Tim Rout, who are you talking too?
I would suggest using quotes to show which post / or posts you are replying too.
If you don't know how to quote, pm me and I will help you. If you don't know how to pm, then go here. http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f13/
Originally posted by Tim Routethics dont exist anymore. the lines between right and wrong are so blurred these days you have no idea
The Zodiac Hypothesis attributes meanings to biblical texts that were not conceived by the original authors. Or to say that differently...one could never logically draw the conclusions proposed by Zodiac theorists, if one's study was limited to the pages of the Bible. In order to support ZH it is necessary to introduce a huge amount of extracanonical data. If the writers of the Bible intended us to think "ZODIAC" when they wrote the Scriptures, they would have said as much. As it is, they claim entirely different reasons for writing.Take a look at the Gospel of Luke for example:
"Most honorable Theophilus: Many people have written accounts of the events that took place among us. They used as their source material the reports circulating among us from the early disciples and other eyewitnesses of what God has done in fulfillment of His promises. Having carefully investigated all of these accounts from the beginning, I have decided to write a careful summary for you, to reassure you of the truth of all you were taught." [Luke 1:1-4/NLT]
Notice that the Gospel of Luke is a letter written to one person, based on real history, confirmed by eyewitness testimony, and intended to encourage Theophilus in his new faith -- the Christian faith. It is NOT a metaphor for various astrological phenomena.
Or take John's Gospel:
"Jesus' disciples saw Him do many other miraculous signs besides the ones recorded in this book. But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in Him you will have life." [John 20:30-31/NLT]
The authors of the Bible generally make their purpose in writing VERY clear. To import a foreign hermeneutic like the ZH, is to perpetuate a lie.
And as for the claim that the Bible can mean anything you please because plenty of people treat it that way -- all I can say is, you've gotta be kidding! Whether you believe the Bible is the product of divine inspiration or human imagination, it contains a well framed message that deserves at least the same respect we would show to any other ancient work of literature. To misquote and misrepresent the words of others, even if they lived and died thousands of years ago, is to commit a gross ethical trespass.
Originally posted by chickenlover98
ethics dont exist anymore. the lines between right and wrong are so blurred these days you have no idea
That is not always true. What you are considering "the lines between right and wrong are so blurred these days you have no idea" is really the result of pluralism. Ethics are cultural based and change from culture to culture. As the world is getting smaller because of global communication the cultural ethics begin to collide and change.
Originally posted by chickenlover98
ethics dont exist anymore. the lines between right and wrong are so blurred these days you have no idea
An interesting assertion. If by your statement you mean ethical behavior is becoming increasingly rare, I suppose one could make an evidential case for such a claim. But if you are suggesting that in our day and age ethical conduct has become irrelevant, I would challenge you to prove it.
Originally posted by Tim Routya know i might enjoy you posting here.
An interesting assertion. If by your statement you mean ethical behavior is becoming increasingly rare, I suppose one could make an evidential case for such a claim. But if you are suggesting that in our day and age ethical conduct has become irrelevant, I would challenge you to prove it.
that said i think its a little of both. it is becoming very rare to see someone with and ethics and i am personally surprised when in school when i ask someone if i can see their homework and they go " but thats cheating! it has become slightly irrelevant because to advance in todays world ethics are not required and sometimes it is encouraged not to have any.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Tim Rout, who are you talking too?I would suggest using quotes to show which post / or posts you are replying too.
If you don't know how to quote, pm me and I will help you. If you don't know how to pm, then go here. http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f13/
This is the sun. As far back as 10 thousand BC., history is abundant with carvings and writings reflecting peoples respect and adoration for this object. And it is simple to understand why as every morning the sun would rise, bringing vision, warmth, and security, saving man from the cold, blind, predator-filled darkness of night. Without it, the cultures understood, the crops would not grow, and life on the planet would not survive. These realities made the sun the most adorned object of all time. Likewise, they were also very aware of the stars. The tracking of the stars allowed them to recognize and anticipate events which occurred over long periods of time, such as eclipses and full moons. They in turn catalogued celestial groups into what we know today as constellations.
The first part is fairly accurate, but when he begins talking about stars, there is something I would like to call into question. He claims that they "catalogued celestial groups", while this is true for some civilizations, others such as the Inca, actually categorized the dark spots, not the stars themselves.
This is the cross of the Zodiac, one of the oldest conceptual images in human history. It reflects the sun as it figuratively passes through the 12 major constellations over the course of a year. It also reflects the 12 months of the year, the 4 seasons, and the solstices and equinoxes . The term Zodiac relates to the fact that constellations were anthropomorphized, or personified, as figures, or animals.
The above statement implies that constellations and the zodiac have always been connected -- and that there have been just twelve. While the zodiac's exact origins are unknown, the oldest known zodiacs do not have exactly 12 signs and thus conclusions drawn to this cannot be trusted. For example, the Babylonian zodiac originally consisted of 18 signs [1b] and the Mayan Zodiac consisted of twenty [2]. While the Egyptian and Greek zodiacs do contain 12 signs, I thought it important to mention that the 12 signs are not some undeniable truth that can easily be recognized by all civilizations. In fact there are actually 13 constellations the sun passes through, the missing one is Ophiuchus, which is not counted by modern astrologers, for some reason
In other words, the early civilizations did not just follow the sun and stars, they personified them with elaborate myths involving their movements and relationships. The sun, with its life-giving and -saving qualities was personified as a representative of the unseen creator or god. It was known as "God's Sun," the light of the world, the savior of human kind. Likewise, the 12 constellations represented places of travel for God's Sun and were identified by names, usually representing elements of nature that happened during that period of time. For example, Aquarius, the water bearer, who brings the Spring rains.
The sun was not the creator god in all cultures, but rather only a few. While the sun was widely worshipped, but more often than not, most religions believed the earth was given birth to (along side the sun and moon) by a different God, or in some cases the earth is the back of a giant turtle. This is hardly something that can be seen through most religions, and is a bit of a stretch[2c]. The whole purpose of saying "God's Sun, the light of the world, the savior of human kind", is to later setup for a comparison for Jesus, and as I will explain later on in this article, is completely inaccurate. And something else further makes little sense here, if the Sun itself is God and the creator, why would they refer to it as "God's Sun", implying that the sun is not the God? Also as I mention at the bottom of this article, there was a a segment cut out that said "God's Sun = God's Son", and this is also inaccurate, because they are similar only in English -- and the bible was not written in English. I feel like this part is still a setup because it is still implying that God's Sun is the same as God's Son, even though the connection is impossible.
This is Horus. He is the Sun God of Egypt of around 3000 BC. He is the sun, anthropomorphized, and his life is a series of allegorical myths involving the sun's movement in the sky. From the ancient hieroglyphics in Egypt, we know much about this solar messiah. For instance, Horus, being the sun, or the light, had an enemy known as Set and Set was the personification of the darkness or night. And, metaphorically speaking, every morning Horus would win the battle against Set - while in the evening, Set would conquer Horus and send him into the underworld. It is important to note that "dark vs. light" or "good vs. evil" is one of the most ubiquitous mythological dualities ever known and is still expressed on many levels to this day.
At this time, he was the god of the sky, and Ra was the god of the sun. Perhaps inevitable, since he was the sky, eventually the moon and the sun were considered his eyes. At this point he was known as Heru-khuti, and by-and-by he was combined with Ra as the god "Re-Horakhty"[13][11]. While there was a battle between Set and Horus, it was hardly every night. In fact, the battle really only happened once, and had more to do with testicles and seamen than night and day (seriously)[14].
In fact day and night in Egyptian Mythology was much more complicated than the film suggests. The goddess of the sky was called Nut (or Nuit), her name also means "night". At dusk she would swallow Ra, the son god, and he would stay in her uterus until morning when he would be reborn. She wore a blue dress that was covered in stars [15]. Set was the God of the desert, primarily because Horus cut off one of his testicles and he became "infertile like the desert". At this time, Set was not considered evil, it was not until around 100 A.D. that the Romans in Egypt turned Set into a demonic figure
Broadly speaking, the story of Horus is as follows: Horus was born on December 25th of the virgin Isis-Meri. His birth was accompanied by a star in the east, which in turn, three kings followed to locate and adorn the new-born savior. At the age of 12, he was a prodigal child teacher, and at the age of 30 he was baptized by a figure known as Anup and thus began his ministry. Horus had 12 disciples he traveled about with, performing miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water. Horus was known by many gestural names such as The Truth, The Light, God's Anointed Son, The Good Shepherd, The Lamb of God, and many others. After being betrayed by Typhon, Horus was crucified, buried for 3 days, and thus, resurrected.
Horus was not born on December 25th, he was born on the 5th day of the "Epagomenal Days"[3], which does not even take place in December on the modern or ancient calendars, but rather between August 24th and 28th, but in terms of the rising of Sirius (August 4), they are July 30th through August 3rd[4]. His mother was also not a virgin. Horus's father was Osiris, who was killed by his brother Seth. Isis used a spell to bring him back to life for a short time so they could have sex, in which they conceived Horus[5].
I, as well as several others, as well as several Egyptologists you can find on the Internet, know of no reference anywhere to a "star in the east" or "three kings" and "new-born savior"; it is simply made up. I cannot find any source or information proving he was a "teacher when he was 12 years old", that he was baptized at age 30, that he walked on water (but on the Internet, I did find several places that suggest he was "thrown in the water", but I have no direct source at this time for that). More so, I cannot find any evidence he was referred to as "The Truth", "The Light", Lamb of God", "the Good Shepherd", etc.
Also lacking is any evidence that he was betrayed by Typhon. In fact, Horus never died, at any time, he later merges with the sun god, Ra -- but never dies and certainly never is crucified, and therefore could not have been buried for 3 days and resurrected. If you want to look it up yourself, you can find documentation of Horus and Isis and Osiris here [6] and here [7]. All of these things can be found in the book discussed below, but nowhere outside the book (that doesn't quote said book itself).
Zeitgeist, the movie did not make this up originally, you can find several places on the Internet that make such claims, but there are no sources or suggestions as to where this information came from. It is highly possible all this originates from The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold - If you read the Amazon reviews, you can find that a lot of people who point out how the information is completely unsourced [8]. I went to Barnes and Nobel and actually found this book in the Christianity section and I sat down with my wife and read through it while she had some coffee. Needless to say it was completely unsourced and was like reading much the other "Christianity Conspiracy" books out there. So, if these claims all originate from this book, there's absolutely no evidence for it [9]. I should note that this book is used as a "source" in Zeitgeist, the movie [10]. And it is worth pointing out the title is only one word away from the title of this part of the movie "The Greatest Story Ever Sold" vs "The Greatest Story Ever Told".
Horus did not have 12 disciples, rather he had four semi-divine disciples called "heru-shemsu" (followers of Horus) [11 - 1.491]. He did have 16 human followers [11 - 1.196]. One can also find reference to an unnumbered group of followers called the Mesniu (blacksmiths) who accompanied Horus into some of his battles, but no where can 12 of anything be found [11 - 1.475f].
These attributes of Horus, whether original or not, seem to permeate in many cultures of the world, for many other gods are found to have the same general mythological structure.
Well, as read above, these attributes really are not original. It seems kind of obvious to say that such myths would permeate many cultures of the world -- generally because the claims made by the film, such as a sun god, good and evil, and so forth are things most cultures have believed in.
The film goes on to describe other Gods and Goddesses with similar backgrounds. We will talk about these one at a time.
Attis, of Phyrigia, born of the virgin Nana on December 25th, crucified, placed in a tomb and after 3 days, was resurrected.
This explanation is not only over simplified, but inaccurate. Attis was not necessarily born of a virgin (because it does not say whether or not his mother is a virgin), in fact Attis was born of Nana after she ate the fruit of an almond tree which had been grown from the blood of either Agdistis or Cybele. Attis was worshipped as the God of vegetation, responsible for death and rebirth of plant life. It was thought that each winter he died and in the spring he was reborn. Each spring his resurrection would be celebrated. It goes without saying that spring does not take place in December, nor is the change of seasons crucifixion, there is no mention of any tombs anywhere, and seeing how he is dead all winter, it goes without saying that winter is longer than 3 days
And it goes on...
The rest of the article challenging word by word of the film can be found here http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/
It goes on to discuss the 9/11 and Federal Reserve stuff...good work from some bloke who just doesn't care much for conspiracy theories.