IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
"zeitgeist's" Interpretation Of Christianity

painter
post Aug 27 2007, 06:22 PM
Post #1


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



In a different thread, different forum, Cary wrote, addressing Natasha:

QUOTE (Cary @ Aug 27 2007, 01:08 PM)
Natasha,

No problem. You won't be banned, and insults and taunting your way won't be tolerated here.

I respect your personal views on the bible, God and Jesus. I, however, don't share your religious/spiritual beliefs in the bible and Jesus. I was raised as a catholic. Gave up what I call "the magic show" when I was in high school. Too much hypocrisy and conflicting bullshit. Have you seen the video, "Zeitgeist - The Movie"? The video is well researched and shows that the story of Jesus is an amalgam of a couple dozen previous religions that worship the "sun god." I've done some amount of research on the claims about Jesus and haven't found anything that conflicts the video. I'm not saying I've researched every little claim in the video, and I'm claiming "the truth" here. Just saying I've been turned off to organized religion for a long time, and that my intuitive understanding of God, higher power, etc. does not jive with the bible or christianity. Doesn't make me right, just means I have a different understanding than you do about all this. In my interpretation, the bible was written by men long after Jesus, if he's real, was alive. These writings were then bastardized by the Council of Nicea under Emperor Constantine of Rome in the third century. "Zeitgeist" does a great job of showing that the bible is an astrological story about the churning of heavenly bodies, with our sun being a major player.

Sorry if this is unsettling for you. That's not my intention. Here's a link to "Zeitgeist" if you're interested in watching it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331


Not wanting to take the original thread fruther off topic, I'd like to reply to this post here.

One of the many things I've done in my life is studied, not exhaustively or academically but for personal reasons, comparative religion -- and in particular what might best be called 'esoteric' ideas. In my opinion, one of the things that the movie Zeitgeist (which, over all, I appreciate) does not make clear is that sacred texts, such as the Bible, have LEVELS of meaning and interpretation. One author who wrote about this exhaustively from an unorthodox Egyptologist perspective was Isha Schawaller De Lubicz. In her book, "The Temple In Man in which she describes her exhaustive study of the Egyptian Temple of Luxor, she presents the argument that ancient temples can be read and understood as sacred texts[i]; that the "content" of these "texts" is not only in the hieroglyphics found on the temple walls, but in the architectural elements and mathematical relationships of the physical temple itself. She even explains that often the walls of more ancient temples were deconstructed (literally) and the texts upon them were either inserted into new locations (a stone 'copy and paste' if you will) or, sometimes, actually placed behind the visible walls in the masonry cavity.

The point being made here is a complex one. The fundamental idea is that a "sacred text" (whether made out of stone or parchment) is a complex relationship of ideas that were meant to shape the understanding of those who were capable of 'reading' the text. 'Sacred texts' were [i]sacred
precisely because they were NOT to be taken literally but were, instead, to be read as, more than a mere 'representation', an actual miniature manifestation of the cosmos. Hidden within this thought is that the cosmos itself is a teaching and that everything within it is also 'a teaching' just as any part of a fragmented hologram contains within it the whole, just as any specific point of a fractal contains within itself a representation of the whole fractal of which it is a part. In fact, these 'parts' can not, actually be separated out one from the other. From this admittedly quite complicated point of view, then, not only is the cosmos a teaching but so is Man (collectively) and a man (individually).

For this reason, although it is true that pre-Christian Solar Diety worship is imbedded within the Bible as a text, it would not be accurate to either say or suggest that this is the full and exhaustive meaning apprehensible by those who know how to read. The meaning apprehensible in any truly sacred text is necessarily limited by the level of the being apprehending it. This has nothing to do with wether or not a particular story or fable is literally true or historically accurate, it has to do with the ability of human beings to grow in knowledge and develop in awareness and being such that things that were previously 'hidden' (beyond one's scope) become accessible. In fact, the struggle to 'understand' a genuine sacred text should be accompanied by an equal, inner struggle to understand the full functioning of the human organism (especially one's own) and the greater cosmos (on all its levels) of which it and its functioning is a microcosm.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
p.w.rapp
post Aug 28 2007, 05:06 AM
Post #2





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,743
Joined: 19-October 06
From: European Protectorate
Member No.: 110



When I watched "Zeitgeist" for the first time I honestly was turned off by their interpretation of Christianity.

Not because I am so deeply religious.
(I grew up Catholic but left the Church when I was a student - actually for reasons like Cary's).

I suspected that Zeitgeist was deliberately attacking Christianity to label the 9/11 movement as 'anti-Christian' (we are allready used to the 'anti-Semitism-label).

But on closer inspection their arguments are well founded.

I still think, it doesn't add to the credibility of the movie, when they start it by highlightening the religious aspect. And I can't really see a reason, why they did it. It will however turn off religious people like Natasha.

Another thing is, that the titel "Zeitgeist" is slightly misleading if you know the meaning of the German word:
Zeitgeist = spirit of the age, is used in German with a negative undertone for the cultural, political, scientifical, emotional decadence of our 'Western' Society.

Where are the religious Christians on this forum?

(after Tocarm wink.gif )
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Carl Bank
post Aug 28 2007, 05:27 AM
Post #3





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,114
Joined: 21-October 06
From: Berlin
Member No.: 121



QUOTE (Zapzarap @ Aug 28 2007, 11:06 AM)
Another thing is, that the titel "Zeitgeist" is slightly misleading if you know the meaning of the German word:
Zeitgeist = spirit of the age, is used in German with a negative undertone for the cultural, political, scientifical, emotional decadence of our 'Western' Society.

Possibly in Austria, Peter. I don't know.

But here in germany it is used absolutely without a
positive nor negative connotation. It is just used for
the spirit of the age and the actual time period.
The fact that the actual time preiod is indeed decadent
has got no influence on the meaning of the expression 'Zeitgeist' here.

Even the most important german weekly "Der SPIEGEL"
got a 'Zeitgeist' section on its english online issue:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitge...0,1518,,00.html

Carl
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Natasha
post Aug 28 2007, 05:32 AM
Post #4





Group: Newbie
Posts: 160
Joined: 17-August 07
Member No.: 1,736



QUOTE (Zapzarap @ Aug 28 2007, 04:06 AM)
When I watched "Zeitgeist" for the first time I honestly was turned off by their interpretation of Christianity.

Not because I am so deeply religious.
(I grew up Catholic but left the Church when I was a student - actually for reasons like Cary's).

I suspected that Zeitgeist was deliberately attacking Christianity to label the 9/11 movement as 'anti-Christian' (we are allready used to the 'anti-Semitism-label).

But on closer inspection their arguments are well founded.

I still think, it doesn't add to the credibility of the movie, when they start it by highlightening the religious aspect. And I can't really see a reason, why they did it. It will however turn off religious people like Natasha.

Another thing is, that the titel "Zeitgeist" is slightly misleading if you know the meaning of the German word:
Zeitgeist = spirit of the age, is used in German with a negative undertone for the cultural, political, scientifical, emotional decadence of our 'Western' Society.

Where are the religious Christians on this forum?

(after Tocarm  wink.gif )

I am not religious. I attend no church. Jesus is in my thoughts every minute, and my attention is always inclined to hear His voice within me. I hate religion, and there is no temple or house, no building or earthly organization, that is either a church or the church. Heaven is His thrown, and yet we His people are His dwelling, even His body here. I am above no other person. I am weak, flawed, foolish, and dim of mind having also a poor memory. I have nothing at all in this world, as one who but visits or passes through, and I have no one but Him to rely upon and neither do I trust any other.

I have seen the movie in question. It lumps all Christians in with organized religion, Neocon Xians, Reagan666/BushCIA and other such garbage. My opinion is that the "history" it misuses, to dismiss my faith as fraudulent, is falsely interpreted with tremendous bias.

The Talmud, while certainly not pro Christian, yet makes many references to Jesus Christ. The Jewish orthodoxy of the time, who's writings were incorporated into the Talmud, refers to Jesus as a blasphemer whom they handed over to Roman authority, to be put to death. If Jesus did not even really exist, as some falsely claim, then just who were the Pharisees writing about?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Carl Bank
post Aug 28 2007, 06:03 AM
Post #5





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,114
Joined: 21-October 06
From: Berlin
Member No.: 121



QUOTE (Natasha @ Aug 28 2007, 11:32 AM)
The Talmud, while certainly not pro Christian, yet makes many references to Jesus Christ. The Jewish orthodoxy of the time, who's writings were incorporated into the Talmud, refers to Jesus as a blasphemer whom they handed over to Roman authority, to be put to death. If Jesus did not even really exist, as some falsely claim, then just who were the Pharisees writing about?

I once learned, that it is widespread believed in the jewish
religion and also written down in the Talmud, that one day
a direct son/grandson of David will return to Israel and that
he will be the king of all jews, like David was.

Jesus' bloodline, some say, can be followed back directly
to David. So that this Jesus would be automaticly the king of all Jews
and the entire region. No need to ask, if this was in favour of the
leading Pharisees, their church and admin system or the occupieing Romans.
It was certainly not.

That could be the reason, why they crucified him and put that bumpersticker-joke
'INRI' on his cross above his head. For all who don't know: It is the acronym for
'IESUS NAZARENUS REX IUDAEORUM' or " JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS"
or -in the words of the meaning of this joke-
"This is what happens if someone tries again to pretend to be some
kind of David's son and to anyone who claims to be your king without
our permission."

IMO, this historical event was mixed up by the Romans with that astrological
adoration of the sun and its movements to create a story we can read
-more or less edited several times over the centuries- in the Bible.

0.02: Carl
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Natasha
post Aug 28 2007, 07:08 AM
Post #6





Group: Newbie
Posts: 160
Joined: 17-August 07
Member No.: 1,736



Dodge this. No, really, please do.

Youtube: Using Your Driver's License to Pay for Gas With Pin Number, it's already available.

Youtube: Ordering a Pizza in the not to distant future, count on it.

real ID PSA

The National ID Card

National ID Card & CHIP


RONALD WILSON REAGAN


Lets see you spin that as sun worship.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Carl Bank
post Aug 28 2007, 07:45 AM
Post #7





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,114
Joined: 21-October 06
From: Berlin
Member No.: 121



QUOTE (Natasha @ Aug 28 2007, 01:08 PM)

Natasha, thank you for the links, I already had a look at your youtbe-site.

Unfortunately, I cannot see your point in asking me to
"spin" the these vids to 'sun worship"... blink.gif

Maybe, it is because english isn't my native tongue
(as you certainly already recognized), maybe it is because
my gut tells me, that you feel offended by the idea that
the story of Jesus could be a political story, developed to
manipulate the people and to gain power. I wholeharly understand
if this hurts your feeling and i apologize 1000 times if I did with my post.

You are free to believe whatever you want. It is up to you and noone
on this board or somewhere else in this world should be allowed to
hurt you and your believes.

But I refuse to believe in something that doesn't feel true.

The Bible doesn't and the story of jesus as it is told doesn't do either.

If you would know a little more about me, you'd possibly excuse me
for that. Maybe you should have a look at this pinned thread in the
debate-forum: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...topic=2655&st=0

In addition to this, I'd like to add that in '91 I was clinical dead and reanimated
2 times (motorcycle) and have seen, what happenes after.
And I learned a lot about human nature and god.
It is way to much to tell here. Just one thing that is essential for the understanding
of god and His creation is:

If there is a God - and there is certainly more than only one - he got
a huge sense of humor.

Carl
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
p.w.rapp
post Aug 28 2007, 07:51 AM
Post #8





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,743
Joined: 19-October 06
From: European Protectorate
Member No.: 110



QUOTE (Carl Bank @ Aug 28 2007, 11:27 AM)
Possibly in Austria, Peter. I don't know.

[off-topic]

nonono.gif I don't read the Spiegel nor do I watch ARD, RTL and Co.
And we speak GERMAN in Austria.
PMd you, my friend.
[/off-topic]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Carl Bank
post Aug 28 2007, 08:09 AM
Post #9





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,114
Joined: 21-October 06
From: Berlin
Member No.: 121



QUOTE (Zapzarap @ Aug 28 2007, 01:51 PM)
QUOTE (Carl Bank @ Aug 28 2007, 11:27 AM)
Possibly in Austria, Peter. I don't know.

[off-topic]

nonono.gif I don't read the Spiegel nor do I watch ARD, RTL and Co.
And we speak GERMAN in Austria.
PMd you, my friend.
[/off-topic]

meaning of post possibly lost in re-translation, buddy?

Re-PMed you: Carl
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
p.w.rapp
post Aug 28 2007, 08:15 AM
Post #10





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,743
Joined: 19-October 06
From: European Protectorate
Member No.: 110



cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Devilsadvocate
post Aug 31 2007, 04:30 AM
Post #11





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,370
Joined: 3-February 07
From: Ireland
Member No.: 551



QUOTE
In my opinion, one of the things that the movie Zeitgeist (which, over all, I appreciate) does not make clear is that sacred texts, such as the Bible, have LEVELS of meaning and interpretation.


This brings something to my mind- a little bit of food for the mind, so to speak:

I'm fairly sure that most people will have heard the story of Alexander the great and the Gordic knot at one point or another.
If not, i'll give a quick rundown:
When Alexander reached the city of Gordion, he visited the temple of Helios there.
The priests showed him an ancient chariot, the wheels of which had been tied together with an artful knot, and explained that it was the chariot of Helios himself.
They then told Alexander that whosoever could open the knot would become lord of the universe: By being able to drive Helios' chariot, he would 'become' Helios.
Alexander tried to open the knot, but couldn't;
eventually he drew his sword and cut the knot with it.

The interesting thing about that story comes when making a connection to ancient Egypt.
There is an Egyptian word- "Bari", which means "Chariot".
The Chariot is the vehicle with which the Greek sungod Helios was supposed to travel across the sky.
But Bari also has another meaning: "Boat"- and a boat is the vehicle with which the Egyptian sungod Ra travels across the sky.
Both can be tied up with an "artful knot".
The reason why this might be relevant is that in antiquity, Egypt was the yardstick by which wisdom was measured. Stories like the one about the Gordic knot were not told for entertainment, but to convey wisdom. The Greek philosophers all had one thing in common: They all spend some time at the great library and the museion in Alexandria- founded shortly after Alexanders death. They always used the Greek names of gods, even when talking about their Egyptian counterparts.
That story is not about Helios' Chariot, but about Ra's boat.
The Egyptians had an expression: "To open a knot". That had not much to do with Christmas-presents, but with books: "Ba" means "Book", "Ri" describes a Book-cord. (Egyptian books were scrolls, tied by means of a book-cord: in an "artful knot"...)
The expression was used in respect of a difficult passage in a book: Once the passage is finally understood, the reader was said to have "opened the knot".
It meant that he had broken a seal and accessed the true meaning of the text.
Alexander was said to be quite educated. To the Egyptians, he was an analphabet:
He could not read or write hieroglyphics. Therefore he could not open the knot...
He was meant to understand the meaning of the texts in order to become king of Egypt, and ruler of the universe. He couldn't- so he opened the knot by the sword: He conquerred Egypt. He tried to conquer the world. And he failed.
After his death, he was returned to Alexandria, where a special mausoleum was constructed. His body was placed into a crystal sarcophagus, immersed in honey.
There was a time in Egypt when children who had been either still-born or who had died just after birth were buried in vessels filled with honey. The Egyptians associated honey with the sweetnes of truth: Placing a dead child in a vessel filled with honey meant that the child would forever be surrounded by sweetness.
That is how Alexander was buried: Like a still-born child.
When Julius Caesar visited the mausoleum, he broke out in tears.
That is what happens when someone is confronted with the realisation that his life is an illusion...Cajus Julius was walking down the same path as Alexander.
The sacred texts of the Egyptians had several levels of understanding- the first of which comes with the ability to read and write hieroglyphics.
The other six are hidden; each level is more difficult to unravel than the previous one. A very artful knot indeed...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Sep 6 2007, 07:48 PM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



"The Hitchhiker Guide to the Galaxy"
by Douglas Adams, is my sacred text.
(The book, the original BBC TV series,
even the radio play, but not the movie.)

imho, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Carl Bank
post Sep 6 2007, 09:09 PM
Post #13





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,114
Joined: 21-October 06
From: Berlin
Member No.: 121



QUOTE (lunk @ Sep 7 2007, 01:48 AM)
"The Hitchhiker Guide to the Galaxy"
by Douglas Adams, is my sacred text.
(The book, the original BBC TV series,
even the radio play, but not the movie.)

imho, lunk

2nd on this: Carl
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
waterdancer
post Sep 6 2007, 10:38 PM
Post #14


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 77



quoting Zap:
QUOTE
I still think, it doesn't add to the credibility of the movie, when they start it by highlightening the religious aspect. And I can't really see a reason, why they did it.


Here's why I think the author of the movie included this. Looking at his book source list, I noticed the Book Rule by Secrecy was among those listed. In that book Jim Marrs traces "conspiracy theory" writings and opinions further and further back in history. Eventually, he gets back to Sumerian mythology and the ET hypotheses surrounding that. A very fascinating read and very well written and compiled from numerous sources. Saves a lot of reading to simply read Jim Marr's book instead of trying to sift through all his sources.
But anyway, point being this- there's no way a two hour movie could attempt what Marr's book has done. I think the author's intention by spending some time on Christianity was to pave the way for the idea that myth creation is not a new phenomenon. That way, when we come to Zelikow's expertise on "the creation and maintenance of public myths" the audience is then prepared to say "ah, nothing new under the sun". If one led off with Zelikow, the audience would be more likely to go "Wait, wait! How could we have been lied to? That would be unprecedented."

The Jesus angle is IMO shrewd because it is one of if not the primary "myth" of our age (whether or not one believes it or not or whether or not one believes it to be mythical doesn't really matter in that assessment) and has been used to justify a lot of unpleasantness. It's also an easier pill for most people to swallow than long lived reptilian aliens.

So, that's my opinion on the choice for introductory material. And hidden teachings there are indeed. Unfortunately, one has historically needed to belong to an unbroken mystery school tradition to grok them in fullness, I think. However, I also think that is now changing/changed. The doors are opened/opening.
Nonetheless, trying to read an archaic (or modern) English translation of something which has come from Hebrew through Greek and Latin and expecting to get all the puns, gematria, Kabbala, astronomical/astrological/cultural references intact through "divine translation assistance" or some such is IMO a wee bit naive.
Jesus- whether or not he actually existed- was a product of his times, just as we are.
How would John of Patmos (perhaps under the infuence of an hallucinogenic substance) have interpreted a supercomputer? As a beast, perhaps? RFID, retinal scans and ATM cards? The mark required to buy and sell in the marketplace?
Or, perhaps it wasn't "divine revelation" after all- more like human machinations designed to "fulfill the prophesies"?

Anyway, enough rambling on from me for now. doh1.gif whistle.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
waterdancer
post Sep 6 2007, 10:42 PM
Post #15


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 77



QUOTE (Carl Bank @ Sep 7 2007, 01:09 AM)
QUOTE (lunk @ Sep 7 2007, 01:48 AM)
"The Hitchhiker Guide to the Galaxy"
by Douglas Adams, is my sacred text.
(The book, the original BBC TV series,
even the radio play, but not the movie.)

imho, lunk

2nd on this: Carl

42 is a sacred text no question, but IMO Good Omens trumps it...
Though I think I actually prefer holistic detecting to thumbing the hyperspace bypasses.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Carl Bank
post Sep 7 2007, 08:44 AM
Post #16





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,114
Joined: 21-October 06
From: Berlin
Member No.: 121



QUOTE (waterdancer @ Sep 7 2007, 04:42 AM)
Though I think I actually prefer holistic detecting to thumbing the hyperspace bypasses.

biggrin.gif Yep! Dirk Gently is a very wise character!

also 2nd for 'The Long Dark Teatime of the Soul': Carl
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Sep 7 2007, 11:36 PM
Post #17



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Agreed!
However I do believe that
the improbability generator
is the greatest literary device
ever invented.

Cheese is nice!
lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Sep 16 2007, 12:15 AM
Post #18



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



oops, I lunked up.

That should read, "infinite improbability drive".

I can't even quote my own sacred text right.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FM258
post Nov 2 2007, 08:39 PM
Post #19





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 301
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 64



Im finally 42 smokin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Nov 2 2007, 10:01 PM
Post #20


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (FM258 @ Nov 2 2007, 04:39 PM)
Im finally 42 smokin.gif

Yeah, but have you ever been . . . beautiful spin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th July 2019 - 02:57 AM