. But how do you enter His Son? You enter not in your own way. But in the way He predestined/predesignated.
    In God’s plans, man is able to connect to God, only by the means He has designated. Those means are:
    1) actual repentance = turning your mind processes to following obeying His will, in simple words, in practice turning away form sin (porn, lying, premarital relationships, homosexuality, etc.). And this for life of course.
    2) faith = accepting the event that Christ was the Son of God who came to earth, lived and died for the remission of all your sins, and resurrected, now mediating for your salvation and more. You weren’t there, that is why your faith is required. By faith you proclaim, that *God does not lie, that He is trustworthy*. (A big story why faith was chosen) This faith is to be kept to the end.
    What does a person who has this real faith and repentance do??
    a) He **openly confesses** to the world that “Christ is The Son of God, He is my saviour! When I leave this earth, I will forever be with Him!”
    b) he removes him/herself from sin
    c) He gets baptized in water. This is the seal of faith, by which Christ’s work, is merited to you. It is the closing signature in a divine Covenant. Both parties, God and man, are to uphold, the context of the “contract”.

    Many people Charly try to come to God, in their own way, but The Way, is already there for them. It is Christ. You enter Christ, in sincerity by repentance and faith, more accurately, you are placed in Christ as God sees the reality of those two factors in your heart.
    So in closing:
    God will not give someone His Holy Spirit if:
    a) His two presuppositions are not met.
    b) If man just wants to live something supernatural
    c) If someone wants to live something supernatural, in order to believe…! This is contradictory to God’s will. The supernatural follows a sincere heart that dedicates itself to The Lord, not the other way around.
    **We are not called to see to believe, but to believe in order to see.**
    The world has it the wrong way when it comes to God. God on the other hand honours the child like faith with His blessings (guidance, answers, miracles).
    It is not an easy road Charly, but it is the only road. It does though get easier as on progresses in the will of God. His purpose is sanctification, holliness/virtue. A Christian is tested time and time again. He cannot forget that he told God that he will live a life of repentance and trust.
    God of course, encourages our faith from time to time with wonderful (…) things, and strengthens our walk with Him.

    People who are not aware of these presuppositions and their mandatory adequate fulfilment, hence get “nothing in return” in their attempts, become disappointed, and enter disbelief, atheism.

    2) “At the end of the day I”m left to the good old ability to reason…”
    ----Reason Charly, is good reason, when you have all the facts straight, otherwise you are deceived.
    3) “As such, I cannot honestly say that Christianity or Christ for that matter is the son of God, because he has made no contact with me… even though I have tried to contact Him.”
    ----Although I undertsand, again, you have to see yourself as He wants to see you. And you have to make sure, you don’t want to come in contact Him, just for the experience. He cannot be played with.
    From my experience Charly it is not at all impossible, if God is contacting you through me…! You can think about it.
    My final advice. Think carefully about the above, decide it, confess it in bold faith (confess to someone Jesus is your Lord and saviour from now on! If they laugh, you laugh in joy!), be baptized, attend a protestant Church (maybe a baptist church / avoid charismatic churches.), and in time God will surprise you in a way you were never surprised. A fact, better yet… God’s promise (lived by million throughout history).
    PS. Forget about what God will do (it’s a trap) or what you will live (He knows both!), just find out the facts about the Christian faith to build on it, and follow him for life. Please read my comments on all threads (Zeitgeist The Movie, Addendum, Refuted and Exposed, Jesus Camp, The case for Christ, Louis Theroux’s Fundamentalist Christian.). I ask this of you because I know it will be of help and right direction for you.
    Here for you and on the forum.
    May God give you His increase! He does care about you by the way...

  • http://www.jeffersonm.com Jefferson Montoya

    Alex,
    I have watched that film. It is... cute.

    Just so you know.. I am a former priest. I am perfectly aware of the validity of my claims and also keenly aware of the weakness of yours. Great joke, btw, one of my favs.

    No, this is not ignorance. The nativity scene offered in the New Testament is inaccurate and impossible. But that is what happens when you try to force something into a prophecy that it never was.

    The single thing that makes this more credible than the film you quoted is that the writers at the time who discredit the story aren't attempting to do so. They are simply writing HISTORY as it is.

  • Alex

    Jefferson hi!
    Sorry, no intent to insult you, Catholic and Orthodox priests (if indeed this is true) by rule know nothing of The Bible and apologetics in general. This is my experience time and time again in talking with them. I hope you are an exception, but from what you say, you can't be.
    Now, instead of just throwing a rock, why don't you expand a little on the bit about the nativity scene. You know... that "inaccurate and impossible" stuff. Otherwise, that more smoke from your pipe.
    I'll be waiting.

    God bless!

  • http://www.jeffersonm.com Jefferson Montoya

    Alex, an example:
    The the writings of historians from the time that Jesus would have been born, we find that the premise that Joseph and his pregnant wife had to travel for a census is not a possibility. It isn't a possibility because, among other things, Roman records were kept very well and there was no census at the proper time and Romans did not require a person to travel back to a city to be counted.

    But, these things have to happen in order to fit Jesus into the prophecy of being a Messiah. He has to come from the house of David and the way chosen for that to happen is to have him born in the City of David.

    If there is no census there is no trip. If there is no trip, Jesus isn't born in Bethlehem. If he is not born in the City of David, he can not be the Messiah.

    BTW, my knowledge of the Bible is solid. I do not, in order to protect my fragile and unsustainable belief in it's divinity, add or subtract anything from it. It is the luxury of a non-believe to be able to remain objective and honest about the Bible. It is unfortunate for Christians that they are not afforded the same advantage.

    While neither a Catholic nor Orthodox priest, I do have an intimate understand of the bind a believer finds his or herself in when the challenge of such beliefs creates a big scary vacuum in the life of the follower of the Christian myth. I feel for you, I really do. But passive aggressive posts on the internet are probably not the solution.

    JM

  • Achems Razor

    Jefferson:

    I went to your website. Watched your Videos, also on YouTube. You have great songs, and great talent!

    Regards :D

  • Alex

    Jefferson,
    sad yet impressive that song of yours: "Somewhere"!
    You sing:
    "Somewhere I’ll be free of the fears, somewhere, there’s peace for me, but not here..."

    This is true, because man can only find real peace in Christ. Many are taught they are in Christ when they are not. The "good news" though is, **Christ is here!!** for all!! The same Christ spoken of here:
    Mar 4:37-41 And there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the ship, so that it was now full. 38 And he was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow: and they awake him, and say unto him, Master, carest thou not that we perish? 39 And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. 40 And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith? 41 And they feared exceedingly, and said one to another, What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?"
    This Jefferson is my experience. Him I follow!
    This is Who you need, this is Who atheistic falacious teachings and ****American "Christian" subculture**** has deprived you from Jefferson. Sort it all out and you will see, this is what happened. My prayer is with you. Really.
    God bless you!

  • Achems Razor

    Not bad, ALEX, But I like all of Patrick O' Brian's great books of the sea. Master And Commander,
    The Far Side Of The World, And all his other 21 books of the sea.

  • Alex

    Jefferson hi!
    Thanks for taking the time to reply to my challenge.
    Now, you write:
    1) “The the writings of historians from the time that Jesus would have been born, we find that the premise that Joseph and his pregnant wife had to travel for a census is not a possibility.”
    -----This is weird. I’ll explain why. If one accepts that the gospel of Luke was written before 70 AD as it actually was (from Wikipedia):
    “Some scholars have posited earlier dates for Luke's composition. Arguments for a date between AD 37 and AD 61 for the Gospel note that Luke is addressed to "Most Excellent Theophilus," possibly a reference to the Roman-imposed High Priest of Israel between AD 37 and AD 41, Theophilus ben Ananus. This reference would date the original copy of Luke to within 4 to 8 years after the death of Jesus.
    Some think that Luke collected much of his unique material during the imprisonment of Paul in Caesarea, when Luke attended to him. Paul mentions Luke, in passing, several times as traveling with Paul. However Guthrie notes that much of the evidence for dating the Gospel at any point is based upon conjecture.
    Carson, Moo and Morris opt for a date prior to AD 70 based upon 6 factors. Most prominent in their view is that no event beyond AD 62 is mentioned in the book including the death of church leaders such as Paul or James. They note that there is no mention of the Neronian persecution in the early 60's or of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.”
    a question comes up:
    How could he make such a mistake in speaking of a census that didn’t take place?? (I marvel at people’s gullibility, lack of critical thinking, even bias to this extent!) I mean he did not just speak of a particular census, but PUT IT IN WRITING FOR ALL TO SEE!! Go figure! I mean, why wasn’t he “lynched” so to speak, by his contemporaries?? Wasn’t he afraid of it when thinking of attempting such a frivolousness? No. He would be -bluntly put- what would be called AN IDIOT (!) to lie about facts of such weight (wouldn’t he Jefferson?) that all his contemporaries are aware of (!!!), or was completely ignorant of what is happening around him!! COULD THERE BE ANOTHER REASON?? WHY DOES ONE HAVE TO RESORT TO SUCH CONCLUSIONS?
    If anyone unbiased reads the Gospel of Luke, Luke will strike him as a man with no purpose for lying about something like that, or anything else for that matter; he seems 100% honest in his documentation, and knowledgeable in general.
    So, the question is, “What did his contemporaries know, that obviously made Luke’s words make sense to the?” This is **the sensible question** to be made.
    Barnes writes:
    “According to his view, the passage here means, “This was the “first” census of Cyrenius, governor of Syria.” It is called the “first” to distinguish it from one “afterward” taken by Cyrenius, Act 5:37. It is said to be the census taken by “Cyrenius; governor of Syria; “not that he was “then” governor, but that it was taken by him who was afterward familiarly known as governor. “Cyrenius, governor of Syria,” was the name by which the man was known when Luke wrote his gospel, and it was not improper to say that the taxing was made by Cyrenius, the governor of Syria,” though he might not have been actually governor for many years afterward. Thus, Herodian says that to Marcus “the emperor” were born several daughters and two sons,” though several of those children were born to him “before” he was emperor. Thus, it is not improper to say that General Washington saved Braddock’s army, or was engaged in the old French war, though he was not actually made “general” until many years afterward. According to this Augustus sent Cyrenius, an active, enterprising man, to take the census. At that time he was a Roman senator. Afterward, he was made governor of the same country, and received the title which Luke gives him.”
    There are other reasonable explanation as well.

    2) “It isn’t a possibility because, among other things, Roman records were kept very well and there was no census at the proper time….”

    “In support of Luke's description of the census that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, it is confirmed that Augustus did decree a 5% world wide inheritance tax to support the military. This was sometime before the second taxing in 6 CE and likely before Herod's death in 4 BCE; it was at some point discontinued. When this census took place cannot yet be determined, and Quirinius' official status at that time is unknown.”
    3) “…and Romans did not require a person to travel back to a city to be counted.”
    Again from the same link:
    “The Romans usually took a census in one's home town. However, in a census for inheritance taxation it would be expected that this would be conducted where the tribal records were kept, no matter who conducted the census…………. Joseph may have recently inherited some land. Since the special taxation was related to inheritances, Joseph journeyed to Bethlehem to claim his estate and settle any taxes due. He would have there registered his property for the census. Or, perhaps Joseph had recently become eighteen years of age, and as an adult was required to then register as an independent household. Or, they had recently married, and the registration of the family was required. Or, Joseph and Mary thought that their child might be the promised Messiah and that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2). They may have timed their trip to Bethlehem for the census to ensure that Jesus was born there. Also, registration may have been required before the end of the Roman year, that is, December 31, and they were late. However, there is no need to require that Joseph's registration occurred immediately after the census for taxation was decreed.”
    Perfectly consistent logical explanations.

    4) “But, these things have to happen in order to fit Jesus into the prophecy of being a Messiah. He has to come from the house of David and the way chosen for that to happen is to have him born in the City of David.”
    ------a) What extremes people go to!... With your logic all other fulfilled prophecies (on Christ) were made up as well. So, did Jesus stage His death?? Were the soldiers into the plan, when the pierced Him, as it was prophesied (John 19:33-34; 36-37)? Or when they gambled for His cloth, as prophesied (Matthew 27:35)? Or assigned a grave with the wicked but was buried with the rich (Isaiah 53:9)!? These are just a few of the hundreds! They alone speak for themselves, but if you put them all together, even a “deaf” person can hear their message!!!! Tell, you would believe that the above were staged, and still consider your self intelligent?

    5) “It is the luxury of a non-believe to be able to remain objective and honest about the Bible. It is unfortunate for Christians that they are not afforded the same advantage.”
    ----Find one comment of mine, in all Zeitgeist threads where I was not honest. Just one, will do.

    6) “While neither a Catholic nor Orthodox priest, I do have an intimate understand of the bind a believer finds his or herself in when the challenge of such beliefs creates a big scary vacuum in the life of the follower of the Christian myth.”
    ----Sorry, but you have a lack of understanding for most if not all aspects of Biblical Christianity. This is -for starters- made clear by your illogical conclusions (on Luke, the census, and on prophecy/so far…)

    7) “I feel for you, I really do. But passive aggressive posts on the internet are probably not the solution.”
    ----Thanks, but no thanks. But if it’s any consolation, from my view, you being a spiritual victim, I feel for you too, I’ll pray for you as well. God still cares for you. (Imagine that.) // “passive aggression” as in defence for His truth, yes, no problem.
    May God give you His increase!
    PS. It would be honourable for you if you don’t just react to this post, but keep silent to it if you think you may be mistaken. I will not consider it cowardly of you. BUT if you react with nonsense arguments to the above, this I will consider cowardly of you, cowardly a your expense and at the expense of others. Be prudent; everybody's gain.

  • Alex

    Razor,
    Oh that's where you get your "sharp" ideas from! Add one more to your collection: The god delusion.
    PS.
    "What do you get when you cross a Jehova's Witness with an atheist?
    Someone who knocks on your door for no apparent reason."

    :)

  • Charly

    Hi Alex and all readers here,

    Wow, thanks for the indepth reply.
    Well, here's my input into the debate:

    First, why I think Zeitgeist is a joke.
    Basically because the facts don't fit the data.
    And the number one reason, comes from the Early Christian themselves. If the story of Jesus was a total fabrication, then why would anyone choose to believe it, at the expense of being crucified themselves or to be shreded alive by lions?
    The Romans gave them a simple command - renounce this story or die a brutal and painful death. Yet here there were, thousands of these Christians, facing it head on.
    (there's plenty of undisputed historical data on this)

    If anyone told anyone in this forum, renounce your atheism or be eaten alive by lions, not one person here would be brave enough to do that!
    Heck I'd dance to whatever Romans told me to believe and go back to my normal life... That's reasonable. Why would I choose the alteranative - unless something indeed was happening in the consciousness of the people at the time - that was real and powerful?
    The facts don't fit the data.
    (That's also not to speak of Emperor Constantine and his vision....)

    Zeitgeist of course, is created by a bunch of opinionated Gen Ys, who smoked a few joints, had a few occult books lying around, and thought of creating a doco, since it's so easy to do these days... Also mix in a few plausible conspiracies, which is a hot best-selling subject, and let it appeal to a similar taget market. Too easy.

    (I had predicted an Obama conspiracy doco to come out after he was elected. It's too easy not to have a best-seling title with a hot subject like this.
    It's a simple formula for a best-seller = Take one popular point of view that people feel strongly about - and try to proove the opposite - in particular to make you believe you're being duped by all these 'oldies in power'. Zeitgeist came out all guns blazing - Christianity, 9/11 and so on. Da Vinci Code is another classic example, of how to create a best-seller)

    Anyway, back to our dialogue.
    Now you mentioned a few interesting things that I ought to be doing...
    1. Witness to others that Jesus is the Son of God.
    Well, I don't really know that for sure Alex. There is a part of me that's skeptical, so for me to declare this to others, that would be a bit of a lie. I believe Jesus was a real teacher, one that was endowed with healing powers - but so are others these days and in days past...
    There's no proof for me that he is far and beyond a human being, who was obviously very gifted, wise, strong of will and so on. For the part that he came from a virgin and rose from clinical death - well, facts don't fit the data.
    No one has done that yet in recorded medical age. Absolute Zero.
    Jesus also said that beyond him, we would be able to do miracles like his and greater... Again, no one has been able to top his miracles. Not even close.
    Again, strong reason for doubt.

    With that said, I am willing to temprarily suspend my critical side and let Jesus come and testify to me directly.
    I have followed your formula in a sense, and I have not had any revelation. So why would I be going out to testify?
    I would not be believable and could not get myself to say things that my heart is not fully convinced of...

    One additional comment on the steps you listed actually.
    My biggest weakness probably comes on the sexual dimension. I am single, have engaged in pre-marital sex and have/ do sometimes watch porn - in particular when I am single.

    But I have tried to be good. I have decided to stop all forms of sexuality and wait for my wife... The most I have went was eight weeks. At that point, I'm like a bow under tenstion and without any 'hope' in sight, for me to continue on that path indefinitely is impossible.

    From experience, I don't find the idea to abstain from all forms of sexual expression, in any way, untill marriage doable. Not in todays society anyway.
    Sure, it was somewhat different in ancient times - i.e. you would be paired up with a wife at the age of 16 or thereabouts. Marriages were quick and to the point. You would be able to direct your sexual energies within a partnership quite easily.

    Let's look at the logistics today - 2009:
    Between the process of actually finding a compatible partner, much dating, then getting to know them, then getting engaged, then planning for a wedding... well, that can take at best, one whole year - more realistically, two years, but also maybe three of more.

    How can I possibly abstain myself from all forms of sexual expression for 1-3 years or more, untill the honeymoon?
    (especially since I have tasted the fruit so to speak, and know how good it can be)
    Unless I have a new biology, this is almost like asking me to go into the desert for 40 days and fast. That is equally beyond my power.

    Again, I tried it for eight weeks, in the hope that I would have some form of breakthrough - but I had no revelation - just a lot of pent up frustration...

    I'd appreciate your perspective on this Alex,
    God bless.

  • Achems Razor

    Alex:

    If it was a beautiful gorgeous Woman, knocking on my door for no apparent reason. I would find a reason! :D

  • WTC 7

    Hi Charly,

    Just a few comments on your last post.

    I think it is wrong to say that people choose or reject what to believe in on the basis of the assumption that they might be killed for it at some later point.

    Also, it is not quite clear why you consider the fact the early Christians choose to accept the faith of Christ in the face of almost certain torture and death should be a strong and valid argument which proves that there was something "real and powerful" behind it, specifically at that period of time. I find the argument weak for two reasons:

    1) it provides the same validation for beliefs of all the martyrs – victims of the Catholic church throughout centuries (victims of the infamous inquisition, of the witch-hunt, which alone accounts for thousands of victims burned alive, the scientists who perished for not renoucing their scientific beliefs, etc.). For, following your argument, there had to be a power behind their faith so strong so as to give them strength to withstand the terror of the Catholic church;

    2) the persecution of Christians by the Romans was by no means equally intense at all times and all parts of the Roman empire; the first recorded state-sponsored persecution on a large scale had in reality nothing to do with Christian religion at all but was the way for the insane Nero to avoid the wrath of the citizens of Rome by accusing the, generally not understood and mistrusted, Christians for setting the city on fire (whether he himself set Rome on fire or not is disputed by historians, but is not important here).

    As for the vision of Constantine, I personally can't see the gentle and loving Jesus instructing how his sign of cross is to be carried in a battle… But, ok, that's my personal view of it…

  • Charly

    Hi WTC 7,

    Well, I presented a subjective, conscience driven challenge:
    --> Would you (not hypotehetically, but actually you) stand up on your present beliefs, if you had a painful optional death put before you?

    Personally no. I'm not convinced enough of anything I believe to put myself optionally in the mouths of lions.

    As for your reason, well, they are not the same thing. The Catholic church didn't put to death 'Martyrs' but already condemned people. (many of them actual criminals, let's not forget) It wasn't exactly 'optional'. Galileo shut up after being threated with grand heresy - after making fun of the pope and challenging his authority, mind you. He was just put under house arrest.

    Bottom line, Christian martyrs had the option to back out of it, - but chose to stand on that anyway, - valiantly, more like Socrates. (yet they were ordinary people, with little or no education)

    As for the historic references, well, you sound like a smart guy and know about your history - so you should know it extended beyond Nero, and Constantine was more than just about the creation of symbol... You know what I'm talking about. (and so do I) SO let's not dilly-dally around the issue with distorted historical references...

    Again, bottom line:
    The question is - why would the early martyrs and the apostles themselves - choose death over their beliefs?

    Again, I'm not Christian, but I look at the facts, and must admit - there was something there...
    (If you notice in the previous posts, I do have my doubts too about whether Jesus was the Son of God, or whether he was merely a very influential and inspiring figure for the times -and yes, the idea enthused people, a lot.)

    The Zeitgeist proposition is much, much more ridiculous. With such lame references, it takes a lot of faith to actually believe it - and I'm not even going to go into the 9/11 conspiracy. Of course,as I said docos like these get peoples attention.

    People need to have some sort of external demon to believe in, - a scape goat - rather than looking into themselves to realize they're leading meaningless and lame lives.

    So today it's very fashionable to blame the Catholic church for the world's ills, or the government, the banks - for why their life sucks. It's a time long principle for 'scape goating'. Sacrifices to the Gods used to be the favorite means in the ancient times accross the world. Today we like to tear down the successful and one's that have a purpose in their life.
    We're scared of them. They have a purpose, and we don't. "They must be conspiring against us!"

    The only problem is - wherever you go, there you are - as Socrates put it. Things, ain't gonna change, untill people look within.

  • WTC7

    Hi again Charly,

    Thanks for the response, you put some good arguments forth.

    The fact is that Gallileo was held under house arrest and not executed (but he renounced his science that was going against the teaching of the Catholic church and lived a very comfortable life in 'detention' after that as a matter of fact). But Giordano Bruno, an extraordinary scientist, an unharnessed spirit, did not and therefore died at stake.

    I am well aware that Nero's persecution of Christians was not the only one (& I said it was the first recorded one) and that the subsequent emperors persecuted them to a larger or lesser degree, but that still doesn't change the fact that people's beliefs are not conditioned by the physical consequences they may endure because of them.

    But to answer your question - I believe that the Christ brought a new, extraordinarily appealing message to all those who saw no hope in this life - that a pious, Christian life here, however hard, was the entry ticket to a paradise in the next. That was something completely different to the pagan understanding of life and death. Therefore, in my eyes, there is no wonder that so many gladly sacrificed their lives certain that their sacrifice allowed them to enter into a much better world. I guess that for someone without such a strong faith it is impossible to comprehend it (me included). Although, the number of those that renounced Christ under such threats is not as small as we are lead to believe - some correspondence between the Roman officials at the time indicates that they were not sure what to do with numbers of those who claimed to have rejected the Christian faith.

    But such devotion to a cause (or a belief) is not confined only to these extraordinary early Christians. A Czech student Jan Palach set himself to fire and burned to death in 1969 in the middle of Prague in protest of the Soviet occupation of his country. Shortly after, another student did the same. I don't think any additional explanation is needed here... The Spirit works in mysterious ways...

    If it counts for anything, the Constantine's mother was a devout Christian, she was even even canonized as a saint later on...

    As for the Zeitgeist, it's anything but ridiculous. On the contrary, the topics it covers are very serious and relevant to our lives today. I may myself not be convinced with the connection it makes btw Christ and various other ancient deities (primarily because I have not researched any of it and am not familiar with the evidence put forth). But since I am familiar with the field of international relations, and politics in general, I can only say that the other topics covered in the doc are of immense importance. The notions are not original in any way, if you research a bit, you will see that Zeitgeist elaborates on issues that have been pinpointed as problematic for some time now, even in the mainstream political science - the issue of the elite rule, for example. The monetary system is is so plainly a field where manipulation by those within the system is taking place, that I feel there is no need to explain it to someone who doesn't see it. The Founding Fathers did their utmost (although many of them are accused of being Masons and all sorts of things) to prevent the establishment of a central bank in the US. Many subsequent US presidents were opposed to creation of such a blood-sucking institution, Jackson in particular, until Wilson was lured into establishing the Federal Reserve, which he later regretted. We are not jealous of them, they are simply blood suckers who have the power.

    I myself don't blame the Catholic church for the ills of the world, but because of its pretty violent and demagogic history it has to share its burden of it.

    Looking into oneself is always a good way to start, and the problems are usually exactly there. Another way of finding peace is a total ignorance of the world that surrounds us. One can always make a choice.

  • Alex

    Charly hi! (replying to your comment "at" September 9th, 2009 at 05:19)
    Glad I can be of any help to you (hopefully). Now, realize that you have to objectively first understand what I write, remember it, and at the end, see if they it all accumulates into a picture of the truth.
    1) “Now you mentioned a few interesting things that I ought to be doing…
    1. Witness to others that Jesus is the Son of God.
    Well, I don’t really know that for sure Alex. There is a part of me that’s skeptical, so for me to declare this to others, that would be a bit of a lie.”
    -----Yes, this would be a lie. This is not what I meant of course. You said that you tried to contact God, but this was very vague to me. I wasn’t sure whether or not you had realized Who Jesus was, at that time. So what I said referred to the case you had come to realize Christ was the Son of God. Anyway, my point was, that you first learn about Him (that’s why I directed you to my comments and links), see where the evidence leads regarding His person (See “The Case for Christ”), and as you will realize **He must be The Son of God**, then, you must dare to openly confess Him as Son of God and your Lord. This is where all your evidence will push you to make the leap of faith and confess the truth all the evidence leads to.

    2) “I believe Jesus was a real teacher, one that was endowed with healing powers – but so are others these days and in days past…”
    -----Indeed healing powers is not proof you are the Son of God, but it may show that you might have a connection with Him. That’s another story. But can you name one for me who is not a Christian?

    3) “For the part that he came from a virgin and rose from clinical death – well, facts don’t fit the data.”
    -----a) Charly, what data? Does anyone have data that shows Jesus was not born of a virgin??
    b) The virgin birth is accepted on the basis that other Old Testament prophecies have come true. It cannot be proved on its own, nor disproved of course. But one does not need to prove that to realize Jesus was The Son of God.

    4) “No one has done that yet in recorded medical age. Absolute Zero.”
    -----a) Done what? Give birth without previously having intercourse?? Of course not. I mean, it’s a miracle, not something that can be repeated.
    b) Returning from clinical death, is recorded hundred of thousands of times, if not millions!! Google it if you want.

    5) “Jesus also said that beyond him, we would be able to do miracles like his and greater… Again, no one has been able to top his miracles. Not even close.”
    -----a) This is incorect. Not “we”. He was talking about his followers (those who believe in Him).
    Joh 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do….
    Note Charly that “He that believeth on me”, that is, on His power and desire to give that which we ask for (Heb.11:6). Christians fall sort of such faith. Why? Touching upon it, because their sins prevent the application of faith as they are made by them to hesitate. If there is hesitation there is no answer from God as an answer to our faith. (Most of the times God gives us what we ask for, in grace/mercy, not due to a faith that pleases Him )
    See the principle (note that “anything” in v.7):
    Jam 1:5-8 But if any of you lacketh wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all liberally and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, nothing doubting: for he that doubteth is like the surge of the sea driven by the wind and tossed. 7 For let not that man think that he shall receive anything of the Lord; 8 a doubleminded man, unstable in all his ways.

    This kind of faith is scarce, so the miracles are scarce as well (small or “greater” ones); it’s not that God does not want to do miracles (this -that He does- has been manifested to me and millions of Christians personally.)
    b) Secondly, there’s no reason to believe that there weren’t Christians throughout history that indeed did such miracles, ones that were though not documented. Why would they necessarily be?? I myself with another older Christian, did provoke through prayer such a miracle that could be considered “greater” or of the same “amazingness” (no doubt), when I was just a few years in faith. I know that most will trample over it here, so I’ll just give a clue to it: Elijah.
    I have heard of a real amazing miracle somewhere in Ethiopia I think. The story goes somewhat like this. Christians were persecuted and as they fled they prayed for a mountain to get out of the way… and it did. I’ve been told that this is apparent when seeing a before and after map; a mountain seems out of place. I don’t know the accurate details of the story, nor if it’s true. But I’ll search the claims and let you know. This would be considered a “greater miracle”, right?
    c) These words of Jesus could be said to be at least fulfilled by the apostles: Acts 5:15, 19:12, 13:11, 5:1-10. (Remember these miracles were documented in Scripture and we have no contemporary voice of their time, exposing them as liars. The existence of such documents alone, in itself, speaks for the truth).
    The problem is, how can one compare amazing miracles to find the greater one among them?? Anyway, for these greater miracles to take place:
    ** there has to be strong unshakable faith in God The miracle worker.
    ** a holy life
    ** there has to be a reason for them to manifest. One might have that strong faith for such a miracle, yet God might not want to perform that particular miracle.
    d) Now, when Jesus said that those who believed in Him, would perform greater miracles, He was not prophesying that they definitely would!! His attempt was to let His followers know of their potential. Christianity has suffered much throughout history, and I believe this potential, has been “misplaced”.
    6) “With that said, I am willing to temprarily suspend my critical side and let Jesus come and testify to me directly.”
    -----No. Never suspend your critical side!!! NEVER!! God gave you it!! It’s just that the problem is that people believe that thinking critically is enough, when it isn’t! You need:
    a) to have all the facts, in order for your critical thinking not to deceive you.
    b) to have a very good thinking capacity; not all people have this, and they cannot be helped to realize this, since to them it sounds belittling. In their case, they can progress in their search for truth up to a degree, no further; from then on they have to be led to deeper levels of truth. They many times -almost inevitably- even become a hindrance in achieving/receiving the truth.

    7) “I have followed your formula in a sense, and I have not had any revelation.”
    -----a) (It’s not my formula.) “Followed”, in what “sense”? I think you somehow misunderstood my comment or I wasn’t clear enough. You have to first apply your faith **on the indication** before you, and THEN God will reveal His Son in you. Remember this.
    b) You know, your type of situation, was less possible in the past. Most people in simple heart and in sincere quest for God, read the New Testament without knowing any opposing “views”, and with an open mindedness read it as they would in simplicity read any other book. Because there were no contradicting ideas that would place doubt in them within The New Testament (as today: books, television, internet), they just realized what they were reading, was amazing and truthful. Believe it or not. Then, they applied their trust to it, deciding repentance unto God and faith in Christ, and God fulfilled His promise to them, giving them His Holy Spirit. Simple as that. Today of course atheists will claim: “Ha! See!! Their ignorance of the facts lead them to their belief!” But this in itself is ignorance. There is nothing that can destroy a knowledgeable Christian’s faith. There is nothing out there, that can come close to showing that the salvation message of The New Testament is a false one. NOTHING. But if Christians like the simple hearted (in a good way) that I mentioned, came in contact with the ignorance and arrogance to the facts of atheists, prior or at the same time they were reading the NT, then unjustified doubt would grow in their heart; this would hinder their application of trust. (Unjustified because they are filled with gaps and absurd beliefs.)
    In closing this. A good advice would then be to turn off all atheistic arguments because they are proven wrong time and time again, and just read the NT one more time, as if you have heard nothing and just reading a new book. If as you read it gives you the impression “this is history”, just go with it and see where it takes you. Tell God -in simple heart- that again you are attempting to learn the truth about the Person named Jesus of Nazareth. Then keep reading. See what happens. I believe most if not all atheistic claims would seem foolish to you.
    It’s hard to give personal advice to someone you never met up close, I’m just guessing your detailed needs. I hope I’m not way off.

    8. “So why would I be going out to testify? I would not be believable and could not get myself to say things that my heart is not fully convinced of…”
    -----No Charly, don’t do this! It’s a sin in itself! God can’t be fooled, and most Christians can’t either.

    9) “My biggest weakness probably comes on the sexual dimension. I am single, have engaged in pre-marital sex and have/ do sometimes watch porn – in particular when I am single.”
    ----I’ve been there Charly (this is your real name?). This is natural and God knows (of course) this need of ours and the -to different degrees- weakness to control it. He apllies His longsufferring to you, because He wants to invest in your sanctification/holiness in order to save you. All He wants to see in you, is **a continuous effort to real repentance**. Now, if at this time, you sin, you again have to apply your faith in Christ’s work on the cross for your sin. This practically means, saying “Christ, you died for my sin, the sin I just committed (name it). Forgive me for my sin and failing to resist it. Help me grow far from what is not pleasing to You. From this moment my effort will again be against this and other sins.”, and believing that Christ **already paid for that sin/s**. Believe it, confess it, go on in holiness. This Charly means removing your self from the presence of sin and placing your self in places of less or no spiritual danger, (church, fellowship with Christians. If television is a problem, get rid of it, at least till you grow in Christ and can control it instead of it controlling you.) This does not mean just to abstain from sexual immorality, but to stop lying, cursing, talking behind people’s back, using women as an “object”, disrespecting your parents/family, thinking of yourself alone and not of others, etc.

    So, it is a matter of heart first of all and God is more longsuffering than one can imagine (for He hates what… He hates -sin.). When you start to believe in Christ and want to repent because God wants you to, you should just put your effort in doing good not giving tome to sin.
    Christianity Charly is not an easy path (depending on the luggage were carrying) but it’s a blessed path of virtue, miracles, guidance, truth, change, a life of blessings unto eternity.

    10) “But I have tried to be good. I have decided to stop all forms of sexuality and wait for my wife… The most I have went was eight weeks. At that point, I’m like a bow under tenstion and without any ‘hope’ in sight, for me to continue on that path indefinitely is impossible.”
    -----Charly you’re on the right path, don’t loose it. God did appreciate your efforts in pleasing Him (Again, did you believe in Him???...), but salvation will not be given to you according to your works but according to Christ’s work on the cross. Works just honor God’s holiness and prove your sincere repentance. Do put effort in pleasing God, BUT KNOW ****only Christ’s work will satisfy Him and your trust/faith in this grace given to mankind***, because you will always be a sinner (to a certain degree)!
    Eph 2:8-10 for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not of works, that no man should glory. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them.

    Even if you had one sin in your life before coming to Christ, the absolute God would have to have sent His Son to die for you (if you can imagine that!) since His absolute Justice would have to be met, and It says: God is Holy, man has sin, man deserves punishment (in simple terms), and God’s love replies: “My Son will pay for them.”.
    11) From experience, I don’t find the idea to abstain from all forms of sexual expression, in any way, untill marriage doable. Not in todays society anyway.
    -----But your dismissing the facts again. Millions, in today’s society, do exactly this! It’s not easy, but a man who has brought his heart before his Creator, can accomplish more than he can imagine.

    12) “Sure, it was somewhat different in ancient times – i.e. you would be paired up with a wife at the age of 16 or thereabouts. Marriages were quick and to the point. You would be able to direct your sexual energies within a partnership quite easily.”
    ------The good old days :) :)

    13) “How can I possibly abstain myself from all forms of sexual expression for 1-3 years or more, untill the honeymoon?”
    -----What? Why wait 1-3 years???? Find a good person with real virtue and friendly at least to Christianity and get married. (The thing is, are you a good person with real virtue etc.? It looks that way.)

    14) “Again, I tried it for eight weeks, in the hope that I would have some form of breakthrough – but I had no revelation – just a lot of pent up frustration…”
    -----Charly in talking about revelation I am talking about information implanted into your spirit. Practically this means that The Christ you applied your faith to due to your indications, will be revealed deep in you! YOU JUST WILL KNOW DEEP IN YOU (!!) CHRIST WAS AND IS THE SON OF GOD. It’s like you walking on the path of Christ and God suddenly placing you in Christ, becoming fully aware (beyond explanation) that He was Who He said He was!

    Hope I’ve helped.
    I advise you to enter the forum, where you can send me personal messages that I will respond to, or get my email address there in my profile. This way our conversation will be in private and unhindered.
    Please state less question each time, so I can answer faster to you and to others as well.
    May God give you His increase!!

  • Joe

    Dear Alex

    What do you mean by 'His increase'?

  • Alex

    Joe hi!
    I'm amazed with that "dear" part... :)
    By "His increase" I mean the fact that God is the One who must, allow or help, one to grow in knowledge of truth, once it is given...!! This is yet another wonderful truth many are not aware of.
    This principle is from:
    1Co 3:5-7 "Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? 6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. 7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase."
    So my belief is, that no matter what I do for you, you need God's positive involvement to get it. So, this statement of mine, is just a prayer to God that He shows grace and mercy on you by giving you His increase, hence "receiving" what I give you. What you will do with it, is your choice.
    ---There's more to this, but... no-can-do :)

  • Daniela

    well now that uve "proven" "jesus" to have lived... prove me god exists. haha this documentary coulndt be worse.

  • Joe

    Dear Alex

    You are dear to me just like anyone and also it's my way of showing respect and tolerance despite you calling me and others with insulting names.

    Thanks for the clarification of 'His increase'. And it's nice to read a short comment from you and I think it's more effective(hint).

  • Joe

    Dear Daniela

    If I may comment...

    When you say that 'Jesus was proven' I think you have to ask yourself which Jesus.

    Jesus, also known as Yeshua or Yehoshua in Hebrew, was a common name during first century A.D. and there is a great likelihood that many Jews could have had same name.

    Was there a man named Jesus? Yes
    Was there a Jesus according to Christian doctrine? Still debateable

    If you believe there was a Christian Jesus then god exists.
    Because Christian Jesus was and is a son of god.

    And, yes, I agree this doc couldn't have been worse.

  • Alex

    Joe hi!
    1) “You are dear to me just like anyone and also it’s my way of showing respect and tolerance despite you calling me and others with insulting names.”
    -----This sounds nice, if it were only true (after the “dear” part follow):
    “Or is the bible too deep in your ass to understand reason?”
    “As long as you not b/shitting I would love to read your comments” (something you apologized for.)
    But, yes, you have improved.

    2) What insulting names are you referring to? Just mention one insult to you so all can see, one that can be seen as such by common sense. If there isn’t one that is expressing “insult”, would that give me a right to openly call you a liar, exposing you? It would. Whether I would call you that or not is up to me and concerns the weight of your words in context.
    Now, regarding others, (you being -as you sometimes appear to be…- a moral protector of others…), if I for instance called someone “ignorant”, I’d have done so because I had reason/s that showed you were ignorant. This is not an insult from my side, although one can subjectively take it as such. Not my fault. I name things (not like most) as they are, but without passing the line and cursing at someone. I spoke of some Christians being ignorant as well (on this thread).
    The same hold true for the word “arrogant”; I will use it, when I really see one being such. If one does not want to feel insulted (while he is not being insulted!), he should be more “sound” in reaction and argument, but also realize, as I repeatedly say, my purpose is never to insult but to awake and also realize that someone sees him/her as they really are (in the comments). Someone can believe that, and someone can’t. Simple as that.

    3) “And it’s nice to read a short comment from you and I think it’s more effective(hint).”
    I agree and prefer it as well. But this is not up to me. People say many wrong misleading things, but also ask questions that demand detail and solidity in evidence. (Also, in some comments I answer to 2-3 people at a time.)
    This is something you should have realized by now Joe.

    4) The part about Jesus not existing is just as the word describes it... "ingorance". (How can people still say things like that?? A rhetorical question...)
    God bless!

  • Joe

    Dear Alex

    “Or is the bible too deep in your ass to understand reason?”
    At first, believe it or not, I thought you were a punk-ass religious fanatic who simply pissed on people's opinion to satisfy your self-serving delusions. Then I saw how much time and efforts you made to have people understand you. I read your comments, clicked your links, and I really tried to understand where you were coming from. I gave you my benefit of the doubt.

    "But, yes, you have improved."
    Alex, are you trying to prove that I was right about you all along?

    And for the rest of your comments...they don't deserve any responses. Sorry.

  • Alex

    Joe
    no need to explain. I understand perfectly.
    God bless you!

  • Charly

    Thank you Alex, for your indepth answers and guidance.
    I'll take what you wrote and meditate on it.
    Much appreciated. :)

    God bless.

  • Alex

    For Charly (second part)
    9) “The process of dying on the cross is not fatal in itself – it’s long and drawn out so that it can take days on end. He was there apparently just for a few hours!”
    -----a) You mean the process of hanging on the cross, right?
    b) Not sure what you mean, but anyway the following show that the purpose of crucifixion was death:
    Mat 27:24-25 "When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. 25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children."
    Are you telling me Charly that these words don’t imply death? Pilate knew this would happen, something He didn’t want. If it was just a punishment Jesus would live through, why all the fuss with washing his hands and speaking of His blood on their hands? Besides, haven’t you read:
    John 19:32: The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other.
    Do you know Charly why they broke their legs? Death! It is called “crurifracture”, and its purpose was that the victim would not be able to take in a good breath while hanging from his arms, so he would quickly die from suffocation.
    So the purpose of crucifixion -contrary to what you say (I think/don't want to do you an injustice)- was the death of a man on a cross. If you don’t believe the above see the word “crucifixion” on Wikipedia. (“There is a record of one person who survived being crucified.”-Wikipedia.)

    Do you know why Jesus’ legs weren’t broken? The next verse:
    33 "But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs."
    This was the superficial reason. His legs not being broken, was symbolically hidden within the Passover ordinances given by God for the slaughtered sheep (Jesus is by the way called “The Lamb of God Who takes away the sin’s of the world”):
    Exo 12:46 "In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the
    house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof."
    And in speaking of the righteous servant:
    Psa 34:20 "He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken."
    Fulfilled in Christ:
    Joh 19:36 "For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be
    broken."
    If Jesus had not died when the soldiers came to check, they would have broken his legs, and this prophecy
    would not be fulfilled, and the symbolism of the slaughtered sheep would loose its weight/explanation as well.

    But is there another way of confirming Jesus died? Two details:
    “To confirm that a victim was dead, the Romans **inflicted a spear wound** through the right side of the heart. When pierced, a sudden flow of **blood and water** came Jesus' body . The medical significance of the blood and water has been a matter of debate. One theory states that Jesus died of a massive myocardial infarction, in which the heart ruptured (Bergsma) which may have resulted from His falling while carrying the cross. (Ball) Another theory states that Jesus' heart was surrounded by fluid in the pericardium, which constricted the heart and caused death.(Davis) The physical stresses of crucifixion may have produced a fatal cardiac arrhythmia. (Johnson)
    The stated order of "blood and water" may not necessarily indicate the order of appearance, but rather the relative prominence of each fluid. In this case, a spear through the right side of the heart would allow the pleural fluid (fluid built up in the lungs) to escape first, followed by a flow of blood from the wall of the right ventricle.(Edwards) The important fact is that the medical evidence supports that Jesus did die a physical death.”
    This all happened in plain sight of hundreds of eyewitnesses. Would you put the above facts in writing for
    all contemporaries to read when you and everybody knows that none of it is true????
    And believe me, there’s much much you don’t know on the issue!

    10) “He was taken off the cross shortly and accounts state that he was speared, – to speed up the process and take him off.”
    -------Funny. Actually, “speed up the process” towards death (broken legs and piercing)!!!

    11) “You could easily put a sponge like spear with red ink and water to make it look like he had been stabbed…”
    -------Easily huh? :) I think Hollywood had its toll on you pal :). All those eyes on the soldier (they knew what he was going to do; it was a known practice), but all were to stupid to see that the spear was a fake. Come oooon Charly! How'd did you think of that one. This hypothesis of yours, I must say gives me the impression that you’d like there to be another “explanation”… any explanation. No offence, just telling it like I see it in the hope of awakening you maybe to a reality of yourself you are avoiding. Again, no offence. Just being honest.
    John himself testifies to being an eyewitness (In his Gospel he is accustomed to speak of himself in the third person):
    Joh 19:35 "And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe."

    12) “The key is, Pilate wanted hima alive. (and he was the ruler of the city)”
    This is again weird. Think. If Pilate staged the whole thing, this would be a real foolish strategy of him. Why you ask? Because if Jesus was ever seen alive, Pilate would be ridiculed by the people and who knows what a riot that would have brought on, and what the outcome would be! I mean, he was afraid to stand up to the pharisees and to those who yelled “crucify him” and do the right thing to begin with! He seems like a coward and a diplomat at that! He doesn’t fit the character of someone who would stage something like that. He wouldn’t risk his authority and be ridiculed as a liar/deceiver, or maybe even risk his life!! Things were wierd (religion and politics). So, it doesn’t sound right.
    And even if we entertain your thought, and supposed that Jesus was escaped far away to another country, guess what (I love this one :) )??
    HE’D COME BACK!!! UNTIL ALL OF PROPHECY REFERRING TO HIM BE FULFILLED!!! Pilate’s nightmare! Then He’d definitely not get away a second time :)
    13) “To further support this idea, we also know that Jesus was then shortly taken into a secret tomb, where he was out of sight for three days. That’s optimal time to get some rest, some bandages, some medicine and come back.”
    ------a) Charly the three days mentioned were not 3 X 24hour days like ours. Jesus was crucified on Friday and resurrec-ted on Sunday. The Bible uses expressions like “three days,” “the third day,” “on the third day,” “after three days,” and “three days and three nights” to signify the same period of time/parts of the day; it was a known figure of speech something repeatedly shown elsewhere in The Bible.
    b) Jesus clearly died. This is what the fact shows. The fact that you or anyone can make a hypothesis means nothing actually since a hypothesis can be made on anything. I mean ON ANYTHING! Try it.

    14) “Yes, the desciples would have seen him and 500 others. Yes, he went away – probably because if the clergy knew about him again there would have been another riot – especially now that Pilate would have also been implicated in this act.
    That’s a pretty solid argument I think.”
    ------Doesn’t make clear sense. Don’t know what to make of it exactly.
    Anyway, they saw him being beaten, crucified and pierced and dying, buried, and resurrected. And after that (!) again they saw Him.
    Well, you got the idea. I hope :)

    May God give you His increase!

  • Alex

    The following is my answer to Charly's hypothesis. I know it's long, but remember that half of it is Carly's words quoted by me so he knows what I'm referring to (and you all as well). Wish it could have been shorter, but that was not possible. If one is not interested in what I say, it would be appreciated if he just skips over it instead of hasseling me :) about it. I cut it into two parts.

    Charly,
    glad to be of any help; that's what I'm here for.

    You write:
    1) “This is a pretty good doco – superior to Zetigeist Refuted in every way.”
    Glad you liked it, although I don’t see why it’s superior to “Refuted”. They serve two different purposes, hence the outcome is different. (Did you see the first one: Zeitgeist Exposed as well?)

    2) “From previous comments, I do find it strange that many think this doco is one sided – the title is called, “The case FOR Christ”.
    It’s meant to be. Are you then the same critics that never mention the same thing against Zetigeist or Dick Dawkins? They’s just as one sided. Bottom line, there’s value in having one sided docos, whether pro or con – the secret is to watch both.
    ------Very true. But it was not one-sided dismissing the other side. I mean it refuted the other side with facts.

    3) “I do agree that the ending was a bit much Joe – I kind of cringed too – but if you consider that this doco is probably passed around in churches for the newly initiated (their target market) it’s probably what they wanted…”
    ------You “cringed” to it?? Charly, where does it say that this doc was for churches? It wasn’t. Show me where you got this idea from. His effort is towards the atheists or undecided mostly. Not towards Christians. Christians don’t need this for themselves to believe (they believe already and have a relationship with Him), but for others.

    4) “The fact that they use scriptures/ the gospels to validate the story, yeah, that’s acceptable. Look, we need to be realistic about this – ABC, CBS and NBC weren’t around to cover the story…
    The fact that we have those accounts, and they’re reliably from around the same time – that’s pretty good.”
    ------Not accurate. He doesn’t just use Scripture but outside sources as well.

    5) “Not the ’scientific ideal’, — but that’s just never gonna happen, unless we invent a time machine. Let’s be real.”
    -----This “Not the scientific ideal” is strange. What is the scientific ideal to you? If you read “Shattering the Christ Myth” you will see how science is used for all historic documents including the New Testament manuscripts.

    6) “Jesus was intentionally coordinating everything in his life so it matched with the prophecies. He was convinced he was ‘the chosen one’ from an early age apparently, and also knew the old bible off by heart………………..But Jesus knew what he was doing all along. For someone as intelligent and strong of will as he, the odds of meeting up with those prophecies, are pretty good.
    ------a) Pretty good?? Jesus was at the temple at 12 amazing them:
    Luk 2:46-49 And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. 47 And ***all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers****. 48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. 49 And he said unto them, ***How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?***
    How could He do this? Don’t tell me He already had learned the Old Testament. Then, did Jesus stage His birth place and events around them?? How about His death?? He staged that too? How and why??? Were the soldiers into the plan, when the pierced Him, as it was prophesied (John 19:33-34; 36-37)? Or when they gambled for His cloth, as prophesied (Matthew 27:35)? Or assigned a grave with the wicked but was buried with the rich (Isaiah 53:9)!? ***These are just a few of the hundreds!*** They alone speak for themselves, but if you put them all together (hundreds of them), even a “deaf” person can hear their message!!!!
    b) Charly I find weird your sureness on what He supposedly did? Don’t you??
    c) If you like to believe this, do so. But know you have **no proof** to offer to yourself for this. You’re just accepting it, because for some reason you are finding it convenient. Could this be true? --Christ fulfilled prophecy because He could, but all prophecy. The basis for all His fulfilled prophesies, was planned by God (His heritage and His birth place). As you can understand, He could not fulfil these and get away with it!! Especially among Jewish scribes!!! Also, His miracles (healings, signs and wonders), due to which Jews (who didn’t believe Him!) accused Him later (outside source) of doing witchcraft (not make-believe -- so he according to them existed and did magic! This is what’s important), were planed by Him as well to… fulfil prophecy??? You believe something like this? You can’t just go buy some supernatural powers and fool everybody :)
    Think it over.

    7) “The Resurrection.
    Well, here’s where the rubber meets the road, and I’ll present here another hypothesis, also based on the accounts: We know Pilate did not want Jesus punished. He declared the man innocent. In fact he ordered the beating first, in the hope that so that the enraged Jewish clergy would have had mercy and let him go. That’s why he then presented them with the option of letting a crimial or for Jesus to go… So the intentions to serve justice were there – but he had the conflict of a raging crowd to appease. So what if Pilate staged the whole crucifiction, to make the clergy believe he was dead, but in the background saved Jesus?”
    -----Charly WHAT-ARE-YOU-SAYING??? What clergy?? How do you stage such a crucifixion??? In plain view of all of His family, 12 disciples, and hundreds of others who were 2nd in discipleship?????? Are you kidding? He was seen by all believers and non believers being cricified!!!!!!! He was nailed by the hands on a cross (maybe they were tied as well), was whipped and beaten before that, and pierced by a soldier’s spear **as documented**, again…. for all contemporaries to read!!

    8. “Motives were already in place and the accounts that come next, put a very probable scenario:
    a. jesus was on the cross for a very short period – unlike any other crucifictions.”
    -----How do you know that all others (!!) crucified, lived longer on the cross???? This Charly -I gotta say- is silly. b) Now, even if I granted you that Jesus was on the cross less hours than all (….), why could that be?? Can there be another logical reason, 100% compatible with the claims of the New Testament?? Off course. He was tortured way more than others before the cross!
    (Patience :) Second part comming up)

  • graham

    Religion is just a scapegoat. Those who have faith are blinded and can't seem to see plain facts refuting it. I'm having difficulty in my life and just because of that my mother said she had started praying for me, which just made me sad, because she had been thrown in a corner and with nowhere else to turn to followed the sheep's path. Well I hope it makes her feel better because it's not going to do anything. Should I tell her she's just giving herself false hope that a man in the sky will make me better?

  • Alex

    Graham,
    You're wrong, her prayers will have an effect on you in the long run.... you will realize it then. Remember this message.

  • Phoenix

    all of you are acting stupid, ok maybe not all but still,Stop being ridiculous. I saw one guy on here who said" wow produced edited and made by one man" as if to critisize the documentary. But wasnt zeitgeist PRODUCED and EDITED by one man?? Also, alot of people on here say how much they laugh and dismiss this documentary, claiming evrything from the classic "god is just imagination so this guy is (wrong stupid or your favorite put down) or in saying that this guys documentary is simply filled with holes, lies etc..... honestly im cool with that, IF YOU GOT THE EVIDENSE TO BACK YOUR SH** UP. Yall dont have it. What you do have is a bunch of opinions and closed minds. that goes for both sides of the issue. If you can't figure out what that leads to ill break it down for you

    Your opinion + someone elses opinion + closed minds = everybody dissin each other...and nothing new or good coming from it.

    i bet no one on here can prove god exist, or that he doesnt exist. I know this because if you coulda,, you woulda,, but you cant. Now for you zeitgeist people, didnt it mention in the film that people associate thier ideas with theyre personality, so that when your idea is threatened it actually threatens a part of you, so you naturally take a defensive position on the issue to protect yourself, even if the new idea is something better than the one you held before??? it did didnt it! thats why your so damned dismissive of this movie. the same goes for the Christians too...huh imagine that.... I seen all the disses on here, but you guys dont bring in any facts yourself you just diss on this dude or each other. Wasnt the whole point of this zeitgeist movie to find the truth yourself and spread it to others so we could all be better? And the same goes for the Christians as well, if not more so. You cant simply dismiss zeitgeist because its easy too either. One of the biggest points of Christianty is to spread the truth to people. But yall know what your doing? your spreading your own high and mighty know it all a**es on each other and now this whole comment box smells like sh**.

    How bout we try this instead.

    How bout we find sources, why thyere sources, or just general proof. Please...anybody, names, websites. I want it from both sides. Its an important issue no matter how u look at it because it affects everyone. So be real, be courteious, and stop acting like snotty nose b**st**rd children fighting over a d**mn cookie in the play ground. quit hiding behind computer screens an act like adults, SHARE INFO, IDEAS, LINKS, SOURCES, PROFESSERS ETC so we can find out the truth or at least get as close to it as possible. I know this wont happen. so let the failure begin

    -PX

  • Phoenix

    thanks alex for te help. I am a Christian, and have been trying to research my faith. Zeitgeist did make me realize that we shouldnt blindly trust anything but should search for the truth ourselfs, so im definitly going to take a look at what u got here. I just want to know that my faith isnt based on some craziness of the sun that happen way back when. Again thank you

    -PX

  • Alex

    Phoenix hi!
    If you like see The Case for Christ here on TDF. See also my comment there at August 30th, 2009 at 17:42. If I can be of help get my email.
    God bless you in your research! He will.

  • Charles B.

    I'm contacting the Springer Show! We should be a little more considerate to Vlatko's hospitality (and petience with us), but it is easy to get caught up in the moment and just type away, isn't it?

    What do you get when you cross a J.W. and an atheist . . . Someone who knocks on your door for no apearant reason . . . . good greif! I laughed in spite of myself with that one! :-)

  • Devin W

    To Phoenix
    to shorten you earlier post I think it would go something like this.
    -Everyone here is getting too wrapped up in their own bullS#$&- end paraphrase.

    which is true for just about everything, including this very comment...

    crappy doc though.

  • Mok

    i agree that each side should get a fair chance, this was a weak display for that side...

    the really sad part is that the comments to this was more informative and far more entertaining.

    i will say this, if the bible is the word of god, and is undeniable, then why does the followers feel the need to defend it?

    " In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion."

    Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP Keynote Address
    US astronomer & popularizer of astronomy (1934 - 1996)

  • Ivana

    I don't care about the documentary. I didn't even watch it all. But the comments are reflecting the unending battle between religious and non-religious people, which I really do not understand. None of you can definitively prove that God exists (or doesn't). What's at stake here is your own belief system, which is the core of the person's self. So, when an atheist (who has the advantage of relying on the proved Darwinian theory and thus feels so much more comfortable with his beliefs) belittles the faith of a religious person, he literally belittles the core of that person. And it really is difficult to be religious these days, considering that the people are becoming a huge disappointment. It's easy to be an atheist - no possibility of cognitive dissonance, since only science is your "God". But what I don't understand is WHY do atheists hate religious people so deeply (and vice versa). Religion is not responsible for all the wars, human stupidity (which uses religion as a very convenient excuse) is. Catholicism (I'm mentioning it because I'm most familiar with it) is a very simple religion - you have a master rule to love others as you love yourself, and those little ten rules which are really simple and do not hurt anyone. Those rules are the core of that particular religion, more important than anything else in that famous Bible everyone likes to mention. I personally don't like the level today's religion has fallen to, for me they are going the wrong way, all the way. But that atheistic notion that religious people are brainless idiots who think their God is going to save them from their troubles is really offensive. If I'm respecting your opinion and you as a person, why don't you respect me and my own opinion?! Why am I an idiot just because I believe there's something more to life that just this?! And why is that negative?! I don't understand the pleasure in hurting other person's belief system, especially if that system doesn't hurt anybody/anything?! You all (religious people AND atheists) feed on that feeling of superiority/intelligence/ego-trip when you manage to really hit the center, without considering you are only digging a deeper hole and that a final answer is impossible to find! No one is going to give the other side a benefit of the doubt because that would undermine his own fundamental system of life, so why are you trying?! Just accept the world in all it's versatility, because that's what makes it wonderful.

  • Mok

    Ivana,

    I like what you say here. I, being an Atheist have noticed a group of those that attack religious people just for being religious, I like to call them "anti-theist". they are the inverted version of the "holy rollers"....I care not for what you believe, I know what I believe. the only real problem I have is, when someone makes a claim it is their responsibility to provide proof of that claim, not the other way around. it is also annoying when someone uses the source as evidence of itself...let's say I can prove zeitgeist is completely accurate and true, because in zeitgeist, at 10:45 in the documentary it says something....doesn't make sense does it?

    I would never call you nor anyone else an idiot just for your beliefs, but if you (general you) were to claim to be able to prove the bible is true and accurate by using the bible as the source of the proof, then I wouldn't be thinking of you (general you) as a very smart person =)

    one last thing, it bothers me to no end, that I must be forced to choose between two candidates, whom one will eventually have control of the weapons and armies of mass destruction, that believes there was a snake that talked, and a old guy with a beard floating in the nether world, who blew life into a handful of mud...
    would you want someone who truly believes there is a giant space penguin in the center of the earth with their finger on the button and today is the prophetic end day?

  • Giant Space Penguin

    I exist (here's your proof. :P)

  • Jennica

    Alex, what is it that you hope to accomplish by transcribing the entire 'Bible' onto the comments section of a documentary website? Just curious.

  • ben

    Being an 100% athiest and declaring certainty of that stance is just as illogical as being 100% religious. Atheism is tremendously naive in presupposing we understand all the process that are in existence, to the extent where observations through science are used as evidence by atheists to fashion a philosopical/theological type stance on the theory of origins, which like religion is unfalsifiable . This is due to the fact it is based on what scientists believe to be true at the time. Therefore if a scientific theory was falsified, is would be disregarded by atheism as incorrect and not included in their stance. In this sense atheism will fit into whatever paradigm dominant scientific thinking has to offer, and is at the moment posing as a philosophical stance that claims ownership of "what we believe to be correct knowledge at this time (as scientific paradigms often shift)" . Or at least this is what is happening recently with leaders of atheism such as Richard Dawkins using scientific knowledge as a basis on which to dissprove the idea of a god, deity, or supreme being and promote atheism. How can you logically present constantly changing, uncertain knowledge as evidence to prove a precise philosophical viewpoint? The fact is you cant, and the only way you can is by constantly adapting the concept of what atheism means. In this sense atheism is just useless baggage that tags along with scientific advances adopting them as their own.
    It is for this reason I will happily argue that current uncertainty is the only thing that is logically correct, and due this this uncertainty, temoporary agnosticism ('temporary' as we cant prove whether the future will present certanties), is the only logical philosophical stance that one may hold (if it was complete agnosticism then you would deny any possibility of ultimate knowledge being held at some time in the future, which also cannot be proved).

  • Achems Razor

    Hi, Jennica,

    I guess a lot of us wanted to know that about Alex, I told him once maybe he was accumulating brownie points to get into Heaven.

    He was called Religious Alex, he is no longer on the air.
    He was banned from TDF for various reasons, so he will not reply back to you.

    Regards: :D

  • Achems Razor

    Hi, Ben.

    I agree with you in theory, but scientific paradigms are not etched in stone, like Religious ones are.
    Scientific theory's can be, and are changed, if a more viable one comes to fruition.
    Religions will stick to there main stories no matter what, and will add more fanciful tales to keep there main stories going.

  • lykdysplt

    WOW...that was alot of reading, good ridence to alex, I was getting tired of him, alot of interesting and well informed comments, definately alot more entertaining than the film.
    I believe there is a higher power controlling the universe god or gods, I don't know, for me seeing is believing, and when I pass on, I will learn the truth...or not.
    nothing has divided the people of the world and caused more death than religion.(in my opinion)

  • lulz

    lol. watched the first thirty seconds and thats enough.

  • Brian E

    Another thought provoking film.It didn't surprise me at all the resulting comments and name calling! Hope nobody gets burned at the stake.

  • Justin Virden

    Hmmmm...... The level of hatred from unbelievers.

    Don't confuse a believer with the Benny Hinns or John Hagees or millions of so called Christians who love war and oppression.

    Well said Ivana.

  • http://www.theufobunker.com MrTSX

    "What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way."
    -Bertrand Russell

  • nyguy

    this is a joke right?

  • keith

    alex you plonker that might sum it all up you'll prob wont ever realize what a waste of time and effort you give to religion you could be doing something more productive fool

  • mike

    Both Zeitgesit and this anti-Zeitgeist are completely missing the point. The problem is not who came up with the God hoax first, who copied who or who's got the better version of God - the point is that most religious myths are simply false: the Universe didn't apear in 7 days 10.000 years ago, humans are not descended from exactly one man and one woman, there was never a flood, Noah had no way of transporting 3.000.000 species of animals etc etc etc.

  • aaron

    All these people who claim they are open minded. In order to be open minded you must be able to see the angle of the opposing view. Stop judging people and look at yourself. Also, ask some geologists about their belief in a great flood and see for yourself that more Christians were killed from Nazis than were Jews and that more were killed by non believers than crusaders in this century surpassing written history Stalin 7 million, Hitler 22mil. The real enemy is centralized power. It divides us (as seen above) then conquers.

  • Fernando

    wow so Zeitgeist was wrong at the religious stuff, that doesn't mean that religion isn't a lie. I believe that even if Jesus existed, he wasn't the son of god so he is meaningless. I believe you should just be a good person following rules that you put for yourself by using your minds reasoning and respecting other individuals and doing the best in life. Religions are completely meaningless to anything. Trying to prove it right is a waste of time. I don't care if you don't think I'm right. Wanna be religious? then do so without annoying people like most religious people do.

  • quietsamurai

    "People say Christianity was created for Social Control....
    which is inconsistant with the writings of the bible where the teaching of John...."

    And I stopped watching.

    I love it when they use an archaic Bronze age to Dark Ages piece of literature as proof against Scientific and Historical fact.

  • charlesovery

    LMAO

    This does not refute nor debunk anything about the zeitgeist movie for several reasons.

    1. The Mike Licona person speaking in the beginnign about non of the pagan gods before christian was actually before christianity...um Eygptian culture and religion has been around since 4,000 BC. that is 4,001 years before Jesus ever walked the earth. The Persians use to own the land of Israel back before Jesus was even on earth. We know and can date the Greek mythology gods and culture way before Jesus ever lived on earth. These are facts and it is common sense knowledge. What about Krishna? As a matter of fact this Licona character even states that there are sources that can accoutn of Jesus' life within 150 years of his life. However, they can't accoutn for the very years os Jesus' life like the bible supposedly does?

    2. The oldest known religious documents are the Samarian texts and yet not one of them speak of Jesus at all. As a matter of fact Jesus actually doesn't appear in texts until after the A.D. era begins around the 104 A.D. mark. This proves that all pagan ritualistic gods before him were in fact in place and worshipped. This also proves that the resurrection of these gods, miracles and birth dates preceeded Jesus by at least 1,000 years.

    3. The Narrator speaks of everyone adopting the theory in the Zeitgeist movie as fact without proper investigation. I find it funny and odd that those who say such things believe in a text that they don't properly investigate either. That is wy when asked why they believe it they always say, " faith ". This shows that the author of this so called refuttal is going to give you a biased look at HIS interruptation and show what HE calls facts to support his theory.

    4. It is absolute fact that the New Testament was put together by the Catholic indoctrinations or "brotherhood" as the narrator calls it. This has been documented over and over again.

    5. In Hebrews Ch8 Verse 4 the bible states:"If Jesus was actually on earth he would not have been a preacher at all." NIV Bible 2005. Let me point out that preacher=pastor=rabbi=teacher. Jesus refers to himself as the only true rabbi and teacher.

    6. All the sources quoted in this first episode show nothing that factually disproves anything stated in the Zeitgeist movie. They only refer to speculation or complex inference in which the data is complicated and opens the door to individual interpretation. No facts just more of the same specualtion that they are accusing the authors of anti christian books and the Zeitgeist movie of doing. All of them are Theology or Religious Studies scholars so they are of course going to state what they believe in with out properly investigating it. Oh and by the way isn't the bible all about complicated data that is open to undividual interpretation as well?

    7. Interesting to me is that the narrator begins speaking of Horus adn states an actual fact. Scholars and the bible do refer to Jesus' birth as being in the spring. However what the narrator is not telling you is why the date Dec 25th is important and is worldly practiced as his birth to this day. The fact is that regardless of what the bible states about it at all we really do not know because it still could have been Dec 25th. Do you really think that the climate has always been the same on earth as we know it today? The biblical texts talks of warm days and a hot sun during the birth of Jesus. Scientific recods show that during the switch over of BC to AD that the climate was indeed different as were the seasons. Research that one and then look at the Global Warming nonsense going on right now.

    8. The Eygptian Book of the Dead does in fact refer to Isis as a virgin during Horus birth. Oh wait we may have mistranslated that and yet we did not mistranslate the bible at all. Seriously people? Give me a break!

    9. This quote about Mairt is incorrect. The book of the Dead does in fact refer to Isis as Mairt and that it is reference to her name as such.

    1o. This is all refuttal of the refuttal in the first episode of this supposed refuttal. I do not wish to continue this viewing because it is obvious to me that it is bias information with no facts at all and most of what it claims as facts is inapropriately cited and misused. The credibility of the author and narrator in this refuttal has been shot down and shows that in fact, this refuttal is more dishonest than the Zeitgeist information is.

  • dans

    @charlesovery---- are you a catholic? may be you say is true. but i want you to know that Christianity is different form roman catholic... by the way I'm christian i don't believe in catholic doctrines.

  • Mr_Gondai

    Lol the whole quoting jesus made me piss myself. haha

  • charlesovery

    @dans

    I am not Catholic and nor I am "christian". I don't believe in religion, however I am not an aetheist either.

  • charlesovery

    Mr Gondai,

    Not sure what your statement is referring to. If it is something that is stated in the movie or something someone wrote on here.

  • charlesovery

    Vlatko-the 2nd video that you added doesn't play past the 9th minute and there it stops buffering. Can we get that fixed pls? I would really like to examine the rest of this film and prepare an analysis of it.

    Thank you!

  • charlesovery

    Wow! The other so called refutal video is of the same circular nonsense as the the other one. THey both state the same crap that I have already refuted in the first refutal film. However, I will post some things here on this anyway.

    For someone to accept that the Old Testament (which isn't really of the "christian" religion)and the New Testament to be the oldest religious documentation of any religion and of any savior god is baffling. It contradicts any early writings of the Old Testament that has to do with the Exodus. The Old Testament was written before the New Testament and Jesus wasn't even known or heard of or else he would have been chosen and called by name. Why else do you think that he isn't called by name or considered to be a savior until after he was supposedly born? Keep in mind as well that Jesus and Moses aren't even Hebrew names.

    One other thing that is interesting is how the Narrator contradicts himself. The narrator states that the translation of world is aeon, which he says means FOREVER, an unbroken age. He then quotes 1 John 2:17 which suggests, "the aeon passes away, and the lust thereof; but he that does the will of God abides forever." Can anyone else see the narrators contradiction on this? If aeon means forever, an unbroken, then how can it pass away?

    Another great contradiction the narrator makes in this second film is when he says that there are many gods named Horus. He then starts talking about the characteristics in which we mostly know of one named Horus. There are other gods named Horia, Hora, Hor-ep, and many other names like this in the Eygptian culture. The problem is that not one of them was considered savior status like HORUS did. As matter of fact the narrator flat out lies about the nature of timing of the Eygptian culture and religion. Remeber both the bible (their main source of information) and other historical documentation prove that the Eygptian culture was around at least 1100years before and isrealite settled out of the country. Or were free from teh Eygptian bondage, so how is it that anypart of the history of the "christian" religion can be older than the Eyptians?

  • Leebo

    This is just as thin as the Religion part of Zeitgeist. It takes a "hypothosis" from the encyclopedia britanica and then tries to pass it as fact (as regards Mithra)32:27-33:23
    Jesus' biographers never met him, it almost admits it, Mathew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospels 40-70 years after Jesus died, so how can they be Gospel? They never knew him!!!!
    The Zeitgeist (Religion part) does run with ideas and does give false or information but the Economics part is spot on (addendum) and the 9/11 part is just conspiricy.
    How can Christians use science and pre Christian history to refute anything when the vast, vast majority scientists and pre christian historians dont agree with the bible.
    Altho this documentary does admit that christianty has holes such as the cross and his birthday.

  • Unbias

    very inconsistent, Contradicts itself throughout the whole Doc. This doc took on a task that really shouldn't have been so hard, Basically to refute points in the movie that were not fact. But thats not the agenda of this film. This film is very primative in execution. I was cringing on alot of the info put forth just like in zietgiest. The Z movie is easier to watch though.Various non christian resources can prove the existence of jesus within 150 yrs of his supposed death? REALLY please list those, i actually would want to know. Said 25 of dec. moot point, but then references to make point on mithras. ect. continues this theme throughout doc. i was hoping for a serious attempt to refute the Z movie, however this documentary had a shot to make some good points but then ruins it by referencing the bible and furthermore pushing there christian agenda through.DO NOT ERASE DOC! This would make us ignorant and thus furthering preconcived notions of objectional thinkers. If you know your stance nd views..Basically if you know yourself you don't need to worry about any shmuck's failed attempts at disproving science and common sense. Believe in yourself Because there is divinity in all of us. You willl never know unless you search.

  • Aman

    As an atheist, I have chosen to read the bible out of curiosity however whenever I discuss passages from the bible, the common rebuttal is 'the devil can cite scripture for his own purpose'

    I now ask, are you Christian fanatics not doing the same thing? using random quotes when it serves your own interests

  • Hello!

    Jesus Loves You!

  • Beaux

    Wow, it's a bit interesting to see so many atheists, or at least people who claim to be atheists, put so much FAITH in one movie or one man that when given facts the prove him wrong instead of reviewing the facts, doing some personal research, and coming up with their own opinion they cry and moan about how the person who made the other video is right because his views are closer to their own.

    Fist, the movie doesn't claim to prove that God is real or that Christianity is THE religion, all it set out to do is

    1) show that Christianity(I mean real Christianity not Catholicism or any of the denominations that split off) is not based on astrology

    2) show that many parallels drawn in the Z movie are wrong

    3) And he did offer a bit of evidence that Jesus was a real person regardless if you believe if he was the son of God or not

    So all the complaining about God isn't real is irrelevant as the movie doesn't claim to prove that he is.

    When you have atheist professors with degrees in Egyptology saying that claims made in the Z movie are wrong I don't see how you can refute that by saying "well God doesn't exist so I'm right and your wrong". But atheists are people of logic and they understand how the world works so they wouldn't make such a retarded statement...right? Of course what many of you (and I say many because this does not include all of you) seem to think that just because you are an atheist means that you are automatically an intelligent logical thinker(and if the first thought in your mind just now was 'no I don't' or something similar then you probably fall in this category). But there is hope because God loves you...ok that was a joke.

    Seriously though, the simple fact the Jesus wasn't born on Dec.25 refutes like half the the Z movie's whole argument. Aside from the fact the all of the so called related deities now don't share a birthday with Jesus, the whole thing about the winter solstice and the stars lining up is in the trash.

    I'm not asking you to believe that Jesus is that son of God I just want you to see that he isn't the sun of God.

  • Edwin

    It took me a while to read most of the comments on Z refuted and I must say....people watch your language :). No seriously, I did not read too many facts (if I read any at all) that shows why Z refuted should be flushed down the toilet.
    The only thing the maker of this documentary did is showing the audience, there are a lot of inadequacies in the original Z (first part), and therefore the original Z documentary (concerning the part 1) is at the least to say very very bad journalism. If I'm really honest he succeeded in doing that. Start to think for yourself and don't believe anything that's being told to you without some proper investigation. DO SOME RESEARCH yourself! (A few minutes google-ing shows proof for many of his statements).

  • charlesovery

    Edwin,

    Obviously you did not read them all cause there are several comments on here that logically show great information. I think you should try harder.

  • Beaux

    Well anyone who has any kind of life probably won't real every single comment from top to bottom but that's besides the point. Like Edwin I haven't seen anyone make any valid points about why this documentary is any more bull than Zeitgeist: part one, that is unless you consider the "God's not real" straw-man a valid point. That being said I do admit that I have not read every single comment here so I wouldn't be surprised if there were a good point or two. To save me from drudging though the comments to find something worth debating against would you mind summarizing a good reason why this video should be taken off the site?

  • charlesovery

    Well Beaux,

    Not only have I stated some great evidence that are not only philosophical but actual historical facts, others have also on here. I'm not sure what you think is proof but there is a lot here to examine so saying that noone has is absolutely ridiculous! Most of the comments that I have read does not say anything about taking this off the site. I think it is good to keep on the site considering that the information is so onesided with no facts. It shows the weakness of actual intelligence when one allows themselves to wallow in a "faith" based system instead of actual research. This refyttal shows no research at all and is solely based on ones opinions and inference that supports that ones beliefs. How that doesn't destroy someones credibility in your eyes is absolutely baffling to me. It is extremely clear from start to finish what the point of this refuttal is and that is to support a belief system not a fact, research, or intellictual system. You obviously cannot have both according to the narrator!

  • Beaux

    So in your opinion consulting professors who specialize in Egyptology and Greek/Roman Myth does not constitute researc? The fact that neither the bible nor any other historical or non-historical document (except that of the Catholic church) even suggests that Jesus was born in the winter let alone Dec. 25 isn't a fact to you? The fact the none of the deities mentioned in Zeitgeist had a virgin birth comes from a weakness of intelligence (one of them was born from a rock)? You say that these aren't research and facts but you completely ignore the fact the Zeitgeist has no primary research sources and the books that he does reference have little to no primary research sources.

    In my previous post I asked you to summarize those facts that you claimed to have and I called out the straw man of "God isn't real so this movie is bull", but in your post you neither stated any fact nor did you refrain from making the argument that somehow god not being real means that Zeitgeist is right. I'm not here to discuss weather this movie promotes Christianity or not that's beside the point I just want to hear some good reasons why the information about Jesus not being based on astrology is bad.

    Many of you seem to think that just because you are an atheist means that you are automatically an intelligent logical thinker who only speaks fact, not only is this not the case but the reverse is also not true, just because someone believes in any religion does not automatically make them irrational illogical thinkers who base everything on faith. As a matter of fact I have seen much faith being placed in Zeitgeist, if that weren't the case you wouldn't have so many claiming that it is right with no evidence to back it up.

  • charlesovery

    Well Beaux,

    Read my other posts on here and you will see the facts that I have already stated. However, I am not an athiest!

    Sound research on the Eygptian culture does not come from those of authority figures, like these professors you speak of. I say this cause I know several Eygptologists myself and it seems that they all have different view points themselves. So how do you know they are telling you what is real and true and not their own perception of what was real and true? Have you researched what they tell you or are you speculative on doing that and like to have others tell you what to believe? Either way I know for a fact that the odea of "christ" , December 25th and the rest of the time line does not add up when you ACTUALLY research true history. And yes there is a different history than what is taught in schools and there are some serious issues with what is being taught as history in the schools. Most of history that talks of the Eygptian culture and such is mostly someones own perception combined with little speculation and superstition. With that stated how is it possible that you know you are hearing the truth from these so called authority figures? It comes down to the fact that we really do not know what all went back then in the Eyptian culture, but I assure that the evidence presented in this is ridiculiously false by all kinds of accounts.Here is an idea for you to research Mr. Inquesitor Beaux, why has the date December 25th been passed down and transcended from generation to generation and century to century?

    You should read the book "Fingerprints of the Gods" by Graham Handcock. It is an interesting read.

  • Beaux

    charlesovery out of curiosity if you aren't an atheist then what religion do you practice?

    I know that just because someone is an authority figure doesn't mean that they are automatically right which is why that is only one of the things used in my argument, but I do feel that what they say does have some validity as many of the professors were atheists and therefore have no reason or incentive to defend Christianity. That is the main reason I included them in my argument but if we are going to just ignore everything they say because they may be mistaken that's ok with me as there are many other points to argue. On a side note I would like to know what the Eygptologists that you know think about the idea of Jesus being based on Ra.

    You talk about real research and the true history, which I don't disagree with you on but looking at the references for Zeitgeist you can tell that the makers have little grasp of what you would call real research. How do you make a documentary with little to no primary sources and expect it to be taken as fact?

    You said:
    "Either way I know for a fact that the odea of “christ” , December 25th and the rest of the time line does not add up when you ACTUALLY research true history."
    But I'm not sure if you are saying he was or wasn't born on Dec 25. It sounds like you are saying he wasn't because it doesn't line up to 'true history' which is what I and this documentary said (Zeitgeist on the other hand claims that he was). The Dec 25 birth date was added in by the Catholic church generations and centuries ago claiming to have calculated the date after researching scripture and so on. The date has stuck because the Catholic church is the biggest so called 'Christian' chruch in the word and as such their influence is great, not to mention that while some are more removed than others most denominations are just offshoots of the Catholic church and carry many similar teachings. The real reason for the obviously-wrong-if-you-actually-read-the-bible Dec 25 birth date lies in the origins of the Catholic church. When Christianity was made into the official Roman religion by Constantine he wanted to unite Rome under one religion. To make this idea more palatable to the Pagan citizens he introduced many pagan rituals and practices into the 'official' church which can not only explain Christmas but also Christmas trees, the Easter bunny, many of the statues you see in Catholic churches, and even the Popes hat as these are all remnants of the Pagan religion.

  • charlesovery

    Beaux

    Have you yet not read what I have stated in the comments above about this ridiculous doc? When you actually do I will answer you on your questions.

    Oh I do not practice a religion and nor is there ever a need too.

  • Beaux

    So you're agnostic?

    If you are talking about any post made before the one I originally responded to then that's too bad because I will not dig through these possibly hundreds of comments just to find yours and respond to that. If you don't mind a brief summary would be nice.

    If you are talking about any post made after the one I originally responded to then I would like to know what you read in my response that made you think I hadn't read yours because I assure you that I have read every post of yours made since my fist post, I even quoted a bit of one of them.

  • Wackyasafox

    Perhaps the producer of this doc should scoot on over and view "Who Wrote the Bible?"
    IMHO... God (if he is actually around) is kicking back with a glass of wine and enjoying this pathetic spectacle called "the human race" on his own personal broadband connection and having a good giggle... I know I am...

  • rick

    hahaha wow, nice try guys. you cant say religion is true and then use the BIBLE as your evidence. haha good one. get real guys, open your eyes.

  • MarkJewell

    What a load of boring crap. And that music going on and on and on in the background. God, strike this twat down with one of your bolts of bloody ligtning please. I dont care if Zeitgeist is factually wrong or right, it got all you religious pillocks jumping up and down waving your underpants in the air, which is good for a laugh at least.

  • http://talenthouse.com/tommys 7Foundation

    this is totally stupid...

  • Ssikpie

    Stupid? Why? It seems that the man just tries to disprove Zeitgeists claims.. Successful he is. I didnt see the other film, maybe thats the thing everybody thinks is stupid??

  • Anemos

    bah The Olympians are the only true gods!!!

    come on look at all the ancient cities they where in,the cities are real so must be the Olympians.
    Troy for example the greek gods fought on both sides and Troy is real

    Zeus will strike down all you faithless scum :p

  • charlesovery

    ssikpie,

    This film does not successfully disprove anything about the original Zeitgeist movie. It is interesting to me that you say such nonsense without even wacthing the Zeitgeist movie and not even researching the informatin that is within it. Hmmm, did the bible tell you that this refuted zeitgeist? Or did Jesus personally tell you that?

  • Hakima

    if zeitgeist and their associated venus project and founders are anything linked to scientology, which is a dangerous cult, then steer well clear. a previous poster has researched these links.

  • Beaux

    Once again, the simple fact that Jesus was not born on Dec25 nor is there any actual evidence that he was puts a huge gaping hole in zeitgeist's theory. Not only does it mean that Jesus did not share a birthday with any of the mentioned deities but it destroys the whole winter solstice/lining up of the stars bull as there is noting to relate Jesus to said date of Dec25. No one has yet to give a reasonable counter to this argument, as a matter of fact I challenge anyone to either prove that Jesus was born on Dec25 or that even though he wasn't he is still somehow related to the solstice.

    And again I'm not saying that you have to believe that there is a God or the Jesus was his son, I'm just trying to get you to realize that real christianity is not based on astrology. That being said I see how it could be confusing as there are many religions out there parading as christianity (in fact they are the majority) that do indeed have roots in paganism and astrology, but be assured that the KJV bible (weather you believe in it or not) has no hidden or occultic references to paganism or any other ancient religion, I've studied it enough to at least know that.

  • charlesovery

    Beaux,

    You should research how long it has been known to mankind that Jesus' birthday was actually on December 25th. Here you can start by researching the relationship of pagan religions that delve in astrology and then go research what the winter soltice is within Astrological reasoning. I think you will find your answer to why it has been adopted as such.

  • afly

    well i think its good that some one at least tried to counter the Zeitgeist movie ...i would love to see some one counter the growing number of 9/11 conspiracy documentaries

  • Martin

    I'm glad someone has refuted this Zeitgeist nonsense. Thanks so much for putting this online.

  • Hakima

    afly, not all who question the official version of 911 are crackpots. John Farmer the senior legal council for 911 commission said in his book 'the ground trut' "at some level of government at some stage there was an agreement not to tell the truth. i was shocked at how different the the NORAd tapes (released aug 2006) were from what we had been told. We and the public have been missled and lied to" Also how come some prominent pentagon officials and willy brown mayor of san francisco were warned not to fly that day? yet no warning given to the public?
    Also check out lots of fbi cia whistleblowers and the jersey girls. a conspiray is when two or more people plan something together, therefore the official version is a conspiracy to cover up their blataant mistakes and incompetencies.
    The zeitgeistmovement is dangerous because its a new age cult but questioning your leaders is a must for defending your democracy.

  • Chris

    It has been refuted. It's regurgitated Esoteric theosophical Lucis Trust crap based on the teachings of Helena Blavatsky and Alice Bailey. They are deceiving you and your falling for it..

  • Vince

    Uhh, sorry Chris white/ nowheretorun1984, but that "Esoteric theosophical Lucis Trust crap based on the teachings of Helena Blavatsky and Alice Bailey" is your own creation. HP Blavatsky is only cited *ONCE* in ZG. Bailey, not at all. Proves you wrong right there. Now, go meet your gay friend Keith TRASH to watch porn in his moms basement.

    People can see through the lies in the videos you guys have been pumping out. Eventually, accusing everyone of working for Satan gets old. If you're gonna do that you'll need to provide evidence that Satan/Lucifer/Devil actually exist. Good luck with that. Christians can't even substantiate the claims for Jesus or God, let alone Satan, so they don't even try because it's so embarrassingly absurd to begin with.

  • Swabgob

    So what I've gathered from the first few minutes of this is that the creator of this documentary has failed to see the point of zeitgeist creator. The zeitgeist creator is giving reasons for the modern reasons of christianity and other religions, not actual fact. The zeitgeist author is AGREEING that these things never happened, which is why religion is such a lie. I mean, this exposing documentary only furthers and agrees with zeitgeist.

  • Swabgob

    Also the second video, has some nice evidence.

    OH WAIT, there is none.
    + the opening states that zeitgeist is unbiased and that the refuting doco is biased.

    The use of subliminal visuals i.e. the bible verses and the article with the heading "Lucifer" shown in the montage, is pretty sad.

  • http://yahoo.com Anon

    People always argue after watching this kind of doc. Their all try to defend their beliefs of lack of beliefs. Nothing was resolve.

  • dee

    ONE THINGS FOR SuRE EVRYONE ON HERE WILL CALL TO GOD IN THE END EVEN ATHEIST CALL FOR GOD AT DEATH ASK ANY HOSPICE NURSE INFACT MOST PEOPLE OVER 45 START TO SEEK GOD,IN tHE KORAN YOU HAVE UNTIL THE AGE OF $" YEARS TO CHOOSE YOUR SIDE,NOW I DONT KNOW IF ITS TRUE THE KORANN BUT IVE HAD £ NDE ONE I WENT TO A REAL BAD PLACE <1 I DROWNED AGE 4 OR 5 RESUSED EVRYTHING WAS GROVY THEN 1 TIME I NEW GOD AND EVRYTHING,THE BAD PLACE IS COLD DARK BUT HOT WITH SCREAMING HORDES AND YOUR FILLED WITH THAT ULTIMATE TERROR WHERE YOU CAN NOT MOVE EVEN YOUR LIPS TO ASK FOR GOD THEY THE DARK SHADOWS HOLD YOU SO YOU CAN NOT SPEAK

  • dee

    FORGOT TO SHOUT I BET MOST OF THESE COMMENTS FOR ZEITGUIST ARE FROM YOUNG VERY HEALTHY PEOPLE WHO NEVER HAD A LIFE EXPERIENCE ONE THING FOR SURE YOU WILL ,I BET THEY ARE ALL UNDER 35 THE BIGGEST SECTION OF THEM

  • charlesovery

    So Chris, what makes you so sure that you are not the one that has been deceived? How are you so sure that the history you think you know is the correct history? Your proof of this is not in the bible, well it actually is, but I doubt you know how to recognize it.

    These films do not and have not refuted the original Zeitgeist connections to religion. NOT EVEN CLOSE!!! For some answers to that read my comments ans see for yourself.

  • GF

    The main objective of the zeitgeist movement is not the dismantling of the christian faith. It aims at the CURRENT socio-economic model of the west and the fact that someone bothered with this so called documentary simply shows how misguided people can be. This reaction reminds me a little bit of the Prophet Mohammed cartoons incident...

  • thecrowsnestling

    This is a Christian attempt to document the supposed real life of Jesus. I wish it would say that up front. It only took two minutes of watching to determine this.

  • maroonedinohio

    After reading some of these comments I deemed it not even necessary to even watch though I did watch the doc it claims to refute. A lot of evil has come from religion as well as good but I am basically a follower of Epicurus and his philosophy...or of what was left to us. This man was Marcus Aurelius's tutor FYI and was born a Greek slave in the Roman Empire. He is the proponent of the Golden Rule of life that if man could follow we would surely be a hell of a lot better off. But when I do quote some scholars of the Bible my favorite person has to be Hilel and his counterpart Shumai. A man asked Shumai to teach him the law (Torah) while standing on one foot. Shumai told the man to quit wasting his time. The man then turned to Hilel and asked him the same question and Hilel lifted one foot and said "Do not do unto others which you would not have done unto you" The rest is Commentary. Thus explaining the LAW........

  • maroonedinohio

    Sorry folks had some brain wind......Correction on my entry. Was really referring to Epictetus. Forgive my senility.

  • indyrocker

    god...heheh...are we still entertaining this??

  • simon

    Shut up your Boring .. this guy is just confirming what bollocks religion is,,,

  • Krissto

    These days, even my dog can make a documentary.
    All religions off the planet...peace! You are all right....

  • go2mark

    @octopussy07/11/2009 at 18:12

    if I proclaim myself a believer in aliens to a psychiatrist I am deluded and probably will be ascribed with some form of mental illness,if I am a believer in a son of god magician chap called jeebus who breaks the laws of physics I am considered sane just religious.religion is simply, from a scientific viewpoint, indistinguishable from madness.
    discuss.

    whether we like it or not we all are forced to accept some uncertainty in one form or another.

  • go2mark

    @nick
    re: good teacher. google dave hunt. or roger oakland
    i have really enjoyed your posts here and alex as well ty.

  • KayJay

    In my opinion, this film actually works against itself in a way, and demonstrates part of the point that the Zeitgeist film is proposing. For exapmle, a lot of THIS films content is claiming that the Zeitgeist creators have many misinterpretations and distortions of the stories they propose in their film, such as the egyptian stories and myths. With this same line of thinking you could say all of the same things about the stories in the bible, that they have been misinterpretated and distorted to this point. In conclusion, I will side with the party that has less monetary motives, and in this case, it's clearly not this films creator.

  • its simple

    religion is the indoctrination of the young and subsequent generations. Zeitgeist is communist propoganda desperately idealisitc and unworkable. I love this site!!!! Fair trade

  • mike

    i cant watch this power editing- quote mining- this is clapping with one hand- why are these books of religious fiction even circulating- ban them- or lets go back to reading tolkein- theological mis-representing rational logic.

  • http://pacha34.wordpress.com/ Pacha

    didnt read any of that ^^^^^^

    I only got six minutes into the film before wanting to kill the whiny voiced narrator.

  • Jack Green

    I don't think any sufficiently critical viewer would think the take away point of Zeitgeist was that there was never a Jesus person. The stated relationships with Horus and other gods were obviously drawn out of a rabbit's hat. I think the more common belief among atheist is that Jesus was like a classical L. Ron Hubbard, inspirational to some, but full of it to rational people. When applying Occam's razor, the claim that Jesus performed miracles simply loses against a mythological description of the sun being applied to him (creates grapes, bread, heals sick, walks on water at sunset, compassionate to all, rises to heaven, etc.). You're not really a scientist if you prefer complex explanations over simple ones. Whether the person called Jesus was aware that people would claim he performed miracles, or whether such features were added to convince the many European tribes to abandon their pagan beliefs is unclear. Even the bible itself does not state Jesus was born on the 25th, this is probably a later addition to coincide with the sun-inspired Germanic festivals of light.

    TL;DR: The story of Jesus does coincide with sun mythology, for whatever reason that may be.

  • Epicurean_Logic

    @ Jack, The Astro/logical/nomical analogies between Jesus and the sun are more relevent to the death/crucifiction, and may very well be of a Roman influence.

  • Ben

    I believe Jesus was simply trying to describe his state of consciousness using a limited language. "The Father and I am one". But, the problem seems to be as the years grew and language wasn't so limited we found only a literal meaning in the Bible, as so did the translators I would guess. I think both sides take the literal meaning, as one side is brainwashed into a life of fear the other side(smart)looks at it and easily points out the obvious faults basing it off of what it literally says, just like the (dumb) side. You know? I am you, you are me, and we are all together = blasphemy from the retarded, and retarded by the intelligent.

  • Ben

    Oh, and Dee. You are closer to the symbolism of Satan than your ignorance will ever let you see. <3

  • JC

    I didn't watched "Refuted" because I already know what the Bible says (for the most part). However, I'm really boggled at the response, or should I say lack thereof, to Keith Thompson's assertions in "Zeitgeist Exposed" to Part 1 of Zeitgeist. The absolute ignorance in the opposing comments is astonishing. Half of you are talking about "Refuted" which is a documentary that is literally preaching to the choir and is obviously not worth discussion across the board.

    Why these two documentaries would even be on the same page is quite telling of the host. Promoting confusion and suppressing viable dialogue on a very interesting subject seems to be the result.

    @charlesovery, I could never find any useful information posted by you in amongst these comments or any response to Beaux.

    @azzy Check the sources you link and then watch the video again. Keith shows that two of Peter's sources have no evidence or citation to their claims and one even puts a fake Greek crucified Christ medallion on the front of their book.

  • Epicurean_Logic

    @JC, you said,

    'Why these two documentaries would even be on the same page is quite telling of the host.'

    geez. everyones a critic!

    'Promoting confusion and suppressing viable dialogue on a very interesting subject seems to be the result.'

    What you fail to mention is that Vlatko has posted thousands of docs, and has helped promote discussion and eduacate a lot of people(at least 8324). promoting confusion? Gimme a break. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    Hmmm... From where did you get 8324.

  • Epicurean_Logic

    OK. At least 8318. I am prone to the odd excaggeration.

  • JC

    @ Epicurean_Logic

    My comments do not need to be all-inclusive. I enjoy this site, but most people are bias in some way, and that's okay. Whether it was a conscious act or not to put these films together isn't my claim. I simply believe that these 2 documentaries should be separate if you wish to have any cohesive discussion about what the films present.

    Many of these comments are too dismissive of Christians to be of any relevance to what Keith was pointing out in "Exposed". If he's not using the Bible as a source, then it shouldn't matter if he believes in God. Instead of a mass of "logical" people coming out and declaring that Zeitgeist Part 1 has holes, I see comments which scream out self-imposed ignorance and hate. Where are all the logical atheist and agnostics that usually troll these threads?

  • charlesovery

    @JC

    Well here I have copied the answers to this bogus refuttal film for you here since you couldn't find them on your own.

    1. The Mike Licona person speaking in the beginnign about non of the pagan gods before christian was actually before christianity…um Eygptian culture and religion has been around since 4,000 BC. that is 4,001 years before Jesus ever walked the earth. The Persians use to own the land of Israel back before Jesus was even on earth. We know and can date the Greek mythology gods and culture way before Jesus ever lived on earth. These are facts and it is common sense knowledge. What about Krishna? As a matter of fact this Licona character even states that there are sources that can accoutn of Jesus’ life within 150 years of his life. However, they can’t accoutn for the very years of Jesus’ life like the bible supposedly does?

    2. The oldest known religious documents are the Samaritan texts and yet not one of them speak of Jesus at all. As a matter of fact Jesus actually doesn’t appear in texts until after the A.D. era begins around the 66 A.D. mark. This proves that all pagan ritualistic gods before him were in fact in place and worshipped. This also proves that the resurrection of these gods, miracles and birth dates preceeded Jesus by at least 1,000 years.

    3. The Narrator speaks of everyone adopting the theory in the Zeitgeist movie as fact without proper investigation. I find it funny and odd that those who say such things believe in a text that they don’t properly investigate either. That is why when asked why they believe it they always say, ” faith “. This shows that the author of this so called refuttal is going to give you a biased look at HIS interpretation and show what HE calls facts to support his theory.

    4. It is absolute fact that the New Testament was put together by the Catholic indoctrinations or “brotherhood” as the narrator calls it. This has been documented over and over again.

    5. In Hebrews Ch8 Verse 4 the bible states:”If Jesus was actually on earth he would not have been a preacher at all.” NIV Bible 2005. Let me point out that preacher=pastor=rabbi=teacher. Jesus refers to himself as the only true rabbi and teacher.

    6. All the sources quoted in this first episode show nothing that factually disproves anything stated in the Zeitgeist movie. They only refer to speculation or complex inference in which the data is complicated and opens the door to individual interpretation. No facts just more of the same specualtion that they are accusing the authors of anti christian books and the Zeitgeist movie of doing. All of them are Theology or Religious Studies scholars so they are of course going to state what they believe in with out properly investigating it. Oh and by the way isn’t the bible all about complicated data that is open to undividual interpretation as well?

    7. Interesting to me is that the narrator begins speaking of Horus and states an actual fact. Scholars and the bible do refer to Jesus’ birth as being in the spring. However what the narrator is not telling you is why the date Dec 25th is important and is worldly practiced as his birth to this day. The fact is that regardless of what the bible states about it at all we really do not know because it still could have been Dec 25th. Do you really think that the climate has always been the same on earth as we know it today? The biblical texts talks of warm days and a hot sun during the birth of Jesus. Scientific recods show that during the switch over of BC to AD that the climate was indeed different as were the seasons. Research that one and then look at the Global Warming nonsense going on right now.

    8. The Eygptian Book of the Dead does in fact refer to Isis as a virgin during Horus birth. Oh wait we may have mistranslated that and yet we did not mistranslate the bible at all. Seriously people? Give me a break!

    9. This quote about Mairt is incorrect. The book of the Dead does in fact refer to Isis as Mairt and that it is reference to her name as such.

    1o. This is all refuttal of the refuttal in the first episode of this supposed refuttal. I do not wish to continue this viewing because it is obvious to me that it is bias information with no facts at all and most of what it claims as facts is inapropriately cited and misused. The credibility of the author and narrator in this refuttal has been shot down and shows that in fact, this refuttal is more dishonest than the Zeitgeist information is.

    My response to Beaux is this: The Dec 25th birthdate was transposed and given to Jesus from the pagan gods before him. The "christian" beliefs and the bible are no different than they are. It is just another telling of them. The fact that all these similarities between these dieties are known is a form of common sense. It suprises me then that it is ok for "christians" to look at the pagan religions and state that of course they are all a like, but when it comes to the similarities of the "christian" religion and the pagan religions you all act like it is blasphemy and a down right lie. However, not one of you have ever debunked the connections and similarities.

  • Epicurean_Logic

    I think that it is important to note that the great strength of republican and imperial Rome was the ability to assimilate and adapt! We can clearly see this in the way republican Rome took the Greek gods and made their own version. Its a case of seeing a powerful idea that worked and was useful in some way, recognizing the power and absorbing this version into popular Roman culture for their own purpose.

    Exactly the same thing happened with christianity. The Roman governors saw how powerful an idea this was ( people would die for this belief!) and assimilated these ideas into their own pagan system. Hence the Astro/nomical/logical ideas in the NT of the bible are remnants of the older religion that remain in the 'new and improved' Roman version of christianity.

    There are historical timeline checks that can be made to this idea and it is really important to notice that many of the writers of the NT had a Roman interest and backing. No idea appears fully formed and there is always a connection to the previous older ideas.

    @JC 'I simply believe that these 2 documentaries should be separate if you wish to have any cohesive discussion about what the films present.' Thats a fair point, but not all inclusive.

  • Lyle

    I use to doubt too. Something happened in my life (A revelation/vision of Hell). I began to realize that a God does exist because I stopped lying to myself to appease my conscious. I knew that I couldn't bribe my way into heaven as a criminal working good deeds. I nearly went mad when a new revelation came to me. I had a vision of Christ suffering upon the cross the wrath that was I would of had to undergo if not for his unblemished life and worthy sacrifice. No one ever before told me who he was. I just thought he was a teacher. Never before did I recall him as the one true son of God until then. I was born again. Those words (born again) have such a profound meaning now. I use to think it was just some sort of poetry, yet now I know you are truly turned into a new creature. I fear now for those who are still blind.

  • Ron

    I think many of you missed the true point of the first Zeitgeist film. It was meant to be facetious, illuminating how things from the past can be interpenetrated in many ways to draw several inferences. This has been going on for hundreds of years. Just look at Christianity itself, with so many sects of that religion, all different interpretations.

    This is the main problem with language, which is why the subsequent following Zeitgeist film put emphasis using the scientific method and critical thinking.

  • zed

    i've never heard so much blaitant lying in all my life! every historian knows that the resurection myths and other cult beliefs that the bible was later based on are all recycled time and time again. every single word of the bible is plagerised from other much earlier religions. over 5000 years before christianity the indians had all these myths not to mention all the masonic religions or the jews! the 'people' who made this should not be being given money to make this confusionist propaganda. just because someone argues that jesus was actualy a watermellon does not mean that we have to accept that as one of the possibillities. these liars think they can just go around saying anything and that people will be stupid enough to believe it, and now we will see people quoting this rubbish in debates and saying that it is just as valid as any other explanation. but its not!

  • zed

    why do so many 'people' on this site claim to be christian but not catholic? catholic = christian. there is no other christian bible older than 200 years at maximum. most of them were made up in the in the 1920s in the begining of brain washing.
    if you're a none-catholic christian then you're a deluded cutist, even worse than normal christians.
    magic is not real a magic man did create the world get over it.

  • Dante

    Dr. Norman Geisler is the author or co-author of some 70 books and hundreds of articles.  He has taught theology, philosophy, and apologetics on the college or graduate level for 50 years.  He has spoken or debated in some 26 countries on six continents. He has a B.A, M.A., Th.B., and Ph.D (in philosophy). He has taught at some of the top Seminaries in the United States, including Trinity Evangelical and Dallas Seminary and currently he is Distinguished Professor of Apologetics at Veritas Evangelical Seminary in Murrieta, CA

    Notice how he's an evangelist? Now why would an evangelist with plenty of degrees under him refute this? Well, we know why. But, all else aside for having all that you'd think he'd take the time to get his information correct. Paganism is the route BEFORE Egytians had thier beliefs and yet he compares the Egyptian religion? Funny how he'll never do that unless he could use it in his own favor. However, he IS an intelligent man. But nieve. He refutes Zietgiest with false information.

  • satir

    @zed
    so true, most "christians" really have no idea how their beleifs have come to be, like fact that most seem to believe in some combination of Calvinism theology with a Scofield interpretation of the "endtime" and milleniunism etc.

  • http://none tony the tiger

    people need to understand the Jesus was never named Christ as the word itself came from the first "gentiles" to believe in Jesus, the greeks, the term means anointed one. they also need to understand that the romans were the next big gentile followers and that took a couple hundred years. and what people commonly refer to as the catholic church is actually the roman catholic church. which is the same church that cause most of the evils. there were many catholic churches but because the romans were the most savage and killed off or became more powerful then the other we never hear of the others, but they are still strong they are called the orthodox and they dont have the history or evil that the roman catholic church has. the reason i say these things is becuase there is a huge confusion about christ, and the catholic church. i am a christian becuase i do belive in Jesus and what he did. but i also dont believe in organized religion becuase Jesus never had an organized church nor did he have a building. plus we have to be smart enough to realize that things do get lost in translation. and considering there is no way that the first gospel writers ever used the word christ, (again becuase it was a greek word) nor even used the word gospel to be fair, we have to understand that many many things had to have been lost or changed and yes even munipulated in translation. and i make that point becuase people say that religions has caused on these problems. but its not religions its the evils of men and women who abuse it. just like with anything else that is abused. its the manipulations that made it bad and the power that evil people got from it, not the root. and there are more things then religion that can fit in that catagory. peace.

  • http://n/a carl

    guys there is no god son of god lol please

  • khadijah

    I am repelled by the concept of God being so incapable of forgiveness and empathy that he required the torture death of an of His son in order to allow believers to be saved.

  • Kurrrt

    Almost 4 Billion people on the planet, among as many opinions. All human knowledge is fallible, all claims to ultimate or absolute truth questionable. Hypotheses should be taken as tentive, for even well established principles may later be modified in the light of new evidence or more comprehensive explanations.
    Does aiming your bible deception towards other deceptions helping yours? The existence of occult, paranormal, miracles, or transcendent realities, have not been- always skeptical? Does 2010 science find God or The Devil to be living entities? Or simply figures of speech. Reading from the deep deception of various writtings of the past telling todays truth in only your messages?
    Humankind today does not witness angels flying in the sky. Does the hundreds of thousands who have witnessed UFO's tend to choose a modern correction to the past? The space shuttle will waist massave fuel amounts and use millions of pounds of thrust to gain enterence into the outter atmosphere. Yet we witness those who effortlessly come and go at lightspeeds in beamships.
    Indeed, calm, resolute and unbending intention that underlines all forms of decision, actions and thoughts will bring about more positive changes in one life span than thousands of years of aggressive misuse of each other.

  • http://pacha34.wordpress.com/ Pacha

    very nicely put kurrrt ;)

  • John Seals

    Come on guys, this is ridiculus. I have heard about five different opinions on how the christian faith got started and who founded the catholic church. Did you guys not take western civics or something? Christianity was a product of the first monotheistic religion. Created about four thousand years ago in Canaan it was called Judaism. This established religion conflicted with the new religion proposed by Jesus called christianity as it did not believe that Jesus was devine or the son of god. It also had many rituals and allowed certain things in the temple that Jesus did not like, so he founded christianity as an alternative to Judaism and in so doing got himself turned into the Romans who where in power at the time. Even though the Romans crucified Jesus they also eventually made Christianity the official Roman religion, under Constatine. Then we see the Roman Catholic church get formed. The Catholic church also split because of disagreements on procedure and hierarchy, the new Catholic church was called the orthodox catholic church and was centered in the east. The west remained faithful to the pope and was centered around the Vatican. The orthodox church denies the procession of laying on of hands and says the pope is a fraud. They have a college of cardinals that dictate procedure and so forth. Then many hundreds of years later comes Martin Luther whom creates protestant religion, meaning any Christian religion that is not catholic and believes in personal preisthood. Of course we see that the protestant religion has split into many denominations. This is the history in a nutshell, wether you guys like it or not. It is simply what happened.

  • This is sad

    I have allot of counter points for the retard who produced this(and any poor sap who sides with him), too many to list. If I only referenced current, wide spread, standard university text I might be able to fit the facts on a two page word document; bullet point style, back to back. I've studied the subject vastly as a christian and knew that christianity in a community sense was at best a tool for unification. When I saw the OG Zeitgeist documentary I thought "thats awesome somebody gave the harshly written bible some natural value to the common man".

    To me it made the Christian traditions respectable. Whether used to unify or enslave. The OG Zeitgeist was dumbed down and left a bunch of stuff out. I'd like to say that the producer of the movie above found any hole or gap in information it could and attacked it using out of context references or people with a bias degree and otherwise no real credibility. Almost every scholar in opinion would say jesus(in the context of the bible) was a story figure and nothing else. Could you imagine a educated man thinking water could be turned into wine instantly.

    "it doesn't matter how much heart you have if you aren't mindful enough to use it wisely." THANKS FOR PROLONGING THE SEPARATION OF PEOPLE AND IDEAS. Burn in hell Keith Thompson. Lastly after scouring the internet for a few hours not one secular scholar I found thought Christianity's ideas or stories were original (Quite a bold lie at the top of this page.)

  • @everyone who believes this movie

    Q. Why do you celebrate Jesus' birthday on the winter solstice and his resurrection on the spring solstice?
    A. Because you are a modern day surf/peasant, happy to prolong separation as long as you can say you belong. Not even considering the unification natural, logical explanations for the bible could bring. The barer of fish, I mean the figurehead for the conscience revolution for the age of Pisces would be proud of the OG Zeitgeist.

  • dave

    Could they have found a lesser man to narrate this? Maybe a kindergartner who stutters. I like how it doesn't touch at all on the financial/political facts of the OG Zeitgeist. It's funny that every person who likes this movie is a severely undereducated westerner that hasn't even seen the original Zeitgeist. Christianity on a global scale is a small religion compared to Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism. It's severally divide (over 11,00 factions and growing) The only thing that makes it so well known is the root of all evil, money. All the great, note worthy minds within christian societies were secular nonbelievers. If you are trying to counter the last point I made make sure the person you note followed the bible and wasn't desperate to organize a movement wile recovering from cultural genocide resulting in forced christianity (no slave owners, people who slept around or civil-rights figureheads) READ A NONFICTION BOOK PLEASE. SAVE OUR CHILDREN.

  • @John Seals

    The original Zeitgeist agrees with everything you say and gives FACTS and explanations not given in your Department Of Education issued western civics books. WATCH Zeitgeist.

  • dave

    Zeitgeist and Zeitgeist Refuted both offer convincing arguments, questionable sources, and reasonable doubts. However, only one has it’s roots in common sense.
    I’ll go with that one.

  • griffin

    wow. alot of info to compute! i still don't believe there is or was a god... just because of adam and eve(sinners) we have to pay the price?!? that seems fair.. little children dying of stavation because adam ate an apple... cmon people.. and he was raised by a snake?!? milk!!! the ability to speak/walk/love/ reproduce was all taught by a snake... and why did god change his mind on certain bible stories(this is what i think they actually are (stories).. you know how you tell your children bed time stories.. like new testament... and the old... why the difference's if it's the word of god!!! who is responsible for the changes... it also said that after jesus died no one wrote about him for 50 years and how accurate is that? so i guess the goverment will release the real info on 911 50 years later.
    one thing that really makes me think is his name jesus.....
    it's latin.....jesus was supposed to be a jew?!? yes/no...
    some good entertaining stories thou...

  • Darken

    Pity the fools who take as granteed everything that is said.
    Make your own researches and make your own conclusions, losers.

  • Aryan Singh

    ahahah, its really funny how these biased christians try to say that hindu texts from 3000-2000BC are post-jesus.... ridiculous, pathetic and absurd. Krishna dates, as commonly understood, 2500BC.

  • http://kroakers.bandcamp.com StallionHorse

    Well...*somebody* obviously took Zeitgeist totally the wrong way...wow, pretty vitriolic response; you can tell this guy delved deep into the books to research this response. Reminds me of when rappers diss each others and have mic wars over who's the baddest MC. 'Aww, hell naw...no you di'nt! You ain't jus' talk about Jesus dat way! I'm original gangsta, original creatah, call me King or just Jah, but I'ma destroy you all, just don't call me Allah....'. Sorry for the bad rap...just needed to occupy my mind somehow to avoid it from being completely shut off by this doco while I decide what to watch next. Though, I gotta say, there were some racy parts....Zeus is spankin' the monkey and ejaculates on a mountain, and it turns into a *real* seed for a tree...then later on some chick (no disrespect, just keepin' in character...remember I'm really a horse...and just how do you think Centaurs came about, hmm?) some chick comes and sticks an almond up her...ya know. And then has a baby. LOL - that story beats the Stork thing any day!

    Truly, though, since there wasn't any TV, the ancients had to entertain themselves by telling great fairy tales, each which would have had to top the previous one to keep people entertained. So...just like songs might borrow a phrase or bit of riff here or there, or hip-hoppers might sample song fragments, I'm sure there was some artistic cross-pollination happening back in the day. Thank god (lol) we've got the scientific method to explore our world now, and we have to prove things to each other based on rules instead of just spinnin' yarns. THe only thing really offensive about the Bible and that other Jewish book the Torah is the way they treat kids, babies and such. Man, I ain't into that kiddie p*** c***. Other than that, pretty brutal - lots of senseless violence, blood and gore, ritualistic slaughter, war, and crazy stuff like that ordered by "God" himself.

    But too bad that none of those Gods could figure out a way to conjure a freaking CD in English or some other modern language and then command it to go to #1 on the charts...that way people could hear the girl in Her own words, and not have to project their own human insecurities, anthropocentrism, sexism, and other human faults onto God's otherwise spotless character (despite the propensity for needless violence, apparently just for entertainment, though that part's probably made up too. I guess that's the thing with all fairy tales - at the core is some sort of moral or undeniable fact around which an intricate, racy, elaborate fiction is spun. It's just that, I guess not much different from now, sometimes people have trouble separating entertainment from reality and the search for real truth. I don't mind Jesus or God of the Christian faith; they're invented to be more interesting than most mundane gods, though the writer(s) could have stuck some bestiality up in the story to keep the readers more riveted; then they wouldn't have had to kill so many people just to sell their book. Sick people. Masters of duality as well as fiction, unfortunately.

    Too much ergot-laden wheat affecting their brains back in the day. Well...I think I've given this documentary the appropriate amount of serious analysis and commentary to which it's entitled, so I'll gallop out now. Anyone down to breed with a hot stallion and create a modern-day God? It's about time for a new one....*the stallion swishes his tail, pricks his ears, and widens his eyes as if to raise eyebrows suggestively* I promise to be gentle - I'm a good horse. Anyway, final thought: if anyone wants a customised saying that'll get attention like a custom T-shirt but set to music on your own original song, get with me on the website above - ain't tryin to spam, but couldn't miss this opportunity to let y'all know what I do, given the subject matter. p.s., if you're too freaked out to touch it, I could leave some behind for whoever wants some (there's plenty to go around!)...and y'all can conceive Zeus style. But you'd be missing out. Who said evolution can't be just as *fun* as these ridiculous religions, huh? Love, StallionHorse

  • Olu

    The presenter of this program loses my credibility when he mentions one of the sources for the movie Zeitgeist as an HOMOSEXUAL (at 8:28 time frame in the movie). However, he didn't put a label of Heterosexual on others mentioned. Hence, he has almost NO objectivity and a probably bigot.
    Besides, I am a believer of Christ. In fact, I believe that Christ is GOD!

  • Olu

    While I did denounce the presenter of this movie as a possible bigot, I cannot dispel the compelling evidences with which he made his case. I am glad that I did watch this movie. Good job!

  • charlesovery

    I have to comment because of some of the silly comments about this film and yet those that are leaving these silly messages haven't even watched the Zeitgeist movie at all. Nor have they have researched on thier own any of the infomation about it.

    Those that say that this is great evidence on refuting the original movie are pretty much christians. Believers of the faith.They show continuously to follow without questioning it and anything that does question it is automatically wrong. This is why they use circular logic and are to afraid to research outside of that boundry. The fear of being wrong is against thier internal ego. Why do you think that they all become hypocrits sooner or later? Religions of this kind are built to feed that ego. How else do you think that they feel it is ok to judge and go against the law? They have the power of repenting and that makes them think that it is ok to do so...they will be forgiven no matter what. Circular logic begats circular which inturn just begats more circular logic. However, it doesn't prove squat and I find it to be irrehensible and grotesque. It makes me feel sorry for all those that follow without searching for the real truth. No wonder why so many are so easily deceived by churches these days.

    You cannot make a documentary with people that hold the same opinions as the one making the documentary. You can not call it true information because of that. If this doc proved the original movie wrong then why not interview the other side of the coin and then disprove thier opinions instead of trying to use people that are believers as well as you to disprove it? That alone discredits this film as truthful.

  • Dennis

    Anyone here have facebook? I would love to have some of you guys partake on my discussion boards!

  • Pete

    The narrator is too annoying to hear for so long. A better idea would be to make a completely original movie/documentary. I can't see this kind of tit for tat immaturity being viewed by as many people as necessary to retract the Zeitgeist following. Poor effort.

  • Kurrrt

    Some of history was washed away, does makes it difficult to recall. The need to have concepts and principle analyze by breaking them down into minute details diverts the energy of them and allows divergent trips into dead end ventures. The first attempts at application must be reasonable and believable in order to reach the "knowable level of acceptance. Thanks kindly for sharing an interest in advancing mankind with the video, Easter eggs, and Gods, etc. Peace and Harmony to all.

  • docugeek

    I LOVE THIS VIDEO. it shoots itself in the foot at about 6 minutes in when he says "december 25th has nothing to do with birth of jesus, it was added by roman catholic church in 4th century AD." I assume that was when emporer constantine held a council at nicea and compiled the christian religion out of pagan festivals. i.e. saturnalia on dec 25th became christmas. therefore would it not be possible that the rest of the reilgion was a pic'n'mix designed to unite the roman empire?

  • Juancho

    It amazes me how a Documentary like this can be taken seriously. Of all the Docs on this website that i've seen throughout the years I can honestly say this one is complete and utter nonsense. For those of you that actually believe in and support this bullocks, may God have mercy on your soul. *snickers*

  • cellblocka

    Thanks poster(s)! You saved me at least an hour or more that I'd never get back! Was a Zeitgeist fan. Read a bunch of info countering Peter Joseph, and wasn't sure, now I'm back on the Zeitgeist train! For good! The man is absolutely BRILLIANT! My only area of contention in the first Zeitgeist movie was historical data about Jesus. But, I love it when I come across something that makes me THINK!

  • Ferhad

    BUCKYY!!!!! ur the best
    love ur tutorials

  • sabas

    hello...
    my family is catholic so am i... i did everything the church asks, baptism, comunion, etc. but now i'm not intereste in religion since a long time ago. i'm 29... how many times do they tell you "the bible is the word of god"? that's the biggest lie ever!! it's NOT the word of god, and isn't even written by him... st marcus, st peter, st whatever?? c'mon. i respect the people who believe and those who don't, but i look at the religious fanatics and thank that i'm not one of them. it's a neverending talk, believers will always have an answer for whatever you ask, but seems like popes and priests are now being left by god because a lot of them have been discovered raping kids.. am i wrong??? and what's the believers or the church's answer???? i agree in one thing, it's ok to believe in something, it's a human thing, that moves something inside us, "i can't do this, but with the help of god i will" then you go and do it. that's THE ONLY good thing. but RELIGION is way different to that, take a look at the vatican, are worried on humanity illness, poverty, hunger, war???? they say they are, they pray for everyone of us, they "spread" the word of god to help us. How in the heck does that help us??? they are worried but they do NOTHING! and there's people ginving them money. god doesn't need money at all, does he? like i said, it's a neverending talk with people who believe. i do believe in god,but i don't believe in the humans that live from us, period. have a nice day you all...

  • maria

    hahahahaha it is so funny when he uses the "conspiracy" voice to say silly things like the "Dunkin Donuts Discount" reference!

    It is a sad documentary though, really... those people just CAN'T be taken seriously. For ALL the reasons the commentators before me have mentioned.

  • jay

    one of the most stupid and ridiculous documentaries i have ever watched.

  • fred

    As others have said, this documentary is utterly ridiculous. On the other hand, some of the anti christian and anti religious comments are just plain bigoted. Just because one is factually correct doesn't keep them from being an @$$hole.

  • Allah

    Now this was a complete wast of time. I accept that for most of this crape I was sleeping, But still this was a wast of time, brain cell, ear and eye nerves.

    Now Jesus must be certain that for what a useless cause he was crucified for!

  • Jack Troughton

    I can't really bring myself to even watch this. I'm expecting it to be one long "religion IS true" video, which I don't like or hate, but that's not a refutation of the Zeitgeist movement at ALL. Someone tell me they explore other areas than the religion part (the least important and certainly least debatable part of the whole film) of the film.

  • cuss

    I couldnt bring myself to watch another second of this rubbish!! What a complete waste of time!
    Zeitgeist isnt just about religion.......free your minds from the slavery of the life we now live in!!!

  • Tristab

    Wow, discrediting a documentary about discrediting the bible, WITH the bible. Im convinced christians have no sense of irony. This is a lot like the christians in Texas wanting to ban the book about book banning because they burn a bible in the story.

  • Max Lawless

    An abominable excuse for a serious documentary.

    Religion, or what some call faith, is nothing more than sheer wilful ignorance. Those who practice it are by default bereft of reason, clinically delusional and manically closed-minded; those who propagate it are either more so, or very smart and highly malicious.

    The more I hear of it, the more I see of it, the more I lose the will to live.

  • Brijendra Shukla

    Such A desperate attempt... i'll like to suggest the author to read more about hindus.
    Traditionally, the authorship of the Mahabharata is attributed to Vyasa. There have been many attempts to unravel its historical growth and compositional layers. The earliest parts of the text are not appreciably older than around 400 BCE. The text probably reached its final form by the early Gupta period (ca. 4th c. CE). If Mahabarata is so old then how come Bhagavata Purana which is tails of Krishna teenage dated after that....
    If that author is suggesting that Bhagavata Purana is copied from Christianity then i would request him to run around a tree with the speed of light so that he can F*** him self

  • bouklamid

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha
    Worst publicity ever for christianity a real disaster
    watch the zeitgeist works and make your own mind

  • JustG

    Isn't it humorous that so many criticize this and openly admit that they can't even bother to watch? I have to say, it's not wonder you like Zeitgeist. Certainly, you also can't be bothered to check the facts of that piece either.

    Have we never heard of mixing lies w/ the truth so that it becomes more believable? That's what they did here. Took events like 911 and mixed it w/ religion in order to discredit religion. It therefore seems only logical that those of faith would point out the inconsistencies and outright lies told. And that is what we have here.

    If you think there are any accurate comparisons between Christ and Krishna or Horus, you should spend less time criticizing and more time upgrading your education.

    What you are failing to see is that the point of Zeitgeist is not to call for the so-called eutopia you are all waiting for, but to destroy Christianity. It is clearly a new age tool intended to indoctrinate the masses. Ironic I know.

  • Wes

    After watching these videos, I am failing to see why there are so many negative views on them. I don't understand how people are saying that there are no refutations made and that this is such a soft argument against zeitgeist, when the creator of this documentary is using the same methods for delivering information as the creator of zeitgeist did.

    Are you all saying that his information is false based on the sources that he uses Egyptologists, Astrologists and astrophysicists. All of these individuals are professionals in their fields and they say that the zeitgeist information paralleling Mythology to Christianity and its sources are not credible and false. How do the things that these individuals say have zero credibility?

    I can understand that the feelings about the creator of these movies are that he is not credible but what makes the creator of zeitgeist so much more credible?

    The way that I see it is one individual has an agenda (made very clear by his proceeding two videos) and the other individual is merely claiming that zeitgeist is false. He is not, to my understanding, voicing that we should all be Christians but rather is saying that Christianity is not a product of mythological parallels and here is why.

  • Daniel

    okay... it is understandable that some people are atheists and don't want to accept that Jesus is real
    but the real point of this movie is to show that the claims that Zeitgeist made were false, imbellished, or completely invented...
    meaning that Zeitgeist has been debunked, so there is no way you can say that this "confirms zeitgeist", every point zeitgeist made is debunked methodically and using scholarly sources, you can't argue with that
    study ancient religions for yourself before you think you know more than the scholars and primary sources quoted in this film

  • Aaron Maxwell

    Ten minutes into this 'documentary' it was quite clear that that the filmaker's refutation of Zeitgeist is the contention that the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true. No point watching further.

  • JustG

    @Aaron. Funny how you people always seem to think you know what you're talking about, yet jump to ridiculous conclusions based on nothing but your own bias.

  • keith

    zeitgeist debunked,The Da Vinci Code debunked,why? because Jesus never existed.
    first century:
    Philo (20 bce-50 ce)
    Helenistic Jewish Biblical Philosopher
    exact contemporary of Jesus,never knew of a Christ that could be made flesh than he knew of a Jesus in human form.
    Seneca (c.1 bc in 65 c)
    Roman Stoic,Philosopher
    Greatest Roman writer on ethics of his time has nothing to say about Jesus or Christianity.124 letters dealing with moral issues.
    Irenaeus (c 130-c 200c.e)
    Bishop of Lyons,one of the earliest Church Fathers,believed that Gods word could never be incarnate in one man.
    Josephus (c 37-100)
    Jewish historian,wrote "Antiquities of the Jews"
    the passage the Christian refer to this number 18.63-64(the name of Jesus appears).The lack of reference of this in the 2 and 3 century of the Christian fathers.It appeared for the first time in the 4 century by,Eusebius (church historian).Scholars have discussed this in detail,the vast majority find to questioned it's authenticity.as well as Eusebius creditability at all.
    There are others of this time,Pliny,Tacitus,Suetonius all wrote of Christians,the grand total of 24 lines.The greatest historical event in the history of the world.Bible Scholar Harry Elmer Barnes believes these to be forgeries,as well as many other bible scholars.
    There is no hard,historical evidence for Jesus existence coming out of the first century, period.What about the Gospels?.There is the four Gospels (over 20 as of now),but these are the only ones to make it in the Bible,a little odd.There is no autographed manuscript of any of the four Gospels that have ever come to light and not one credible witness has ever claimed to have seen one.It is intended to be read as a mythology and not as a literal event.
    The birth of Christ was celebrated in the spring, until the year 345,no one knew the actual date so Pope Julius changed it to Dec.25,three days after the winter solstices.So Jesus celebrates his birthday with Mithra,Dionysus,Horus and many more.Pope Leo the Great had to tell Church members to stop worshiping the sun in the 5 century,and that is only a small faction of Christian history.It is all there to read, just have to do a lot of research.And no I'am not a Atheist,just a seeker of the truth.Christian reply,Satan placed all this in history to confuse and make us wander away from Christianity.Very amusing stuff.

  • SuperCrispyBacon

    @JustG - wut?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

    @Aaron Maxwell - I completely agree

    Can't prove that the bible is truth with extracts from the bible!
    I didn't get past 5mins.

  • JustG

    @SCB It's not brain science. But you'd actually have to watch or read something and not just rely on your own bias to get you by.

    @Keith. That's a whole lot of bias there Keith. For someone who suggest research you may want to try harder.

  • andy

    so the pagans were wrong about the sun standing still for three days - yet a man coming back to life seems historically accurate. And citing theologian sources is a biased way to argue a point. 0 out of 10 for proffessionalism

  • Wes

    @Keith

    On the point of philosophers and writers during the 1st Century not commenting on Jesus, they would really have no reason to do so.

    The movement of 'The Way' was seen as just that, the movement of a newly created Jewish sect and hardly worth dealing with. There had been many movements, rebellions and individuals claiming to be the messiah and this one wasn't seen as any different. It seemed to have "caught fire" and spread much faster and stuck around much better than others. But the writers of the time would not have seen this sect as the greatest event in history as Christianity claims it to be today.

    I suggest reading a book called The Case for Christ, by author Lee Strobel.

    Sure he interviews Christian professors but there are always two sides to every argument and this book delivers a good argument for the side of Christianity.

    Feel free to suggest sources for me to read that support your claims as well and I will read them.

    Have a good one and God bless.

  • Khadija

    Watching this is a waste of electricity. We are seriously asked to believe that the physical body of Jesus floated up to heaven (who saw this? nobody!)as well as the physical bodies of every human that ever lived will, on the "Day of Judgment" will rise out of their graves and fy up to Jesus to be judged, and hopefully to PHYSICALLY live in a non-material, astral environment. Evidently many people, even today, are born several hundred years too late.

  • heane

    well science and logic mostly relies on everything reamining the same in order for them to work as if everythign was random and dynamic science would have a problem as there is always the assumptiion A +B will always = C now and in the future and that reliability in an ordered universe makes no sense otherwise ,

    the 1st and second laws of thermodynamics are another thing that cause issues with evolution as does angular momentum ,

    another question to ask why does langauge only go back serveral thousand years , the fossi record : thats not consistent only in text books : as for fossils themselves they are dated on the rocks and the rocks dated on the fossils another form of cirular reasoning .

    there would be more space dust if universe was larger ,
    a star dies approx every 30 years roughly 300 documented : where is a star documented as being born not just getting brighter

    if the differnt levles of rock depict differnt ages why are many trees petrified / fossilied standing up going hrough many layers , they wouldnt remain vertical for that many years as they would just rot away .

    carbon dating : inconclusive

    a world wide flood and 8 people surviving is a common belief among many many cultures

  • Me

    The bottom line is that if you didn't watch the film you have no right to comment on it.

  • Kanhai

    Kay, first of all I shut it off after the narrator starting using the Bible as a reference for information. It was interesting at first, but you lost me when he started quoting the Bible as some truth over evidence.

  • JustG

    And yet people believe the outright lies in Zeitgeist w/ zero evidence. The irony is lost on most.

  • Wes

    Why wouldn't they use the bible as a reference? It is one of the main sources used in the Zeitgeist documentary.

  • Justin

    Today's religion will be the future's mythology. Both believed at one time by many; but proved to be wrong by the clever.

  • Sarah Lowe

    It's so simple people: I don't believe in the Bible because i don't believe in Mother Goose or Jack In The Beanstalk.

  • Damon

    I LOVE seeing on here that their are so many people with their heads on straight and can think for themselves! Living in Utah drives me NUTS because they're so brainwashed here by fanatical religion. It's good to see there are other educated thinkers out there besides myself who see it all for what it truly is...myths, lies, fables, people's false hopes that something paranormal and magical REALLY can exist...but no proof is ever shown for it, which only encourages them even more to keep believing in something with no proof because in some messed up way, by not having proof it even MORE SO validates to them that it's true because their isn't any proof! Wow, now that's really a mind *uck!

    So Zeus and Jupiter must have really been real (to the Pagans) right? It's the same kind of thinking people! Christianity, Muslim, Islam, etc. Are all the same idea of thinking.

  • Wes

    Actually I would disagree that paganism is of the same mindset as Christianity, Islam and Judaism. All three of these religions are monotheist whereas paganism is polytheist. Christianity and Islam also claim to believe in the same Jewish God.

    What's interesting is what Justin said about todays religion becoming the futures mythology. Judaism has been around for a very long time, back when polytheism was still widely practiced. Yet it has survived polytheism. Do you ever wonder why that is? All of these other mythological faiths died out with the changes in culture and the falling of their empires.

    The Jewish people are no different regarding their own history of national rise and decline yet their religion didn't die out. There must be some truth to what they believe to hold onto it for all of this time.

  • JustG

    Surely I'm not the only one who laughs at the idiocy of those who condemn other beliefs yet believe Zeitgeist is in any way based in reality.

  • You're in Check

    @The entire post.

    Listen at you jackals. How many of you truly think you
    would be worthy of the love of Jesus Christ. Man is corrupt and always has been, Your reply is that the Creator is either a myth or God is corrupt for making such cruel beings as we are! Many of you will find out soon when you get a pain in a certain part of the body and you go to your Dr. and then when he says Sir or Ma'am you're ready to die. How many of you will call upon God, Please God, No God! Deny me now and I will deny you then!

  • son of zaphod

    A smart man once said,
    "Christianity, that's a good idea. When are they going to put it into practice!?"

  • Rob

    Not saying that everything in Zeitgeist is (excuse the pun) gospel, however it appears to me that this film doesn't do a great job of fully refuting the piece. Instead it takes small issues, briefly explains why the Bible says it's wrong and then moves on quickly before answering possible questions with their theory. Citing a debatable source and calling it "Biblical truth" does little to help credibility.
    That said I state again that there were many problems with Zeitgeist but this refutation is inadequate to confront it.

  • the loler

    @ docugeek

    ""I LOVE THIS VIDEO. it shoots itself in the foot at about 6 minutes in when he says “december 25th has nothing to do with birth of jesus, it was added by roman catholic church in 4th century AD.” I assume that was when emporer constantine held a council at nicea and compiled the christian religion out of pagan festivals. i.e. saturnalia on dec 25th became christmas. therefore would it not be possible that the rest of the reilgion was a pic’n'mix designed to unite the roman empire?"""

    I think you are missing the point entirely. That is exactly what he is trying to say, that the Roman version of christianity is an edited version of the original christianity. It didnt start with Constantine, christianity existed from the 1st century. When the Romans got hold of it, they edited it and added these simillarities to pagan religeon to make it sit better with its people. Other religeons and beliefs were also edited after the original christianity to mirror things in christianity, so while they have their origins pre-jesus, the mirroring of christianity was not somethign added untill post-jesus times.

    What can be taken from this is that ZGs attempts to suggest christianity was formed from other myths and religeons is faulse, christianity was not formed this way, rather christianity and these other religeons have been edited and soiled over time SINCE christianity was formed.

  • http://Ki Anu Enki

    You see the new discovery about new human race-Denisovans
    I wanna tell you that 50.000 Alien race come here and build civilization and new race(MODERN HUMAN) to work for this GODS...Read sumerian's story they will tell you how human was created ! Now tell me who build 27.000 years old PYRAMID in BOsnia ?? HAAA...HAA !!?? WHO ?? It is possible that something come from another star to our planet!! Open your mind, dont be blind and stop watching TV !!!

  • http://Ki Anu Enki

    Ohh i miss yeats hhaah 50.000 years ago :) :) sorry and thank you.

  • Phrykk

    Way to make a bad situation worse. Despite the the fact that the movie Zeitgeist makes a very week argument against Christianity and religion in general, this movie utterly fails to draw new light to the argument. Further more the film maker seems to deny the influence of Astrology on all religions. It goes even further to illustrate linguistic parallels which support evidence of the Egyptian origins of Christianity while trying to refute that very argument. The unenlightened might very well fall for the tricks of fast talking film makers like this one, or the makers of Zeitgeist, but, anyone with even a basic knowledge of Etymology and symbolism can see through the veil of political rhetoric. Because, that what this is. Political propaganda under the mask if Christianity. This film is yet another example of modern people acting as if they know more about ancient people than ancient people did.

    P.S. To the Film Maker: Etymology is the study of the roots of modern language. You may want study this before making another movie that makes you look as uninformed as you do now.

  • Scott

    Everyone Take Care....

    One day I see the hatred for Christians coming to life. Believe what you want. I dont understand the name calling.

    We all have the same destiny. (dirt) Who knows afterward?

  • Nick

    Great film and well researched.

    It seems to refute Zeitgeists claims with the exception of one major one. The fact the Christianity has strong pagan influences.

    In fact this documentary even points it out when it mentions the Roman Catholic church. The Romans hijacked Christianity and made it their own. If you trace back all major sects of Christianity they all derive from the Roman Catholic church with few exceptions like the eastern orthodox branches and Coptic Christianity. The Romans decided on which books would be canonized in the NT.

    The Romans made Jesus's birthday on December 25th and there is a multitude of known pagan elements in Christian holidays. Such as the x-mas tree, yule log, statue making, icon worshipping, the easter bunny is a known pagan fertility animal. Not to mention the worshipping of saints which is expressly forbidden in the ten commandments. Sure you can say that you're denomination doesn't do these things and that the Romans didn't practice true Christianity but doesn't that kind of mean that there was no Christians until Protestantism came around over 1500 years later or until whenever your version of how the religion should really be practiced?
    What is left over without all of these things?

    The argument the film makers use against Dionysus and some other influences will shoot these guys in the foot. They claim that the oldest written documentation of these mythological gods that have similarities to Jesus are written long after Jesus died. They lead the viewer to believe that it's ridiculous to make those claims because there is no previous documentation. But the oldest Christian gospel was written more than 30 years after Jesus died and the rest or the NT was written much, much later. So just because there is no known written story about Dionysus or any other mythological gods doesn't mean they didn't exist. Early Christians burned many libraries back in their day so that may explain why there isn't any written sources. The Greeks were well established 800 years before Jesus was around and the Egyptians and Babylonians much earlier than that.

    The OT has no mention of Hell and Jews have no concept of it either or at least not until after Alexander the Great invaded Israel and the NT even uses the word "Hades" the Greek god of the underworld. That is a clear and provable pagan concept that is a fundamental belief in Christianity. Without hell, there is no need for a "son of god" to die for the sins of mankind. The lake of fire in the book of Revelations is also a Greek idea :^P The ancient Greeks worked very hard to assimilate the Jews. There is no threat by god to the Israelites for breaking his law and there is also no promise of eternal life of admittance to heaven anywhere in the OT. Also an ancient Greek concept not to mention a common pagan one too.

    My theory is that Jesus had a bad case of "Jerusalem syndrome" (look it up, the Simpson's even did and episode on it). Many people in Jesus's time thought they were the "Messiah" and to this day you can go to Jerusalem and see all kinds of crazy people claiming to be the messiah or Jesus him/herself.

    If there was really a god in heaven that loves us why does he let us fight over ambiguous riddle books and why doesn't he fight his own battles? According the the bible god killed/punished some people directly but not others. If there is a god of the bible he certainly isn't the god of love or logic that is for sure.

    Zeitgeist might be full of inaccuracies and out right lies but the fact is Christianity in all it's forms has its fundamental roots in paganism. Take away the pagan elements and all you have is another version of Judaism with another false messiah to add to the list. The ancient and modern Jews/Hebrews had a tendency to absorb pagan ideas, Christianity is one of them.

    You probably only get one life to live don't waste it by lying to yourselves.

  • JustG

    @Nick
    @
    You appear to know this subject very well, so I question why there are so many inaccuracies. I imagine either because you are misled or are outright misleading. You correctly state that Christianity was overtaken by Rome. We all know that, however you neglect to mention that it wasn’t until approx. 300 years after Christ. That means there are many Christians who are / were not RC. Baptists for example.

    I’m not sure what your point of bringing up things like a Christmas tree or the easter bunny is. Just an FYI, this has nothing to do w/ Christianity.

    Next you can’t honestly think it logical to compare eye witness testimony (Gospel) to mythological supposition?

    If the Jews have no idea of a hell or of punishment why do you suppose they require a Savior? Surely you know that the old Testament is riddled w/ prophecy of this kind.

    Oh, but just to clarify this point for you, you many want to actually read the Old Testament rather than ‘misleading’ people.

    “Mal 4:1 For, behold, the day cometh, it burneth as a furnace; and all the proud, and all that work wickedness, shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith Jehovah of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.”

    If you wrote in earnest, I suggest you do a Lot more research. Besides, you wouldn't want to waste your life lying to yourself.

  • Tru4Ya

    If we all believed in the christian god or any thereof the interpretation of said god would still be different. Making God different to each of us. Religion is a way to control the masses via consent. Belief systems are indoctrinated and enforced no matter how much evidence supports the cause.

  • Nick

    Back @ Just

    You are correct I am quite knowledgeable on this subject but I don't claim to be a scholar. I made no attempt to write every detail that I knew such as how and when Rome converted to Christianity because that wasn't the point of my critique. You are correct, there were other Christianity's before Rome took over, I thought that was to obvious to mention so I didn't. Lots/most of early branches of Christianity were wiped out by the Roman standard of Christianity.

    The point of me bringing up the Christmas tree, easter bunny...- was to show blatant pagan symbolism and rituals all throughout Christianity, because my point of writing on this page was to refute "Zeitgeist Refuted and Exposed".

    You have no proof that the any of the gospels are "eye witness" testimony. Like I mentioned the first gospel was written no earlier than 30 years after the fact and some of the others were written 70 and later years after the fact. How would you like it if your local modern news media gave you the "good news" 30- 70 - 100+ years after it happened based on hear say? Would you be satisfied with the accuracy? I think not.

    The Jewish "idea of a saviour" is 180 degrees different from Christianity. Messiah literally means "anointed shield" in Hebrew. In order to be king of Israel you have to be "anointed" by the High priests "the Cohen" cast with a special blend of oils. Every legitimate King of Israel that was "anointed" was a Messiah. At the time of Jesus many Jews didn't recognize the legitimacy of king Herod because he was a Roman puppet king in their eyes and they considered themselves in spiritual exile. A saviour of your so called immortal soul had noting to do with their expectations of a messiah, at all. There was a great deal of corruption happening at that time and there were over 26 factions of Jews all with differing points of view. They only wanted a legitimate king the could restore Israel to the way it was in first temple times. FYI -The last Israeli election had 34 different parties running so not much has changed since then.

    Your quote is referring to being burned alive, like the people of Sodom and Gomorra were "with fire and brimstone" and not in an after life for all eternity like the ancient Greeks and other ancient people believed in. Your quote makes absolutely no mention of eternal damnation, just an assumption based on pagan belief systems. FOr something as serious as eternal damnation don't you think god would have warned his people about it when he made his contract with them and gave his law to them because he didn't. Not in the Torah and not in the Talmud either. FYI - I didn't just read the OT, I learned/ studied it, from the people that wrote it I might add so I didn't have to rely on a 5th hand translation from someone that has no knowledge of Hebrew or Jewish tradition.
    But what are your qualifications to comment on the subject?

  • Nick

    Back @ Just,

    Oh yeah, I am doing "a lot more research" on the subject. That is why I took the time to watch Zeitgeist and Zeitgeist Refuted and Exposed" in the first place. I try to get as much information from as many sources as I can get my hands on in order to sift through the B.S. on my path to the truth. I've even worked on major archaeological digs in Israel/ Jerusalem, so there ;^P

  • Ramus

    I vote to remove this doc. The guys voice is annoying. The content is utterly boring and I cant stand people just using other peoples work as a platform to spout their own dogma. Please stop helping religious fanatics spread their fairy stories.

  • Wes

    @ Nick

    You are right that there were other Christian teachings but they were also refuted and warned against by Peter, John, Paul and other apostles.

    The gospels were written in order to preserve eye witness accounts and teachings that were "heard from the horses mouth." These writings weren't about them or what they were saying but instead about the life of Jesus.

    I will agree that there is no real evidence that Matthew was written by Matthew because why would a disciple of Jesus need to rely so heavily on the gospel of Mark who was not an eye witness. The only reason I can think of is that since Mark was a close associate to Peter, Matthew read Mark and did not disagree with the things that were written, so he kept what Mark had and added more accounts.

    The most important evidence for Mark's credibility comes from Papias (140 AD) who quotes an earlier source saying that Mark was a close associate of Peter, from who he received the tradition of the things said and done by the Lord. Mark is also mentioned in Acts and Paul's letter to the Colossians.

    As for John, he was a prominent figure in the early church but is not mentioned by name in the Gospel. This seems natural if he wrote it because again this is not about his life but rather an account of Jesus' life. The textual style of the 3 letters of John are almost identical to that of the gospel of John. There are also similar phrases found in passages the passages of the gospel and the letters.

    The introduction in Luke's gospel is very significant to the credibility of the text itself.

    "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

    This to me is a great abstract for a research study, which is most likely what The Gospel According to Luke and Acts was. The Gospel is specifically directed to Theophilus, whose name means "lover of God" and almost certainly refers to a particular person rather than to lovers of God in general. The use of "most excellent" with the name further indicates an individual, and supports the idea that he was a Roman official or at least of high position and wealth. He was possibly Luke's patron, responsible for seeing that the writings were copied and distributed. The author is clearly dedicating his work to his publisher.

    Again we do not have the name of the author mentioned in the gospel itself just as the others, but Acts is clearly a second addition to the authors gospel because it is addressed to the same recipient, Theophilus. This indicates that the same author wrote both books. The language and structure of the gospel and Acts are similar.

    Within the writing itself are some clues as to who the author was. Certain passages in Acts make use of the pronoun "we." (16:10-17; 20:5-21:18; 27:1-28:16) At these points the author includes himself as a companion of Paul in his travels.

    All of this to make the argument; the gospels and the acts of the apostles are not based on hear say but are rather accounts of either the disciples themselves or are authored by those who had direct contact with the disciples and eye witnesses.

  • Nick Sporek

    To Wes & anyone interested,

    Thanks for the interesting perspective. I'll definitely look into it further. But since one of the most significant fundamental beliefs to Christianity is that Jesus died for our sins so we don't all go to hell or to burn in a lake of fire unless we accept him as god in the flesh has nothing to do with the OT, at all. Therefore if there is no eternal hell, hades, lake of fire or any promise of eternal life in heaven for that matter because these ideas are clearly not from Jewish sources means there is no need to believe in Jesus as god in the flesh, a demi-god, prophet or even a legitimate spiritual teacher.

    The concept of an after life doesn't come from the OT. Some Jews just liked the idea and adopted it from the Greeks. That doesn't make it true. We can't even know if the real historical Jesus even endorsed these ideas.

    I think people should be good for goodness sake and not because of reward or punishment. The well being of the future of humanity rests on that alone. (I know some of you might say that is one of the devils' lies but if the devil said that, I'm on his side. Not to confuse some of you out there, I do not actually believe there is a devil anymore either).

    The NT has too many conflicting random ideas in it, never mind comparing it to the OT. As they say, "oil and water don't mix".

    As for the OT, I think it has very little place in the world today as a spiritual guide book. At most it can be used as a historical reference mixed with some spicy metaphysics to keep it interesting.

    Face it, most people would agree that it's laws are immoral and the punishments for breaking "gods" laws are not of a loving god nor are they fair in anyway. Most of the punishments are death sentences. The rewards are lame too, god promises good weather and bountiful crops for obedience but never delivers (FYI- gods laws in the OT is his contract with the Hebrews and not applicable to anyone else with the exception of "be fruitful and multiply", if you believe in the bible that is). He states his laws are for ever binding on his people, so what type of omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient god would change his mind as often as the god of the bible does? How come thou shalt not rape isn't one of the 10 commandments? Surely rape is worse than coveting your neighbours stuff by any accepted standard of morality today, i'd hope. I think a twelve year old child could make a better set of ten commandments.

    If some supreme BEING created yours and mine DNA and the laws of physics you would have to expect a book a lot more clear and consistent from that god, now wouldn't you. The god(s) of the Hebrews' is mythology.

    How much time has humanity lost to this subject and how many people have needlessly died for it. Jesus "said", "if a man has the faith of a mustard seed, he could move a mountain". Well if dying for your belief in him isn't complete and utter faith, I don't know what is. Many millions have died for him and never been able to move a pebble never mind a mountain. Like I said before, the Jesus was a man with Jerusalem syndrome. I'm sure the money spent on tithing alone could feed the world and build the most amazing hospitals we could ever ask for. The money spent on the printing of bibles (that most people never end up reading anyway) could also make the world a much better place to live for everybody.

    Arguing about interpretations of "god(s)" riddle books or should I say, ancient man made texts and making up apologetic answers to justify blind faith is a waste of a precious life. You can't imagine how many loving families these books must have broken up because of it's teachings.

  • JustG

    ps. I think what you are doing is great if this is all your own research, but recommend you approach the topic w/ less bias. Biased research is bad research.

  • Nick Sporek

    @ JustG

    Good comeback ;^)

  • Nick Sporek

    BTW, I am Jewish and Israeli.

  • JustG

    In that case you should up your research. Surely you should know better than.

  • Nick Sporek

    Well JustG,

    I suppose I could list all the materials and teachers that I've learned from over the past 20 years (Jewish/ Christian and Secular/Academic and lets not forget the "Pagans") and I could look up all my quotes and give them to you and maybe even make a film like this one and shoot down every argument in a systematic way just like they did. But something tells me that you'll still find fault with my work unless I come to the exact same conclusion as you do and follow the same version of Christianity as you do. Even if I do come to the same conclusion as you and you convince me I'm completely wrong I still won't worship the god(s) of the bible or Jesus again because they are immoral and I'll take my punishment in HADES gladly. (long live HADES, Greek God of Tartarus a.k.a. Hell ;^)

    So I will end it here and just agree to disagree.

    BTW, you should re-read that link you sent to me a few times and maybe even look over that entire website. Here's some food for thought if your interested;
    - The Book: A History of the Bible by Christopher De Hamel
    - A Journey through the Hebrew Scriptures by Frank S. Frick
    - The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels
    - "The Disputation" of Barcelona check what its about on wikipedia. There's even a boring movie of it (runs about 45 minutes)
    -Jewish Magic and Superstition: A Study in Folk Religion (Forgotten Books)
    by Joshua Trachtenberg
    - God: A Biography by Jack Miles
    - The movie "Agora" 2009 should be fun to watch
    - The Hebrew Goddess 3rd Enlarged Edition by Raphael Patai
    - The Messianic Idea in Judaism: And Other Essays on Jewish Spirituality by Gershom Scholem
    - Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism by Gershom Scholem
    - This a fun one -Veda and Torah: Transcending the Textuality of Scripture by Barbara A. Holdrege
    - Don't forget "the Dead Sea Scrolls" and the biblical Apocrypha books of the OT & NT.
    - If you want to know how Jews and Jesus thought, you better read all of the Talmud too.
    - If you want a no holds barred view of Judaism's view of Jesus look up "Rabbi Tovia Singer".

    I also highly recommend anything by Sam Harris if you haven't come across him already.

    Happy studying, no pressure and Shabbat Shalom

  • JustG

    Wow, that's a nice list. Too bad you missed my point and chose instead to support your bad claims w/ them.

    Ultimately, I've never tried to get you to believe anything so I'm not sure why you are so vehemently trying to prove yourself. A couple simply suggestions for your research surely doesn't require such a mess of information and assumptions?

    Maybe try a philosohpy course or two. If you make it so easy for me to show 1 thing is wrong or not what you say, my work is already done.

    Good luck to you.

  • Nick Sporek

    Sorry my fault I should have kept it simpler.

    All I'm try to point out is the bible OT and NT are littered with pagan influences from start to finish in addition to the rituals and beliefs taken on after they were written and that it's silly to try to deny them and hypocritical of the so call monotheistic religions to point fingers at pagans.

    The reason I'm trying to prove myself so vehemently is because I wasted many good years of my life on man made religion and if I can prevent someone from doing the same it would help me sleep better.

    As for the philosophy if you could recommend something that would be awesome but I'm already a fan of Baruch Spinoza. Taoist philosophy is cool too.

  • Wes

    To JustG

    Well I think at this point it is safe to say that we are at a stale mate with our friend Nick. At the the end of the day believing in God/Christianity doesn't come about by a change in knowledge but rather by a change in the soul.

    To Nick

    You are no doubt very intelligent, well read and knowledgeable on these topics. I believe that you are truly seeking the truth and I pray that you find what you are looking for. I hope that you do not however look for God in the eloquent speeches of men or in the plethora of texts on the subject but rather in the still and quiet hours of your day. Search your soul, not your intellect. I am not saying don't research but don't look for God while researching. Research for knowledge and information. Then reflect on what you have received and seek God then.

    As a Jewish man you are probably familiar with the account of Elijah in 1 Kings 19 when he was on Mt. Horeb. God said that he was going to pass by. Then there came a powerful wind, an earthquake and fire but God was not in those things. Rather he made his presence known through a gentle whisper. It is in the whisper and the stillness that God reveals himself to us.

    There is more to this world than what we see and I think that you know that otherwise you wouldn't be on this journey. There is a spiritual world and a supernatural force that drives and influences our physical world. Science knows this and tries to shut it out but Science always comes back around to say, "Something else is going on here that we just can't explain." That's when the theories start but they never "evolve" to anything more than theory. Is it because what is going on is supernatural and is being orchestrated by a supernatural being? Maybe.

    Sorry for preaching I can get winded as I am sure you can too. Again I pray that you find what you are looking for.

    A book I recommend reading for your research is called The Case for A Creator by Lee Strobel. It is not a flowery and naive Christian book but an intelligent think piece. Lee used to be an atheist so he approaches the book with a skeptics view of the idea of God looking through scientific and critical eyes. People criticize him as being biased and only interviewing Christians but what they don't understand is that he is the skeptic. He takes the role of the well informed alternative to the Christian answer.

    Also for kicks watch the documentary on Edgar Cayce because it's pretty interesting. You can find it on this website.

    Peace and Blessings

  • Limduul

    The only thing one can argue for is that no one knows or can know if god exists or does not. From there, say what you will, but you don't need god for goodness, too bad most people are self serving scum bags lol, religious or not.

  • Nick Sporek

    To Wes,

    Thanks for your wise, intelligent and kind words, you should be a diplomat if you aren't one already. I also love your biblical quote.

    I don't deny the possibility of a creator(s). As someone with a lot of respect for the scientific method, I like to keep my mind open. To me Atheism is just another form of man made religion based on feelings and not facts. I'm just convinced the one(s) in the OT/NT aren't it. I'll check out the book and the documentary although I know Edgar Cayce was wrong about Atlantis and the sphinx ;^) (My mom was into the guy for a while)

    I got a recommendation for you as well, its also written by a sceptic or should I say X-sceptic. He thinks he's proven the existence of god through physics. I've only poked at it because I don't know enough about physics to be able to understand what his positions is. It's called;
    The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead by Frank J. Tipler (Maybe check out some of the reviews on amazon before investing any time and money though).

    Shalom & blessings to you too.

  • Pierre

    Got fed-up quite fast. I'm always amused when I see peoples who have not yet realized that we are in hell here!
    Yep! Dunno why or how, I guess that memory of judgement was lobotimized in a way or another...
    Otherwise, why would there be life down here?
    It just gotta be that we were assigned to be here.
    It appeared that through the centuries, peoples try to remember what was before birth. Oniric sights!

    What God would gave permited "Attilla" massacres, the Norman's one in N-England a few 1,000 years ago, the Roman ones? When one think for a moment that in one single battle in N-England, a (1/4) of the population over there died in tragics events. What was the % of living homosapiens in those years compared to the holocaust?
    Which God would permit that in his "Best World"?
    I know for a fact that my mom or dad wouldn't have permited me to torture my brother or sister for the thrill of it.
    Nor my non-family related neighbor as well!

    Then... Why does whatever God remains mute?
    Simple & obvious: It's the deal.
    Sending us all under test to see each one of us behaviour while completly free to do anything one feel like!
    Even a "Little" estafet from WWI!
    We're free to do what ever we feel like down here.
    Then, that whatever God will know factually everyone, if fit for an ideal world. If there is an ideal world that is!

    As far as I'm concerned, I have enough fun in life that I do not feel any need to abuse any other homosapien in this world. Nor support any abusers like the Chruch leaders, Islamic or Christian, Boudhist, petroleum magna what so ever who already figured out that God will not, ever intervene on planet earth. Thus dsclosing his plans!
    I do not and never needed Zeitgeist to figure that out.
    Just look at present homosapien behaviour and history!
    So very simple.

  • http://breakingawayfromtheherd.yola.com berserker

    IT SEEMS SLIGHTLY CULT YOU SAY... it is a movement and it does require a construct to get her going. to me the kicker is that we need a total new reality and we cannot get there, no one can, using the same systems that have brought us to this point....point of cultural and ecological collapse... so if an organized movement(Zeitgeist) that drives us away from this destructive reality has a starting point ..so be it....even they say they're not sure of the end....so.. new movie out....Zeitgeist: Moving Forward... Oh man, to be in NEw Zealand...wow! like CArlin said "usa is done brothe".... from the cold north woods in Minnesota. will ck out your show... oh yeah, this doc here was garbage....take care

  • Stan Heath

    I studied to be a Christian pastor , got my degrees .....6 years later ended up an Atheist , another words I'm born again . Religion is just a way to control the masses . Break The will and control the mind so they can just flat control . Religion is dead and a new world is on the way .
    I pray every night to Saint ZEITGEIST (LOLOLO)

  • nak861

    this is total bulls**t!!
    watch zietgies for real logical sence andd meaning.

  • Nick Sporek

    "Saint Zeitgeist" - LOL, Thats classic.

  • Stan Heath

    Its hard to refute truth , Zeitgeist is just based on fact . Unlike religion . This is just a sorry effort by the powers that be in this world to slow down the movement . They are loosing control . Its time for truth ....it is time for ZEITGEIST !

  • Wow

    The comments people make when faced with a film that shows the facts of zeitgeist part 1 has never ceased to amaze me. People just refuse to believe the facts. Look, Peter Joseph out right copied all the so called facts there. The reason I say copied is, most are made up and the rest are twisted for an agenda. This film is merely showing this. To leave a comment bashing religion of any kind is just showing your intelligence level. The things presented in this film are the truth and easily looked up. People will claim up and down that its all bull. But at the end of the day, no one will produce any concrete proof of that, because there is none. The concrete proof is presented here in this film for anyone to see or research further for themselves. Zeitgeist part one is truly amazing for its brainwashing techniques. Wake up! Or maybe you can just leave a comment bashing religion. Or better yet, You can leave a comment bashing me but leaving no actual counter argument to the things shown in this film.

  • ufo truth

    lies

  • LKD

    I just came to know about the existence of the “Zeitgeist” documentaries; they are totally new to me and I have yet to listen to one. So I “Googled” a bit and came across this blog about a contradicting documentary (haven't watched it either).

    I must say I am taken aback by the anger expressed by most of the atheists who have posted. The anger and venom demonstrated by tone and profanity is so very sad. So destructive to each person during and after their ranting expressions. I wonder if any of you atheists has read Lee Strobel (who uses careful and extensive research) or C. S Lewis (who used his intellect and observations) to proclaim Christ. Both were highly intelligent and adamant atheists well into adulthood, but who came to know Christ and went on to be competent apologists for Christianity.

    My prayer is that before you die you will come to know the peace that was so unfathomable to those of us before we came to accept Christ. It is a peace that is instantly recognizable when we meet another Christian, a peace based on something more than the fact that we hold the same beliefs. It is a peace we know and enjoy and are thankful for because we know the same person, Christ Jesus himself.

    I am a former agnostic or atheist who came to faith in Christ as an adult, even as I was working toward a PhD in Chemistry (can you believe it?), even at the shock and disappointment of my family. While I am dyslexic, I do not think I am ignorant or stupid or irrational or unintelligent or suffering from any disease of mind or spirit.

  • LKD

    OOPs, I guess the PCs think st_pid is a profanity. If it is struck out again by this software, the word starts with an "s" and has 6 letters and means the opposite of smart. lkd

  • Nick

    All I would like to say is please for those of us who are interested in this make sure that your arguments are actual arguments where you are building on or tearing down another persons argument and not tearing down and belittling the people who believe differently then you. Scholarly arguments look at the statements presented and provide counter evidence to dispute it, they do not attack the other party personally. So again I plead with you for the sake of us who wish to see a good discussion about this subject and also for yourself so that you do not hurt your cause and ruin your credibility. Who beliefs someone who sidesteps that subject and knocks the people's intelligence. I know I don't I believe that it just makes you look ignorant.

  • Lary Nine

    Christian apologetics are weakest when they attempt to refute science or history and strongest when they stick to the message! You guys sound like a coven of Pharisees debating the fine points of the law. Didn't Jesus say it is what comes out of the mouth that counts, not what goes in. Didn't Paul say "Love God and do as you will." I'm a former devout believer, but I still recall enough to recommend that you'll be wiser to stay 'on message'--- "It's about the Gospel, stupid! The Gospel!"
    Keep bringing the good news. Nothing else matters...if it's true.

  • Lary Nine

    In the interest of comment section civility, the moderator has asterisked out my use of the word "stup*d" at the end of the "It's the Gospel..." sentence. I abhor such attempts to override art for the sake of decorum.

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    Well... it is not for the sake of decorum @Lary Nine. It is for the sake of keyword density.

    Hover your mouse pointer over it and the word will reveal to you (and to others).

  • Lary Nine

    @Vlatko~
    Cool. Thanks. I was kidding about the 'decorum' thing. I realized it keys on certain words without context.

  • Jizzass

    What a pathetic attempt to discredit Zeitgeist!

  • Lary Nine

    I guess it doesn't key on blatant obscenities like the user name "Jizzass" though. Well...at least it got me for the word "stup*d".

  • Carlos

    it's not even like i believe everything zeitgeist says but at least it presents some interesting ideas, I particularly liked zeitgeist moving forward. Anyway this one here is crap.

  • Vee

    This is So stupid! All of the arguments have no backings, and NO FACTUAL LOGICAL evidence! only "hidden messages" that refer or make point to "something" can can sound like it...........This dvd hurt religion verses defend it, why would any one rebel against the original Zeitgeist movie? If your religion is so dam real it would not matter what any one said

  • jess

    This film is horrible. horrible attempt.

  • jess

    This film is horrible. horrible. horrible attempt.

  • johnnydangerful

    wow....i think i lost what few brain cells i have left....outrageous movie. someone taking things personal?

  • Other Ryan

    I don't know about the quality of the film and won't be watching it, but I do know already that Zeitgeist was trash, based entirely upon sweeping generalizations and unsubstantiated claims. I know that the Zeitgeist creator was heavily influenced by Jordan Maxwell, who has been thoroughly refuted. Jordan Maxwell in turn, was influenced by HP Blavatsky, who also made many nonsensical generalizations and unsubstantiated and unsourced claims, and she was also a huge hermetic mystic/occultist.

  • hbhbhbhj

    this movie is total proof tht religioin is total nonsense- well done! deluded jeebus creepers!

  • azilda

    Could'nt watch much of this...as many other people.
    They can have the religious part the way they want it...most Zeitgeist supporters or well-wishers don't care...we are trying to change our world not the religious history.
    If Jesus existed or not. will not changed the fact that our earth is losing it's health!
    az

  • azilda

    health and natural wealth!
    az

  • Luke A

    I think Dr. Gary Habermas needs to see a doctor he seems to have 1200 fingers on one of his hands

  • Luke A

    I had fun watching this and reading all the comments. I just don't get how you can call something " the one and only truth " then claim you have faith in it. There is no need for faith in something you know for a fact is true. I don't have faith that I am typing on my keyboard right now I know for a fact that i am typing on my keyboard right now. but that's just my opinion I could be high

  • athiest

    Mitch Graves come on mitch, you are as dumb as you claim others to be. it is common knowledge that the spanish inquisition alone killed as many as half a million free thinking innocent women. where do you get this 3 to 5 thousand deaths in the name of christianity? you are telling us, and have proof of, that in all the religeous wars that only 3 to 5 thousand people have died at the hands of christians? how many north american indians have died in the name of christianity? Estimates of native populations before europeans arrived was around 40 million people. the catholic schools that took the native children from their families have killed tens of thousands of children. religeon is the root of ALL evil.

  • refuge

    I like a slap down as much as anyone and this refutation is rich in factual counter claims,...that seem well researched.
    Where this documentary falls flat is in the delivery and editing. The main speaker breathlessly reads thru everything he did to refute various Zeitgeist claims,...with some very annoying background music that builds and builds for about half of the video,...the narrator goes on and on spewing out his findings,...w/o it seems a single break, sentence or paragraph pause. Then just when you think you can't take it anymore ca bang someone in editing decides that's a bit much and they change the format to a more normal paced delivery, it's all too much. At about 40 minutes I packed it in.

    Anyway Gilgamesh, which is a well documented version of the basic Zeitgeist theory already makes the point,...religions borrow from each other, and steal/plagiarise each others important dates and events,..I think that is basically true,...further these dates often revolve around the equinoxes and solstices,...duh,...not sure why the creators of this video are so livid to slap down this Zeitgeist,...as if by doing so they prove there is one true God? Perhaps Zeitgeist's got so popular they HAD to do something. It was fun while I could stand it but I was already in the "it's all a big fat myth" camp anyway, that wasn't likely to change.

  • Avii

    The problem with this doc is that what he says can be dis-proven to by other historians...what the original movie is also about is to start thinking a bit. Even if one fact in the original is correct then the whole house of cards falls down...and its historically a fact that todays bible was put together by the roman empire in Constantinople back in the days to control the public, and it worked...What the movie was trying to say, don't swallow everything you hear..find out your-self before you go and become a devoted Christian when you might not know what it really is..

  • Elle

    Why is it called Zeitgeist Refuted if all it talks about is religion? I thought it was going to say something in defense of the monetary system... you know, what Zeitgeist is actually about.

  • louiseiiid

    Well = if Vlatko himself agrees that this is the worst doc. on the site, I think I'll save myself the fit of anger everyone else seems to have experienced watching, or reading the comments.

    Anyway, Zeitgeist rules.

  • JustG

    @louise
    Baaaaaaaaaah

  • stacy

    my Lord pleeease protect me from this moron! I was raised christian, boy o boy were my parents wrong in indoctrinating in this myth! it is a story!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001629872436 Pfail Book

    This documentary is a joke. It says that statements from Zeitgeist are completely false just because they're not 100% accurate; things like "Horus did not turn water into wine, he filled empty glasses with wine" or "she was not a virgin, she was impregnated by a god". Are you kidding me?

    Not to mention it only 'refutes' the part about religion... which i find irrelevant.

    The only part i like about this documentary is the first 20 seconds: "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - which is kinda funny, given the context of the documentary, because it can be very well applied to... you guessed it... religion.

    PS: lurk moar

  • signalfire1

    I would be very grateful if all the religious people out there would please explain to me why god did not include in his book these particulars:

    1. An explanation of germs and virii.
    2. The true relationship of the earth to the sun and stars.
    3. A discussion of gravity.
    4. Math.
    5. Physics.
    6. Chemistry.
    7. Dinosaurs, which he undoubtedly was quite proud of.
    8. An explanation of the need for illnesses and suffering.
    9. An explanation for why in some instances murder is ordered and condoned, and in others it is banned.
    10. A discussion of deep sea creatures for the enlightenment of those who had yet to behold them.
    11. A discussion of possible life on other planets, and why the earth god might not 'be made in their image' or vice versa.
    12. Why when there is some disaster, some believers die and others are saved, and how the disaster is 'god's will' and the lives saved are 'miracles' and how this makes any sense.
    13. How a loving god can allow natural disasters that take the lives of innocent children by the thousands.
    14. Why prayers for the most part go unanswered?
    15. If god invented the universe, he also must have invented the workings of things as we have come to know with science, why do his followers seek to refute this science or ignore it (whilst still partaking of some of it).
    16. Why are gays and others hated by some god-fearing/loving/following people, if god must have obviously created them?

    I have many more questions but answers to these would be much appreciated.

    Oh, and as an afterthought: Peter Joseph has done nothing but advocate nonviolent change.
    Peter Joseph has tried to put forward a true revolution in thought, economics, caretaking of the earth and everyone and everything on it.
    Peter Joseph has calmly answered all of his critics and has been almost superhuman in his gentle demeanor, intelligence and patience.
    Peter Joseph is the closest man I have ever seen or heard of in all my 57 years that exemplifies your jesus. Why are you so afraid of him? How long before this man is crucified?

    Oh, and a last question. What if Peter Joseph and Jacque Fresco, being god-made, were sent here by him for you to listen to and learn from? It's been 2000 years. It's time for the second coming, is it not? Or do you intend to have these men die for your sins also?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_F7YOGT2CMU6OXEGHT64HB7EVUE Daniel

    because my friend ,god is not for you to understand ,no human will ever understand that which is supreme in the all and that also doesn't meant that the sciences are wrong you see the sciences are just what WE perceive WE humans with mental limits who is to say that the entity which created has has to tell us everything about him. if you created a clone to harvest would you tell him that he is a clone ? and that is the mystery of life the search for god.just never stop believing.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/French-Toasty/100000734614999 French Toasty

    From a Christian perspective as that has been my main point of study in the past, and I speak only from my own views -

    Particulars 1-7 ~ Why should these things be explained in full in the Bible? That is what science is for. Romans 1:20 "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" This passage invokes many of the things you mention - the 'invisible things' such as the forces involved in physics and other scientific disciplines are clearly seen once our science has advanced enough to be able to discern and understand them. Even dinosaurs might fall into this, but the general purpose and theme of the book is the revelation of God and His relationship to mankind, and though it contains science, it's not meant to be a scientific treatise on any of the issues you mention.

    #8 ~ There is not a 'need' for illness and suffering. Though some may view it as judgement, much illness and suffering is a result of natural events and phenomenon, our interaction with other organisms, normal life processes, or the result of man's own activities.

    #9 ~ This is a little harder. As it relates to the Bible, you must understand the differences between Old Testament and New Testament. In short, God is described as a just and righteous God who cannot tolerate what we might call sin. The end punishment for sin is death, and it must be dealt with in order for God to remain a God of justice. In the Old Testament, sins generally demanded the death of an animal as sacrifice, or the eventual death of the offender. In the New Testament (after the advent of Jesus), the Christian view is that Jesus paid the punishment for all through His own death. This is why some people see the Old Testament as promoting murder, but you will not see it condoned or ordered after that point until possibly the judgements mentioned in books like Revelation. It is also an opinion of many that God gave government over to man - the decision to use capital punishment in modern times is a choice made by current governments.

    #10 ~ See first point. Enlightenment about the natural world was not a main purpose of the Bible.

    #11 ~ True the Bible does not mention this exactly, unless you might consider the realm of heaven or hell another planet. Still, God is described as creating life on THIS planet, and again, the Bible tells of God's interactions with mankind HERE. Some will argue that God might've put some type of life on other planets, but the Bible also portrays man as a very unique and special species, which tends to dispute the idea.

    #12 ~ Matt. 5:45 - "for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." Things that happen to mankind happen to all mankind. A believer is not going to be magically protected from a volcanic eruption. If I lived through such an event, I might call it a miracle myself! Even though some people will say it's God's will, they rarely understand exactly what God's will is, though some think they gain insight later on. The bottom line is that many believers think God has a plan for each life, and that whatever happens really is the best thing for all involved, even though they may not understand how or why. Many would even view death as a preferable alternative to a horrible future only God might know.

    #13 ~ I think Christians see natural disasters as natural disasters. God doesn't necessarily 'allow' them, they are a product of the natural world and environmental processes created as part of our world. Some find judgement in them, but I have a hard time understanding how one would know if a disaster is natural or judgemental. Still, things happen, and humanity is often in the vicinity. There is little else to explain unless you try to get back into what God's will might be.

    #14 ~ Well, God can say no can't he? Some believe motive has something to do with this, but Christians will often admit later on that their prayer WAS answered, just not in the way they had assumed it might be.

    #15 ~ See first point and the passage. To me, a Christian should believe the Bible to be accurate, and that the natural world and science will only reveal further evidence of God to humanity. Accurate Bible interpretations will always agree with accurate science and vice versa. I personally believe that many current religious interpretations of some scientific ideas are not accurate at all. I have studied the Bible myself, and with the proper interpretation of Bible and science they agree quite harmoniously, which came as quite a surprise to me.

    #16 ~ The Christian according to the Bible should hate no one. Yet you might say it instructs followers to hate the sin and not the sinner. A Christian generally thinks homosexuality is a sin, but many have a hard time loving the person behind that and get hung up on human tendancies to turn away those they disagree with. I see the hate of certain Christian circles towards homosexuals as a great failure on their part.

    There's my long winded 2cents on what I feel would qualify as a Christian-ish answer to many of your inquiries.

  • HUMMDRUMM

    I am so very sorry but this mocumentary is an absolute waste of time and time is precious to waste your life even watching it. The whole effort of debunking Zeitgeist has been spent in absolute failure and does not get anywhere in the end .So my dear boy back to the Bible (a book written by scholars that did not even believe such person existed five hundred years after he was born) and leave science to work the rest of it out as religion has no finger in the real world (apart being involved in politics) of things and cannot be taken seriously in this day and era.

    By the way when Jesus does turn up again I will be the first to take he's swab for DNA test just to see how the Devil he did that trick with the resurrection.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/J-F-DAmours/583886465 J-F D'Amours

    I've got a question for you, god believers. If your parents would put you to life then completely ignore you, watching you starve, getting beaten, your brothers getting killed, forced you to fight against other families in their names, told you they made all that's around you and when you put that in question killed you or made all your brothers reject you and tell you that if you continue listening to them and believe in their promises you may AFTER YOU DIE have the chance to be JUDGED to know if you did good enough in YOUR ONE AND ONLY LIFE, would you, even though you know they existed, stop believing in them ? I wouldn't and i think still believing after you add up all these bad sides is :
    a) being masochist ( it's not a bad thing if you love it )
    b) being afraid of change ( understandable when all you've been said through your life is that someone high in the sky that created everything gets you a great gift if you had a good life and makes you suffer for eternity if you do something bad like... STOP BELIEVING IN HIM)
    c) not having the chance of being educated ( i'm not being disrespectful, we don't have all the same luck, if you're able to read this you do know it)
    d) being stubborn ( see b) )
    e) being stupid (it's a choice and i respect it... ( it may be the part where some believers begin to dislike me))
    or f) all of these answers

    Please notice that i did not argue about the fact that whether or not god exists neither did i use any scientific evidence to prove that something is really wrong about what is written in the bible. I'm just telling you that even if that guy exists he wouldn't be trustable so i wouldn't believe in what he says.

    Notice too that if you tell me that i must not take everything written in the bible for granted i will ask you why they did in the past ( in they did murder people for that cause) and now that these change have been obviously proven we must not. Isn't your god perfect? If yes why does he make humans lie in his bible? Seems like he doesn't even consider the commandments in his book, it sounds like he's not perfect and contradicts himself.

    I'll let you baffle from now on.

    P.S. Please excuse my english it's not my first language

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2QAYNGPTUMO7SHPHWZPVMRJUFU Dave

    Dear Religious friends....

    The biggest scam you could possibly portray on humanity would be to have them believe in something for which there is no ACTUAL proof other than the fact that everything around you IS the proof, without ever showing how. Then you would wrap up the stragglers by telling them that if they do not follow the scam with unquestioning faith then they would pay for eternity...but not until AFTER you have lived, for which there would also be no proof... until of course, you die, oops... too late. Ha ha ha...PERFECT scam. All you'd need is an instruction manual... You could even have old and new versions written and then transcribed and modified again and again over the ages by biased Kings, rulers, peasants, who the hell cares, they don't even have to KNOW the original language... make it up... as long as the basics stay intact, for which you'd set up some committees who would guarantee these basics get out and hey, even make a REAL NICE big buck off of it...

    HOPE through FEAR through HOPE through FEAR has always been an awesome trap for those who are weak or dazzled enough to be trapped. It is in fact the same technique used in the Monetary System (Hope to be rich...Fear to be poor).

    If there is a god I can see in everything, then I figure "IT" is a god of all-encompassing perpetually-changing death and creation. Not a standardized edition written by a gaggle of FALLIBLE HUMANS thousands of years ago. When "Jesus" threw the Bankers out...he should have sent the priests with them. Those two have been our bane ever since! I mean...ranting Religious documentaries based on only 15 minutes of over 90 minutes, just shows how insane these people have become. "Take your blue pill...stay in wonderland and believe what ever you believe."

    The biggest MISTAKE "Zeitgeist" ever made was keeping the first 15 minutes from the cutting room floor. If only because we'd have to put up with fanatics shouting for the rest of the film. For JUST ONE MINUTE would the religious BORES sit down at the front, you can still believe in your HE-GOD (I take it HE has genitalia...or at least you've seen HIS beard?) and focus on the fact that the EVIL "Zeitgeist" is REALLY about is the EVIL within people, who are committed to self-gain over others by using ANOTHER perfect scam on humanity... the MONETARY SYSTEM.

    SHUTUP, sit down, watch the GOD-DAMNED film. You people always MISS THE FOREST FOR THE TREES.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kris-Smith/100000135417264 Kris Smith

    Even though I am a Christian, I am NOT a fundamentalist...And I do not believe the Bible is infallible... I also am a history major, so I think I can give a well informed opinion about this.

    The scholarship in Zeitgeist is non-existent. I looked at the sources that Part #1 has listed on it's website, and they are largely from D.M. Murdock who goes by the pen name Acharya S. Acharya S is not taken seriously by the scholarly community, and a simple investigation in encyclopedic sources (as basic as they are) is enough to show why.

    Just as a couple examples of how horrible the scholarship in Zeitgeist is:

    1. Claims that Horus was born of a virgin in a manger are wrong. He was born to Isis who was married to Osiris. The fact that they were married is enough to imply a sexual union, and therefore it is unlikely that she was a virgin. [1] -- Neither is it true that Horus was born on December 25th. According to more reliable sources, he was born during the Epagomenal Days which means he was born at some time in the Fall. [2] Even if Horus were born on December 25th, it would not matter since the date of Jesus' birth is unknown.

    2. Attis was PROBABLY born of a virgin, but we cannot really know that because the sources are silent at to his mother's chastity. The claim that he was dead for three days is misleading; that is to say that reliable sources show that the festival of Attis rising three days after his death are really POST-Christian, and therefore it does not pre-date and was therefore not an influence to Christianity. [3]

    I cannot debunk ALL of part one...or even the other parts of Zeitgeist in one comment because there is no way to debunk all the drivel it spouts out... Trying to argue with the likes of people who believe all the non-sense spouted out in Zeitgeist is like arguing with a Creationist... Yep, you read my correctly: I compare the Zeitgeist crowd to Creationists since they have so much in common.

    ---------------------
    [1] The Encyclopedia Mythica.

    [2] Opsopaus, John. Five Days Out of Time.

    [3] Attis and Related Cults, pages 39 to 42. — Attis and Christ, by A.T. Fear

  • Musgrave

    So are all of you "debunkers" also against the rest of the movie as well? I am glad that you took the advice of the movie creator and checked his "math" so to speak. I think maybe he added the whole Christianity part just to get your attention.
    Are you gonna now tell us that his review of the monetary system is inaccurate? If so... ask yourself why you would defend a system that neither cares for you or anyone else outside of their club.
    I think it's funny that ancient texts are the only form of history books we have left. It would seem that book burnings were of great importance to the victors back in the day.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kris-Smith/100000135417264 Kris Smith

    I am against the rest of the movie, as a matter of fact. The poor scholarship in part 1 doesn't inspire confidence in the scholarship in the rest of it.

    You then say:

    "Are you gonna now tell us that his review of the monetary system is inaccurate? If so... ask yourself why you would defend a system that neither cares for you or anyone else outside of their club."

    Being against the movie is not the same as saying that we are for the monetary system; I'm against it myself, but that is not an endorsement of ANY portion of Zeitgeist in the least. It's not that black and white. That is like saying that just because someone says Ward Churchill lied about distributed smallpox blankets that therefore we believe that the claims about Genocide against Native Americans are ALL a hoax, because they are not.

    My position against Zeitgeist is it's atrocious scholarship.

    I think it's funny that ancient texts are the only form of history books we have left. It would seem that book burnings were of great importance to the victors back in the day.

    I think you just contradicted yourself here. How could we have ANY ancient texts as OUR ONLY FORM of history sources IF the burnings were AS important as you are implying they were? Then why would we expect to have Herodotus's Histories, Tacitus' Annals and Histories, and Plutarch? This statement you made is self-contradictory.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kris-Smith/100000135417264 Kris Smith

    This documentary is a joke. It says that statements from Zeitgeist are completely false just because they're not 100% accurate; things like "Horus did not turn water into wine, he filled empty glasses with wine" or "she was not a virgin, she was impregnated by a god". Are you kidding me?

    So I guess it means nothing that the claims made in Zeitgeist are in fact 98% wrong? The only thing I will give Zeitgeist is that the Biblical flood was possibly taken from Gilgamesh.

    By the way, Horus had nothing to do with wine. I think you mean Dionysus.

    The only part i like about this documentary is the first 20 seconds: "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - which is kinda funny, given the context of the documentary, because it can be very well applied to... you guessed it... religion.

    True enough. A religious apologetic, if no evidence is given, deserves not to be taken seriously... Likewise, much like how Zeitgeist has shown a lack of scholarship, it deserves no more consideration than Creationism...which deserves none.

  • Musgrave

    I think perhaps you mistook my statement as contradictory when in fact it was not. Book burnings were/are a complete travesty. My point about that was the only reference of "fact" we have is the texts that are in existence. Those (in all there forms) are written by the victors in most(being conservative) cases.
    The Zeitgeist films did perhaps take liberties, but like I said in my original statement, perhaps "you" might condemn the rest of the info based on the initial introduction? You had admitted that that is what you felt.
    That was more my point than any other.

  • http://twitter.com/xarquis Sergio Palma

    The first documentary is relatively good, but the second one is a joke. Zeitgeist is not accurate, true, but that does not validate religion or even theism.

  • http://twitter.com/USPIGGYBANK Piggy

    I'm a debunker who does not think the whole Zeitgeist movement should be ignored. Allot of relevant things are brought up

    The creator of Zeitgeist didn't make the religious part of the documentary to get our attention- he made some huge azz errors and took people's words as TRUTH, like smooth talking Jordan Maxwell aka Russell Pine.

    Sometimes there are conspiracies within conspiracies. The love of money is the root of all evil, that should have been what the documentary should have focused on.. because you will find so much lies focused around money.. in religion, govt, politics etc...

    When u watch a film like this, always do your research... never believe everything you are told, just because it sounds right.

  • Musgrave

    That's what I said.

  • LIVEFROMLIMBO

    well the religious segments can definately be discussed BUT who really cares. from the Zietgiest series i personally saw the discussion of religion as merely a foundation for the control that "the powers that be" have today. the more important issue was slavery thru debt and the problems with the monetary system. that is what is important and that is what i took from zietgiest. the religion stuff was interesting but in the end i personally dont really care that much about it.

  • http://profiles.google.com/joet813 joe tate

    the zeitgeist film i was able to look up how and ware they got there info from giving me a way to look up the info more my self ware is this guy info coming from I under stand there are two side to every story.I my self have looked in the life of Buddha hand the religion its self. there are many similar things about there lives. Jesus vs.buddha All his so called proof is from religious followers id take it more serous if there wore some "secular" back up in his Refute. And no refute about the fact that the four gospals lived more than a decayed after jesus berth or the fact Christianity spred threw a violent and forceful crusade. that wiped out most of precivalisation. I have been following
    enchant eygpt findings. It is amazing to me how much there are rethinking what previous findings. ZEITGEIST is in Idea to join use all and not look at ourself us and them.

  • http://profiles.google.com/joet813 joe tate

    Jesus My way or the High way!

  • 1true_voice

    it's clear that by the look of some comments, some people take great 'care' in making use of the HEGELIAN DIALECTIC to undermine other's clarity.

    Get working on your LIVES people. signs, symbols, cryptic texts are all for those who are trying to work out what's really going on in their minds.

    Don't mess with other's clarity of vision, just cos yours is DISTORTED!

    LIVE - OUTSIDE OF THE WEB.
    USE YOUR TRUE VOICE AND MAKE IT RESOUND FOR REAL

  • breedofthe45

    I think what the Zeitgeist and many Atheistic Marxists Movements do with this kind of Documentaries is the ability to think and explain things as limited to memorization as possible with intimidation techniques giving the illusion that if you or anybody disagree with the way they command you to accept their interpretation of the Renewed-history with no evidence under no secular but theosophical world views is because of your personal racial or intolerant views towards diversity movements coming from the environment you live since are ruled by Judeo-Christian world views that condemn some actions that according to sacred writings are not allowed cause are sins or natural errors. The only purposed for these kind of Documentaries as Zeitgeist is to demonize Christian Majority Countries by dehumanizing anybody who are followers of what Marxists call "The most powerful capitalist religion in the planet" better known as Christianity because it has so many followers creating a universal Democracy based on the principle of Individualistic Salvation instead of Collective Salvation, some call it greedy and some call it a beast of a political system, no matter what you think what Christianism is rest a sure is a lot of money invested in it as 2000 years of wars and extermination of the followers of a simple carpenter(labor) better known as the son of the God Of War king of the Jews, in the old days that powerful capitalist religion was Judaism, i guess if you look at it Jesus a simple Carpenter who in today standards is just a simple Labor said his name will replace the name of the Biggest Capitalist God ever known(Yahweh)creating a new religion based on every single law written by the Prophets of the Jewish God but now no-jews can join in individually since the Religion of Yahweh is abolished by Yahweh himself via his Son. Ha! and he did replaced the name, his people and took over the Capitalist System!.Still today some families from Jewish ancestry are the biggest Capitalist in the planet, thats why Marxists always blame Jews in anything they write, Capitalism is the Enemy and the Judeo-Christian religion are the biggest Capitalist in the planet(Rockafellers or Morgans etc). The problem with this way of viewing the world is that it excludes critical thought, intuition, empathy, and wisdom since the people informing you about Biblical History are already Marxists or New Agers into Collective World Views who already took sides and want to erase again the religion they disagree with, in this case Christianism already is the target of those Collective Religions better known to Christians and Jewish writings as Paganism. If you let them they will traps us in a box composed of all the things we have been known through history and now being replace by those who only memorize information instead of understanding information.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GP3R54P5TELXUW3YVATEKYBDWE Perry

    Parts 2 and 3 of Zeitgeist are even more nonsensical than the first. It's the same old conspiracy bullshit that dates back to the John Birch Society and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

  • http://www.facebook.com/kevin.yoder2 Kevin Yoder

    Well done,

  • Gary V

    Nothing but a sad & pathetic attempt to cling to outdated myths & a system of society that clearly isn't working & needs to be changed. Nice try but an epic FAIL.

  • http://www.facebook.com/pgregory81 Philip Gregory

    Within five minutes of this documentary I have found some serious problems. If these can be cleared up with actual evidence, please someone help me. As far as I know, there are several gods and myths who predate Jesus that share almost all of the details of his story. Of course there isn't one that is exact in EVERY detail, but combine the many together, all of the elements are there. Dionysus, Horus, Mithras, etc.. All sources I have ever studied say that these myths predate Jesus by hundreds of years. The myths I studied in mythology class at my University say this. Where is this video getting information from??!?

  • http://www.facebook.com/pgregory81 Philip Gregory

    I've done some more research, and talked with a professor of mythology. Simply speaking, this refutation is absolutely false. Isis WAS known as the "Great Virgin", and all of the things that Zeitgeist suggests about the legend of Horus are absolutely true. The myth of Horus does not exactly mirror Jesus in every way, and that makes sense. Horus was a well known myth during the writings of the bible. Why would someone copy it to every detail? The things that do parallel are enough to suggest that Paul certainly knew the myth, and that writers of the bible could have borrowed the ideas. Horus wasn't resurrected or crucified in the same way, but he was crucified and resurrected. His birth was virginal. His arrival was announced by the north star, etc etc etc. Only the details separate the myth from Jesus - the basic ideas, and many of the action of the myth, are exactly the same. I previously knew that Horus predated the Jesus myth, and this movie tried to make it out as if no other myths did. Again false. Most of the myths predate the Jesus myth, some by thousands of years, many by hundreds. Any myth that there is a parallel to be drawn from pre-dates the Jesus myth. Although this movie is right, certain story lines were added and altered after the writings of the bible, there is plenty that could have spawned the Jesus myth: flood accounts, sacrifice, virgin birth, resurrection, three wise men, miracles, etc. Look it up before you make a documentary full of nonsense.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Joe-Manning/100000995960205 Joe Manning

    Your logical is circular and falls right back on you. Plus it is fallacious from the get-go, you are sooooo quick to throw around Marxism and communism, while praising Christianity. Of course Jews became some of the largest bankers and most well taught financeers because that was their culture for so long! No one would let it be any different.

    Christ is NOT is a historical figure, this is not something I am saying you or anyone else to propagate some marxist agenda. A resouce-based economy (which is probably why you call people in the Zeitgeist movement communists) is NOT communism. It's not any ism, it has no monetarily-based motivations. It's about human advancement, freedom, and the idea that knowledge is free, that health is free, that we can help, teach, and health each other for free. I pursue the music, writing, science, and more on my own, not because of money. I n fact the only way I Can pursue thoe things professionally is if I put myself in debt tens of thousands of dollars for a job that may not even be waiting for me. Obama cannot save the economy no more than any other president can, even Ron Paul, unless we come together and take the fed down and Wall Street down. Regulate banking to a T and start working towards social systems to feed the millions of needlessly-gone poor and hungry in this country. And we need to heal the sick, the 30 million Americans without insurance. This is what we NEED. The more dangerous the drug, the more legal it should be, the more regulated it should be, ending the drug war would go a long way to helping our societal problems. Cartels would suffer, the DEA would fight it every inch of the way because they know they depend on drug usage just as much as any Cartel or banger.

    We criminalize up to 8x more people in this country and it's getting worse. We mix Christianity with government all the time, We use sets of the 10 commandments in courthouses which is an affront to secular society. People from Denmark and other highly developed coutnries with no homeless, low drug abuse, and the highest per-capita rate of human contentment in the world, are appalled when I tell them my situation and how I've lost everything because of childhood disease, (which I beat, got out of a wheelchair and started doing martial arts, accumulating an unbeaten record in boxing), to being fed methadone to manage my arthritis! When I am told smoking cannabis, something that replaces 7 of my medications, is evil and bad, instead they want me to take drugs that have ended my career and made me incapable of working or functioning because for me to get active I have to dope myself up.

    The point is, we live in a country that has a dark, horrific history that has done very little to make up for it. And now it is making slaves out of all of us. History has shown the two ways to make a slave are by religion, and money. And there is no bigger fool than one who believes himself to have true freedom of choice in this country. The only freedom you have is the ability to select between pre-fabricated options. If you don't fall into the mold you get sucked into a pit of despair and monetary valuelessness, which makes you valueless in turn. Or so we are told.

  • Murarius

    Well said, Joe.
    If people confuse judaism with communism they have to look it up.Judaism is a religion, the more strict version of Christianity if I may say so and the starting point for the Islam. Communism is a political system. However communism is confouded with Judaism, because the leaders of the Bolsheviks were Jews and it was from the beginning a Russian Jewish Movement against the antisemitic regime of the Tsar.
    Karl Marx was a Jew, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin were Jews(Russian Ashkenavi Jews). The father of Karl Marx changed his name from Hirschel Mardochai to Heinrich Marx just to get his government job in Germany. Lenin and Stalin were both Jews and after Stalin's refuse to the Jewish bankers to give them control of the Sovjet financial system, those Jewish bankers funded the Nazi Socialists and Hitler as a force against this Communists. While the Bolshevik October Revolution before was again funded by them because Tsar Alexander II did not give them the control. Stalin's revenge to this fact is well known he exiled the (intellectual) Jews in Russia to Siberia.
    Read the book "Wall Street & The Bolshevik Revolution" or the book "Wall Street and The Rise of Hitler" by Antony C. Sutton.
    All the religions are about self preservation and narcism, if you play well you can go to the heaven or born again in a better life.
    Christianity against Islam, both are in fact Judaism for other cultures, fired up against each other by people who call themselves God believers.
    Due to this, cultures and groups are shattered and killed, in the name of God or Allah.
    Give people something to be scared of and they will listen, first it was the devil, witchery and the pagans.
    Now it is terrorism and people are still buying this stuff.
    It is not relevant if Christ is real or not, the message and the story is beautiful. If people can get hope and strength by it, why not? Instead of discussing and refuting, humankind should be more tolerant, understanding and mercyful to each other. More love.
    Instead of making documentaries and scientific research and endless discussions, instead of spending time and effort about this subject, spend the same time, money and effort for the needed, for research to heal diseases and inventions which can help the humankind.
    Spend more time in passion and understanding of each other, there are so many problems in the world and every single human has to endure through enough problems, small or big, in his/her lifetime.

  • suckitbuilderburg

    Did ANYONE buy this nonsense?

  • Punkeloco

    Why are you people so in love with religions? why are you trying to find a god who nobody has seen and that everybody claims to know and understand? why are there so many religions that claim to be the true ones? Religion, jesus, god who cares..respect your fellow human and lets try to understand eachother better. Lets us use the tool of science to save humanity not a god, or a prophet.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Julio-Medina/1385644286 Julio Medina

    If you are created then it is your obligation to find out who it was and why he did it. Science, while it states that it must be proven by facts doesn't always abide by that. Evolution, has not been proven and is taught in our classrooms and is accepted as fact when there are so many holes in the theory. The fossil record does not even confirm the theory as Darwin predicted.

  • Punkeloco

    Who sid that we were created? your bible? your fathers and grandfathers? and because they say that you should believe? what about your own critical thinking? You give god a gender like if you know god in person why not a she or it? True science need to be tested to be true science. Evolution has been tested and attacked constantly that is why Evolution is called a theory. How do you know that it hasn't been proven? or maybe a little bird told you that? There is a big difference between a theory and a hypothesis. A theory must have facts in order to be a theory if you think I am wrong go to wikipedia or get a dictionary and find out. If there are holes in the theory is because scientists haven't found yet that evidence that you want to have in order to acknowledge the theory of evolution and if scientists find more evidence it is most likely that you will continue not accepting the theory of evolution. There is enough fossil evidence and evidence in nature that proofs that evolution is present. A True fact is that you ignore the evidence for evolution and you are probably not very well informed about the theory of evolution.

  • David

    Why are people so concerned with disputing religion. If a belief in a supreme being benefits a person's life and their attitude towards others, what's wrong with that? Isn't disbelief actually a belief?

  • Kateye70

    @Julio: Operative term: "IF". Not sure why "if" implies obligation of any sort, though. And err... L2L, as the kids say. There are plenty of docs on this site that could help you understand the difference between the secular definition of 'theory' and the scientific definition. They are not the same.

  • Kateye70

    Glad I read the comments before wasting my time on this one. I think people today tend to forget that the middle east was *the* crossroads of the ancient world, spanning from Europe and Northern Africa to Asia. The people who lived there were not ignorant backwater savages with no knowledge of other cultures; they were sophisticated and knowledgeable, and perfectly capable of combining juicy bits and pieces from various religions into yet another. Hence the "Judeo-Christian-Islam" ideologies overtaking so much of the world. Easy to gather, easy to disseminate.

    @LordGavin: No, disbelief is *lack* of belief. It doesn't mean you don't have beliefs of your own, but that's not the same thing. Since religion is a social institution that derives its power from the "faith" of its believers, not tangible evidence, disbelief in one religion doesn't necessarily imply belief in another, or in anything else, for that matter.

    Vlatko is doing an awesome service in allowing us all to debate the subjects of these documentaries, and this site gives us an outlet to discuss the social-gathering-killer topics of politics and religion without alienating friends and family!

  • Guest

    Guys no doubt Zeitgeist looks scandalous when it comes to religion(and over with this scandal they just lost the whole other points in their documetaries that probably might be true that the world today is a corporate dynasties world) & however as a muslim I must say Jesus(pbuh) exist not on the evidence provided in the religion of Christianity because for sure things in the Bible too are not less scandalous as Zeitgeist.
    Zeitgeist is adamant in just proving the point that religion for all issues in world. However to buy certain extend of Zeitgeist idea of religion being a problem today & it is because of own Christianity's History which Christian are ever open to give an explanation of the atrocities they have caused and no matter what they cannot explain themselves clean out of this filth that they created for themselves.
    Zeitgeist however, I am surprised that you are too scare to attack Islam, I would like to see people who are doing the Zeitgeist documentaries to take on Islam & its scholar that they can easily get everywhere & ofcourse to take a critical study of the Quran. I am sure Zeitgeist will be awaken to know or rather surprise that their idea of creating a better world looks a bit dwarfish with what Islam already envisioned & achieved(also lost... the better world later due to lot of events in history that simply says that the world was not mature enough to accept the advancement) without either the usury or corrupt money or the heavy technological investment that Zeitgeist emphasis to invest or to be brought together or shared economy theory.

    I hope the zeitgeist guys are listening....And dont fool the world by advocating your ideologies by dexterously using the knowledge of Science - Science is indeed a friend of Religion... dont make a friend look like a enemy. Science helps Religion to itself clean from superstitions & useless customs to keep itself pure. And Religion help science in its continuous endeavor in bringing conviction in the spirituality & The Existence thats beyond the physical observation.

    My Christian brothers, even if we forget what Zeitgeist has spun about christ, please think, investigate & observe, Christ was not the son of God, this very idea of god having a father or son is a pagan culture or idea. Until you stick to such notion of god having sons, Christianity till eternity will be haunted with ghost likes of Illuminaties, free masons, communists, Atheists for today Zeitgeist.

  • juice587

    You seem to know your stuff. Do you recommend any books to get started researching this stuff?

  • Guest

    The thought of measuring Judaism,Christianity & Islam in a single yard stick & ruling them all as equals & similar & at whole coming to the conclusion that Islam is also a problem is very naive - not scientifically persuasive.
    About the Crusade - Which history book you refer to (share it) I dont know but your idea mentioned in your comments is not quiet right - about how Crusade really started, what triggered it. And how were the world relations & regional social system in Europe & middle east, how they interacted, How there was a change in picture after the Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) spread the message of Islam
    I appreciate you consider Science as a tool however I would like to know What do you mean by belief?

  • 0zyxcba1

    @ MohammedSafwan

    Judaism, Christianity, Islam ? all three are problems. Each has its peak.

    Today it is definitely Islam. In the Middle Ages, Christianity was probably the most horrible thing to have ever crawled out of the supernatural garbage heap. If the Torah is anything to go by, Yahweh was a monster from beginning to end and, from what I know of history, Judaism's greatest, most unforgivable fault is that it gave rise to the other two!

    The bottom line question is not which is worse, but are any of them good.

    Clearly not.

    And, anyhow, these faiths haven't a shred, not one single shred, of evidence to back up their ridiculous superstitious claims.

    When one stops to wittiness all the problems and death caused by the three Abrahamic religions and then further to considers that all three are based on the concept of some spook in the sky for which there is no evidence WHATSOEVER, I do not understand why civilized people don't just get rid of all three, and all other religions while they're it.

    I guess the answer lies in the fact that civilized people are civilized.

    Throw your silly gods into the garbage can and join the human race.

    The Death of Religion Will Mark the Birth of Civilization.

    a t h e i s m = p e a c e

    0z

  • Guest

    Can you please help me understand few questions I have about Atheism & God...will you please?

    What is Atheism?

    Who is an Atheist?

    What is God according to an Atheist?

    Do Atheism have some Evidence to prove that there is no God? Simply put: Can Atheist bring a Falsification test?
    Just for time being spare the believers in God to prove God exist...Just this time bring some evidence that there is no God?

    And how come Atheism = Peace?
    I think it is equal to abysmal confusion...
    Please help me understand?

  • 0zyxcba1

    @ Mohammed Safwan

    What is Atheism?
    a-theism (non-theism) isn't anything.
    a-theism = absence of something, namely, absence in belief in claims made by you and other theists about stuff you guys call ???? (yeah, you cannot even define what it is you claim) and for which(to the extent you can define ????) have squat supportive evidence.

    Who is an Atheist?
    the answer above should tell you that a non-theist is a person like me who does not believe a person like you on the subject of this 'thing' about which you go around making unsubstantiated claims.

    What is God according to an Atheist?

    I do not know what you are talking about.

    Do Atheism have some Evidence to prove that there is no God? Simply put: Can Atheist bring a Falsification test?
    Just for time being spare the believers in God to prove God exist...Just this time bring some evidence that there is no God?

    I do not know what you are talking about.

    To clarify:

    During my lunch break I'm minding my own business reading the news-paper on a bench in Central Park. A stranger approaches to interrupt my leisure and excitedly tells me that he's just seen a pterodactyl, a flying reptile which lived during the Dinosaur Era between 190 million and 65 million years ago.

    Where?!, I ask.

    "Next to that oak tree, over yonder."

    But to our disappointment we see only the oak tree.

    "Well, it was there," assures the stranger.

    Diplomatically I suggest he might be mistaken and that my
    lunch break is nearly over and I really do have to go, now.

    "But it was there, I swear it."

    I don't know how you can prove that and I really must be going.

    "I can't prove that I saw the pterodactyl.
    "But neither can you prove that I didn't."

    What?!
    You can't be serious!

    This guy's nuts.
    He's ruined my lunch break and now I'm late for the office.

    OMG!
    Following morning. New York Times. Front page headline:
    PTERODACTYL SIGHTING
    The sighting, alleged to have taken place in Central Park, may actually have occured because a man on the scene can't prove that it didn't.

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

    And how come Atheism = Peace?

    I think you are indeed abysmally confused, and I will help you to understand the obvious:

    Non-theism in the Middle East results in a bunch of not too unhappy Semites barbequing spareribs in each other's backyards.

    (Semites being Jews and Arabs.)

    Whereas, theism in the Middle East,...
    Well, you can see for yourself.

    For example, in the Islamic Republic of Iran, 4000 homosexuals have been executed since the 1979 revolution.

    How civilized.

    Hope this helps.

    P.S.: I am quite aware that Iranians are not Arabs (lol).

    0z

  • over the edge

    @Mohammed Safwan
    "What is Atheism? Who is an Atheist?" atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. "What is God according to an Atheist?" god doesn't exist defining an imaginary figure is pointless and which of the 28 million gods that have been worshiped am i to define? "Do Atheism have some Evidence to prove that there is no God? " no but i cannot prove there are no leprechauns (people have claimed to have seen them) or alien abductions (many have claimed to have been) . your question reminds me of one of my favorite quotes "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours " Stephen Roberts. religion is making the claim of knowledge (god or gods) and it is always the responsibility of those making the claim to provide the proof not the other way around

  • Guest

    @0zyxcba1

    You gave quiet a good picture about what is Atheism & who is an Atheist. Thank you :)
    However, with the other two questions:

    What is God according to Atheist?

    You said: I do not know what you are talking about.

    And for the other Question:

    Do Atheism have some Evidence to prove that there is no God?

    You said: I do not know what you are talking about.

    The Second question was just a bit elaborate but it simply meant:

    What is not God or what is Anti-God?
    So to both of these questions your answer was same.

    Simply proving the fact that you as an Atheist have no complete knowledge of
    "What is God" (probably can be excuse for no answer)
    &
    "What is not God or Anti-God" (You better must have had an answer)

    It is quiet a common sense that to disprove a particular SUBJECT of belief one must have strong experimental methods or missing evidence of the existence of such SUBJECT - here in this case God.

    And if the person who has the proposition of belief in SUBJECT (called God) can by experimental methods & by providing evidence can prove his/her point of the existence of SUBJECT - God then it is upto the other person, who is against the idea of such SUBJECT (here God) to disprove it.

    So taking your example if the person who saw in the central park that new species or strange creature can prove by evidence of signs & other evidence of such creature existence that person has brought a stronger case of belief in a subject and it is upto the person who is against the idea of sighting such creature to disprove the facts & evidence with his/her evidence & experiment.(no running away business)

    So I say if you want to know about God please read the Quran (I suggest the English translation of Pickthall)because Quran is the proof, the evidence (miracle) that God exists.
    Read it & Analyze it & if you have any questions feel free to ask me or do some research yourself on internet.

    Whether it is the case of Iran or any nation it is their political problem & their befitting way of resolving their issues. This political & social problem requires seperate chapter of discussion that require specialization in understanding Laws of a particular country.
    For Example in a country there was a person who had a chronic case of committing adultery & after analysing the case the judge passed the judgement in favor of the Adulterer saying that person was having a Sexual addiction disease. This judgement would certainly raise some eye brows & the spouse might be devastated in listening to such type of judgement and the whole world might make fun of that country. In all this it will not be right to blame the Religious practice of the people of the whole nation right or the country for that matter right? The problem is somewhere else & something else need to be fixed & Certainly not the Religious Practice at this point of time...

    Just doing the acrobatics with baseless arguments you truly cant claim to be a good believer in Atheism ....

  • 0zyxcba1

    @ Mohammed Safwan

    You did understand my answers correctly.

    When you use the word "God," I do not know what you mean. I do not know what the word "God" means. Please tell me what you are talking about. I have made no attempt to disprove anything, nor do I intend to. In any case, how could I when I do not even know what it is you are talking about?

    By the way, not to change the subject entirely, but why do you think the world spent so much money in Switzerland at CERN building the LHC in order to prove the existence of the Higgs boson when all the world really needs is faith? After all, faith
    is so much cheaper.

    "It is quiet a common sense that to disprove a particular SUBJECT of belief one must have strong experimental methods or missing evidence of the existence of such SUBJECT - here in this case God."

    You just do not get it, do you?

    What are you talking about? You seem to think that I know what this thing is that you call, "God."

    I don't.

    You just do not get it, do you?

    Burdon of proof lies with the one who is making the claim, not with the one who being asked to believe in a claim.

    That is common sense! (and very simple logic).

    You are quite right. Political & social problems are indeed a separate subject, altogether. But why are you telling me this?
    I never mentioned anything having to do with either.

    Executing people because of sexual orientation is not a political issue. Executing people because of sexual orientation is not a social issue.

    Executing people because of sexual orientation is an issue of fundamental Human Rights.

    And fundamental Human Rights is not Iran's business. Fundamental Human Rights is not Islam's business.
    Fundamental Human Rights is Human business!

    I was not talking about traffic violations or tax codes or even about laws concerning homosexuality. I was talking about murder. You seem to be saying that what Hitler did was none of the world's business because, at the time, it was German law, an internal matter of the German state, in keeping with the then moral code of the German people.

    I truly hope I am wrong, and that you do not believe fundamental Human Rights to be anything other than Human business.

    I return to what it means to be civilized.

    I hope you and I can, at the very least, agree on matters relating to fundamental Human worth.

    If not, then I pity you.

    0z

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_VOZF7QVOUWUWICZE3NKFEG3LIE kelamuni

    This doc seems to be an exercize in theological hermeneutics offering an alternative interpretation of the origins of the Jesus myth.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JIXBP7MFEML5XX2RV6GNHQ5GVI gregoreo

    Hah! "I didn't even watch this movie, because it's bull****..."

    Classic. Predictable. Atheistic dogma is just as predictable...

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JIXBP7MFEML5XX2RV6GNHQ5GVI gregoreo

    Try most of the philanthropic organizations in the history of the modern world, just as a starter.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JIXBP7MFEML5XX2RV6GNHQ5GVI gregoreo

    I'm seeing a LOT of these kinds of comments -- very Dawkins-esque in their tone: no substance needed, just trying to call people who believe in Christ morons, etc. I still haven't seen a single post refuting this film, only people saying "This doesn't refute Zeitgeist!" Well, if Zeitgeist was already in line with your worldview as you viewed it, of course you would watch 15 minutes of this and post about how stupid it is!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JIXBP7MFEML5XX2RV6GNHQ5GVI gregoreo

    The point is, just because some here are saying "Refuted" doesn't refute, doesn't mean it doesn't refute, unless they bring some substance to the argument!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JIXBP7MFEML5XX2RV6GNHQ5GVI gregoreo

    Not necessarily. "Religion" has most accurately, in my mind, been man's attempt to do things to appease or follow God. Christianity is partly faith, partly evidence-based. Blind faith is not something I'm interested in. The Christian life is a personal relationship, not a set of actions and blind beliefs. If I felt science and logic disproved Biblical accounts, I would not believe what the Bible says. And yet, 66 books, written over thousands of years by people from all walks of life, do not disagree with each other, do not contain historical or geographical errors, and seem by every test of historical record that we hold other histories to, be accurate.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JIXBP7MFEML5XX2RV6GNHQ5GVI gregoreo

    re: 2 - just to be clear, evolution as a macro event, correct? People, animals and plants "evolve" within their species, of course. Dogs, people groups, ferns, of course adapt to their environments.

    Not sure how extinctions discredits a creationist stance...also I've read a lot of research in which RID is essentially called wildly unreliable.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JIXBP7MFEML5XX2RV6GNHQ5GVI gregoreo

    It does take one thing that evolutionists typically add more of when stumped: time. Sounds like a faith-based argument to suggest that random mutations could build a highly complex, highly interdependent structure that could live, reproduce somehow, and survive...

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JIXBP7MFEML5XX2RV6GNHQ5GVI gregoreo

    Another case of people making their cases passionately, and the "religious" person being made to be a weak-minded lunatic.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JIXBP7MFEML5XX2RV6GNHQ5GVI gregoreo

    The Bible is a pretty crappy allegory: way too many details, places, names, historical events, etc.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JIXBP7MFEML5XX2RV6GNHQ5GVI gregoreo

    I see your point. Governments have been the answer to this point, and typically people with more and more power become better and more responsible leaders. Let's give it a shot! ;)

    Don't worry, you'll have your wish soon enough.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JIXBP7MFEML5XX2RV6GNHQ5GVI gregoreo

    In that sense, you would have to concede that the original Zeitgeist is equally biased, and that is it anti-religious, atheistic propaganda. Right?

  • over the edge

    @gregoreo
    "66 books, written over thousands of years by people from all walks of life, do not disagree with each other, do not contain historical or geographical errors," just 1 example (of many)
    luke 2:1 - 2:5 "1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
    2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyre'ni-us was governor of Syria.)
    3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
    4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, (because he was of the house and lineage of David,)
    5 to be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child." and
    matthew 2:1 - 2:5 "2:1 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men [1] from the east came to Jerusalem, 2 saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose [2] and have come to worship him.” 3 When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him; 4 and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. 5 They told him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written by the prophet:
    history has no record of census that luke mentions. Cyre'ni-us was not appointed governor til 6 years after supposed birth . the people were not asked to go to their ancestral home as luke points out (that would grind the empire to a halt if required in those days travel was very slow). now matthew states that herod was governor but he died in 4bc before the birth and 10 years before Cyre'ni-us was appointed.matthew makes no mention of the census at all.so two accounts of the birth cannot agree with each other on when it happened,who was in charge and why they were there. also disagrees with roman records, laws and common sense

  • over the edge

    @Mohammed Safwan
    first of all i refuse to give out my name online. and giving out a fake name will result in myself having two nicknames on this site (not only confusing for myself and others but frowned upon by site) also with some of my views i get called enough things already why add one more (bad attempt a humor). nothing personal. Next it is religion making the claims of knowledge (holy books , personal experience, prophets .....) an atheist only chooses not to believe the claims put forward . trying to prove god doesn't exist is futile and reminds me of Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy (will paraphrase) if i claim there is a teapot orbiting the sun, and the best equipment (telescopes) cannot prove me wrong. it would be crazy of me to expect others to believe me on the grounds that they cannot prove me wrong. now i (as an atheist) am still making no claims of knowledge only that i don't believe your claims of gods existence, the onus of proof still belongs to you. next the discussion of homosexuality, human rights and Darwin have nothing to do with atheism. my personal views are (very quickly) homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality (both common across animal kingdom) and a persons right to disagree with homosexuality ends where another persons right to be a homosexual begins. next human rights the basic right to exist , be happy , have dignity, believe (or not ) in anything you choose. as long as it doesn't take away the same basic rights as another. lastly Darwin theory is a well documented theory with tons of evidence and i am sure we disagree immensely on many points concerning Darwin (theory) and evolution (fact) but i will save that for another post

  • 0zyxcba1

    @ Mohammed Safwan

    I hold these truths to be self-evident:

    1. Religion is based upon faith, not fact.
    2. What religion does to people is fact.

    Googe search results: iran stoning

    I pity you.

  • 0zyxcba1

    @ Mohammed Safwan

    So, let me get this 'straight'(no pun intended).

    Are you saying it's okay to kill homosexuals,
    or are you saying it's good idea?

    0z

  • 0zyxcba1

    @ Mohammed Safwan
    "Forget Religion, [I WISH I COULD] if we even consider the obsolete Darwinism idea..."

    There is no such thing as "Darwinism" ? evolutionary theory is not an ideology ? evolutionary theory is not a religion.

    Evolutionary theory is not an "idea." Evolutionary theory is as close to
    fact as science gets.

    Evolutionary theory is not "obsolete." There is nothing in science which has supplanted evolutionary theory. Nothing!

    Evolutionary theory is consistent. Despite gaps in the evidence and disagreements as to how evolution occurs, the idea of 'common descent' is still overwhelmingly supported by both historical and contemporary evidence as well as by our understanding of how changes occur in living organisms. All evidence we have supports the evolutionary theory of 'common descent'. Absolutely no evidence points to anything else. And evolutionary theory does not contradict solid findings in any other physical science. If evolutionary theory did contradict physics or chemistry, that would be a significant problem for evolution.

    Evolutionary theory is simple and naturalistic and does not add unnecessary concepts, entities, or processes to our understanding
    of the universe. Evolutionary theory is just genetic change over time.
    The evolutionary theory of 'common descent' is the least complex, most succinct and reliable explanation for the diversity of life on our planet. Everything offered as alternatives requires us to imagine new entities
    not used or needed in any other scientific model.

    Evolutionary theory is the unifying principle of the life sciences, which includes medicine. Much of what is done in the biological and medical sciences could not occur without the background premises evolutionary theory provide. I have yet to see anyone who denies the veracity of evolutionary theory willing to give up modern medicine. Evolutionary theory also suggests lots of problems for scientists to work on because
    it makes predictions which, in turn, provide experiments to perform
    in order to better understand what's going on in the natural world. Evolutionary theory thus provides an overall paradigm for solving current problems within the life sciences. In other words, evolutionary theory
    is useful!

    Evolutionary theory is empirically testable. Testing it is complicated as 'common descent' is largely an historical science. As with other historical investigations, we can make predictions and we can utilize present information to infer or to explain past events or states. For example, evolution tells us we should expect to find certain types of fossils in the historical record; many, if not most, of these have been found, thus lending credence to the theory. While direct testing, as in physics and chemistry, cannot be performed, evolution is as testable as other historical theories. And indirect laboratory testing can and has been performed, such as genetic sequencing analysis of available specimens; and whenever this kind of testing has been possible, the results have supported evolutionary theory. Always!

    Evolutionary theory is falsifiable. However, due to the vast amount
    of supporting evidence and its interconnectedness with a widespread pattern of evidence from many different fields of scientific study, to falsify evolution would require a correspondingly comprehensive pattern
    of contradictory evidence, leaving isolated anomalies as possible cause for theoretical modification, but insufficient to overturn the theory. Discovering consistent, general patterns of fossils in rocks dated to different ages than expected would be a problem for evolution. Were our understanding of physics and chemistry to change significantly, causing us to find that the earth is quite young, that would falsify evolution!

    Evolutionary theory explains what previous theories were unable to explain and in so doing has simultaneously falsified or has simplified
    and incorporated all competing explanations.

    Evolution is based solely upon evidence and is amenable to change
    and correction as new data become available.

    Evolution builds on earlier scientific theories.

    Religion is obsolete! Evolutionary theory is not.

    0z

  • Guest

    can we call you Mo?
    az

  • His Forever

    No, Az. He doesn't strike me as a "Mo". Az and Oz and Mo! Oh my! . . . . . But you can call me Chas, but ony you! :-)

  • Guest

    Dear Azilda,

    If calling Mo is out of respect & in a friendly manner go ahead dear. No probs...but but if your intentions are to hurt a person...or do something ridiculous well it is ethically not right...so I leave it upto you...

  • Guest

    Dear Oz,

    I never said that killing homosexuals is right..all I put forth was what in today's world is considered or globally accepted as "Human Rights" & how the law may interpret the action of Iran or for that matter America (no personal grudge or enmity with both countries...please dont bomb my house :D) which you happen to skip reading...

    Well as far as evolution is considered...if Darwinism is wrong word probably Darwinian Theory might be right..kindly accept this correction...
    I called Darwinian Theory obsolete because the discovery of DNA refutes the theory of Natural Selection or Mutation or randomness of life coming into existence...However as you said we should spare the discussion of Evolution for some other time or post..

  • Guest

    Guys,

    If asking to know your name was offensive I am sorry..and I am sorry if asking you to name yourself with a fictitious name for just this discussion also hurts...The idea of using fictitious name was only to not breach your privacy...and keep personal data away from Public Discussion Forum..

  • Guest

    Homosexuality or heterosexuality are common across animal kingdom but as far as the Kingdom of Homo Sapiens is considered...we will not get any result out of such sexual behavior...Homosexuality will not even half fulfill the health & psychological benefits that is attained during the sexual intercourse of Man & Woman..
    May be we should only talk to a homosexual to understand his/her inclination towards such sexual orientation & shut ourself (atleast I quit on this topic of homosexual) until we speak to one...because I being straight wont be in an appropriate position to state my opinions unless I speak to a homosexual & understand his/her nature of behavior

  • 0zyxcba1

    @ Mohammed Safwan

    Lets say Iran was violating – Article 3 & 5. But we can say so only if Iran has together violated Article 7, 8, 9 & 10.
    And still assuming the worst case scenario that Iran completely violates all the above Human Rights, the act of sentencing to Death of left-handed people by Iran should be considered Right (according to UN Policy) because Iran did so based on the power it is vested by the UN that allows Iran to have its own National Law & Order – Implicit in Article – 11(2) (2)
    Article 11.
    • (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
    • (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
    Therefore calling such thing as murder can be right according to you & me but as agreed by the world law & order it is all together a different ball game.
    . . .
    Forget Religion, if we even consider the obsolete Darwinism idea – left-handedness will not result in the advancement of human race because it does not fit the Natural Selection bill. Because Natural Selection is done for the reproduction of a better specie, but left-handedness have no such chance of fulfilling such basic evolutionary & Human need. Therefore considering left-handedness into Human Rights will also be quiet dicey.

    NOW COMES THE WINNER:

    "Just for sake of supporting homosexuality even if we consider homosexuality must prevail & it will some day (out of billions of years) based on its weird Natural Selection process come up with way to advance Human Race the wait may run futile because by that time we maybe (I certainly think) will be an extinct species…and no one really will be waiting whether they are religious people or Atheists – because we are already extinct – Please don’t tell me about surrogacy & stuff I come from a nation where such stuff is already prevelant & I know the idea is again violating Human Rights & forget Human Rights it violates common sense & have no consideration to Human emotions…."

    The above quote from you comment is laughable, idiotic, illogical incoherent; in "billions of years" the Sun will have swollen into a super red giant vaporizing in the inner three planets. Long, long, long, long, long... before that happens the human race will have long gone extinct via wholly natural causes, just species went extinct at the end of the Cretaceous and Jurassic. Your talk is so crazy, all I can say is please get an education.

    "...& forget Human Rights it violates common sense & have no consideration to Human emotions…."

    Now I know that you would just love to "forget Human Rights"(unless, of course, they are YOUR human rights!). And you are seriously saying that homosexuals have no emotions? I can't believe my ears! You really believe that homosexuals have no consideration for others? ? LISTEN, BABY!

    IT IS YOU WHO HAS NO CONSIDERATION FOR THEM!!!

    You are an ignorant and dangerous fool!

    With 6,000,000,000+ people on this planet and this population increasing so fast that some estimate that by 2050 there will be 15,000,000,000 on the planet, I think you can agree that the least of our problems are the
    3-7% who are lesbian or gay men. You are CRAZY. Do you hear me CRAZY! Please get help. You need it BADLY.

    Let me prove to you that you are mentally ill:

    Heterosexuals, not homosexuals, give birth to homosexuals. So, according to your 'logic', to protect the species from possible extinction, we should kill heterosexuals!

    Makes sense! (lol)

    oz

  • 0zyxcba1

    @ Mohammed Safwan

    Stoning:

    Based on these hadiths, in several Muslim countries, such as Afghanistan, Iran, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia, adultery is punishable
    by stoning."

    ~ Wikipedia

    0z

  • 0zyxcba1

    @ Mohammed Safwan

    The very idea that in July of 2011, the 21 Century, I am engaged in a discussion over whether execution for sexual orientation is, or is not, a human rights violation is, I submit, HARD EVIDENCE in support of the proposition that religion is capable of inciting good people to evil.

    0z

  • Guest

    See what you are speaking about is Religious Doctrine & Laws...
    What we must restrain for now is to speak about
    "If God Exist"
    And only if we stop deviating we can proceed to Discuss the real topic in hand...So may we stop deviating?

  • over the edge

    @Mohammed Safwan
    asking for a name was not offensive at all . the fact that homosexuals do not pass on their genetic info ( insemination and other options excluded). does not mean that they cannot have large benefits to society. humans have the unique ability to record and pass on ideas, morals and values to future generations. are you saying that if someone doesn't have kids that they cannot have a positive effect on our survival as a species ? and again across the animal kingdom many species have sterile offspring that do not pass on genetic info (worker ants and bees come to mind) but the society as a whole would suffer greatly without their presence. "May be we should only talk to a homosexual to understand his/her inclination towards such sexual orientation" that statement is ridiculous the fact that someone has a different orientation does not make them so different that i cannot understand them. i am native Canadian that does not mean that non natives cannot speak on the treatment and respect (or lack there of) of natives. we all do it every day . we share our opinions, thoughts beliefs about different nationalities, races, cultures,religions, the opposite sex (even tho i still don't understand females lol) i refuse to treat someone with kid gloves for just about any reason. in my personal opinion skating around a subject shows more disrespect then talking about it. avoiding the subject says to me that they are more fragile any easily offended i refuse to believe that

  • Guest

    An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem science has with God, The Almighty.

    He asks one of his new students to stand and .....

    Prof: So you believe in God?
    Student: Absolutely, sir.

    Prof: Is God good?
    Student: Sure.

    Prof: Is God all-powerful?
    Student: Yes.

    Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn't. How is this God good then? Hmm? (Student is silent.)

    Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fellow. Is God good?
    Student: Yes.

    Prof: Is Satan good?
    Student: No.

    Prof: Where does Satan come from?
    Student: From...God...

    Prof: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
    Student: Yes.

    Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything. Correct?
    Student: Yes.

    Prof: So who created evil?
    Student does not answer.

    Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?
    Student: Yes, sir.

    Prof: So, who created them?
    Student has no answer.

    Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever seen God?
    Student: No, sir.

    Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?
    Student: No, sir.

    Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God? Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?
    Student: No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.

    Prof: Yet you still believe in Him?
    Student: Yes.

    Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
    Student: Nothing. I only have my faith.

    Prof: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.

    Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
    Prof: Yes.

    Student: And is there such a thing as cold?
    Prof: Yes.

    Student: No sir. There isn't.
    (The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)

    Student: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a
    word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.
    (There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)

    Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
    Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?

    Student: You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light....But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?

    Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?
    Student: Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.

    Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?
    Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one.

    To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?

    Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.

    Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir? (The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument is going.)

    Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher? (The class is in uproar.)

    Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain? (The class breaks out into laughter.)

    Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?

    (The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face unfathomable.)

    Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.

    Student: That is it sir... The link between man & god is FAITH. That
    is all that keeps things moving & alive.

  • 0zyxcba1

    @ Mohammed Safwan

    "I never said that killing homosexuals is right.."

    Will you go on record saying it is WRONG to kill homosexuals?

    0z

  • 0zyxcba1

    Dear Mohammed Safwan,

    "...discovery of DNA refutes the theory of Natural Selection or Mutation..."
    No it does not. It supports it.

    "..or randomness of life coming into existence..."
    Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution explains speciation in already living organisms, nothing more.

    It is amazing you call "...Darwinian Theory obsolete..." without even knowing what it is.

    0z

  • 0zyxcba1

    @ Mohammed Safwan

    Been up all night. Going to sleep all day.

    Don't fret.
    You'll find out who has to go first with burden of proof!

    If you haven't volunteered for a firing squad.
    Or do you prefer hanging; perhaps beheading.
    Or is 'stoning' you particular forte ?

    Salaam

    0z

  • Guest

    your arguments are pitiful...

  • Guest

    QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE

    The methods of proving the existence of God with usage of the material provided in the ‘Concept of God in Islam’ to an atheist may satisfy some but not all.

    Many atheists demand a scientific proof for the e