Zeitgeist

[The Agriculturist]

I knew you were going to nitpick. But, I shall use your same argument that you posted earlier. Just because some of the article is biased, retarded, and outlandish, that does not make all of its "facts" untrue.

BTW, look at the url I linked. You'll shit bricks once you notice the hilarity.

Brick were shat as soon as I saw 'devine evidence'.

 

[Ser Yorick]

Brick were shat as soon as I saw 'divine evidence'.

I laughed so hard at "devineevidence". I was like, "Shit, you try to be all professional and smart, but you do something as ****tarded as spell 'divine' wrong?"

 

[Jaqen H'ghar]

I'd just like to point out the deffinition of faith according to the dictionary...

1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust 3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

No where in there do I see the word logic or any resembling factors. I do however see a big gaping whole in the idea of putting logic with faith which I've pointed out...


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

 

[The Agriculturist]

I laughed so hard at "devineevidence". I was like, "Shit, you try to be all professional and smart, but you do something as ****tarded as spell 'divine' wrong?"

That means one of two things hehe:
1. either they really are that dumb and can't spell for shit.
2. someone already made divineevidence!:CIsee:

 

[Ser Yorick]

I'd just like to point out the deffinition of faith according to the dictionary...

1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust 3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

No where in there do I see the word logic or any resembling factors. I do however see a big gaping whole in the idea of putting logic with faith which I've pointed out...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

Personal, logic. I may not be able to "prove" to you that God exists, but that's because I can't video tape myself having a conversation with him. Were you to have a personal experience though (yes I know you don't think that shit is real anyway), it could be classified by you as "proof". And logically (your own logic), you could come to a conclusion similar to mine. If you thought that way, and it happened.

That means one of two things hehe:
1. either they really are that dumb and can't spell for shit.
2. someone already made divineevidence!:CIsee:

I'm hoping for option 2. They didn't make many terribly obvious mistakes in the article, thank God.

 

[The Agriculturist]

thank God.

I see no problem with that. Just specify which one and I'll join you.

 

[Dan.]

Big Wall of Text is BIIIIIGGGg

terminology. There have been many religions throughout history whose members participated in ritual baths but
it was not baptism"-......This is extremely silly as this author is arguing semantics....In the same fashion that every square is a rectangle, but not every rectangle is a square, every baptism is a ritual bath, while not every ritual bath is a baptism. Baptism is a RITUAL in which the participant is BATHED by holy water. The manner in which the RITUAL BATH is carried forth may differ (standing in water and having more poured on you, having some water dropped on your head, etc.)

The ritual may be the same, but is the symbolism? Baptism is about rebirth and new life, not ...whatever the metaphor behind those is.

Is this original to christianity? Of course not! it was taken, almost directly, from a hellenistic (combination of greek, egyptian, and mesopotamian mythologies) myths. Apart from the main one (which I will shortly get too), there were numerous underground cults during hellenistic times, and many of these cults believed in a being born to a god father and mortal mother, who was resurrected after a heroic death (dying for the sins of all of man kind heroic enough for you?).

Where do you get the 'dying for all the sins of man' part? All it says is, they died heroically. I can't recall a single Greek Hero who sacrificed himself for anything other than his family or honor/glory. Leonidas, of course, dies for a COUNTRY, but then again he isn't worshipped.

Onwards, we have knowledge of the myth of Dionysus: "Dionysus was the god of the vine, and his feasts included wine that was the god himself, sacrificed for those at the feast. Dionysus was the son of Zeus, the king of the divine mountain. Zeus raised Dionysus from the dead and made him immortal....."To quote Euripides statement, he was the libation, 'The god who himself is offered in libation to the other gods.' In this passage the identification of the god with the wine is as absolute as the identification of Christ in Catholic thought with the consecrated wine of the mass...The modern scholar Barry Powell says that Christian notions of eating and drinking the "flesh" and "blood" of Jesus were influenced by the cult of Dionysus. He says that Dionysus was distinct among Greek gods, as a deity commonly felt within individual followers. Willoughby writes "The wine they drank was for them potent with divine power--it was the god himself, and the very quintessence of divine life was resident in the juice of the grape.. . The drinking of wine in the service of Dionysus was for them a religious sacrament. . . . The devotees of Dionysus had other realistic means of attaining to communion with their god. They had a sacrament of eating as well as a sacrament of drinking. This rite was the "feast of raw flesh." To be an initiate into the mysteries of Dionysus . . . (t)hey Quaff the goat's delicious blood. . . (t)he devotees tore asunder the slain beast and devoured the dripping flesh in order to assimilate the life of the god resident in it. Thus when the Bacchanals by the sacraments of eating and drinking entered into direct communion with their god, they became partakers of his immortality. In assimulating the raw flesh wherein the god was temporarily incarnate and in drinking the juice of the grape, they received into their bodies an undying substance." And again, we even have Mithras:a ritual enunciation by Mithras: "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation."

Dionysus was celebrated as a god of Wine and Revelry (even theater in a stretch), not as the savior of man. The cult feasted and drank in honor of the celebration he brought, not in his saving of mankind.

Mithras again, he may have had this meal, and even the same symbolism, but that doesn't mean he embodied all of Christ's doings. Plus, just because we knew all about these old gods and savior-figures, doesn't mean early Jews and the founders of Christianity did. It seems to me that someone would have to be super dooper well read and traveled, and motivated, to create a new religion with a savior with all of these collaborated traits.

"Followers may consider their god a savior of some sort but they are not called Messiah." Semantics once more, and it's starting to get annoying. jesus as a savior is modeled after other saviors as I have mentioned in another post. To say this doesn't hold true because jesus was a 'messiah' is absolute ignorance. Messiah comes from the Hebrew 'Mashiach' or one who is anointed. In simpler terms, one who was doused with oil. This was a common practice in Jewish times: The literal and proper translation of this word is “anointed,” which refers to a ritual of anointing and consecrating someone or something with oil. (I Samuel 10:1-2) It is used throughout the Jewish Bible in reference to a wide variety of individuals and objects; for example, a Jewish king (I Kings 1:39), Jewish priests (Leviticus 4:3), prophets (Isaiah 61:1), the Jewish Temple and its utensils (Exodus 40:9-11), unleavened bread (Numbers 6:15), and a non-Jewish king (Cyrus king of Persia, Isaiah 45:1).. Again, we need to look no further than Christianity's immediate predecessor (Judaism (who got the ritual from pagan religions in the area before it) to see the connections, and in fact, it wouldn't surprise me if Jesus being called the Messiah was a way to get more jewish converts, much in the way that christmas is celebrated during the time of many pagan winter festivals in order to make the transition from pagan to christian easier and more appealing.

It was BS for the writer to even suggest that in the first place. I scoffed a little inside. 'Jesus is the OG cause he's teh Messiahs, the others were not called Messiah'.

"Religions may speak of an afterlife but they do not consist of places known as Heaven and Hell." Well, heaven is described as a wonderful, peaceful, joyful, and holy place....sounds a lot like Aaru from egyptian lore, which represented the afterlife for the egpytians judged as just (their heart weighed less than a feather of the goddess ma'at), where they would exist with pleasure for all of eternity. If their hearts were heavier than the feather, they would suffer a second death at the hands of the terrible creature Ammit, who devoured them. Also, the journey to Aaru was described as dangerous, and upon arriving at the entrance, they would HAVE TO PASS THROUGH SEVERAL GATES (levels), that although the number of which is disputed, it is universally agreed they were guarded BY AN ARMY OF EVIL DEMONS WITH KNIVES. So, if we keep the final level of Aaru, where the god Osiris resides with those existing in eternal pleasure, and take all those gates and demons on the way and separate them, we just created heaven and hell, using ONLY egyptian mythology (there were many more influences, such as 'gehenom' what is regarded in hebrew as hell, but was really a pile of waste outside of the walls of a city, where dead animals, trash, feces, etc. was packed and BURNED (where do you think fire and brimstone (SMELLY sulfur) came from?)).

What was that about? The Bible doesn't talk about gates in heaven one must pass to go through to enter (as in a feat of faith or skill), and it wasn't guarded by demons with knives, only angels there to welcome you. That long block of text is boring and, IMO, useless.

Also, Hell in the Christian belief, in it's simplest form, is not fire and brimstone and death, it's separation from God. So naturally the Jewish hell was outside the city walls with the dead and trash and fire, it was a desolate place outside of God and his residence.

What is most funny to me about this is that i found all of these flaws in the FIRST PART of the introductory section. What fun awaits me in the article itself, I wonder.

Why do you get joy out of trashing peoples religions, or even just shouting that other people are gullible and stupid? Does it make you feel good to flaunt your worldly experience? That seems selfish, IMO.

 

[The Agriculturist]

Big Wall of Text is BIIIIIGGGg



The ritual may be the same, but is the symbolism? Baptism is about rebirth and new life, not ...whatever the metaphor behind those is.



Where do you get the 'dying for all the sins of man' part? All it says is, they died heroically. I can't recall a single Greek Hero who sacrificed himself for anything other than his family or honor/glory. Leonidas, of course, dies for a COUNTRY, but then again he isn't worshipped.



Dionysus was celebrated as a god of Wine and Revelry (even theater in a stretch), not as the savior of man. The cult feasted and drank in honor of the celebration he brought, not in his saving of mankind.

Mithras again, he may have had this meal, and even the same symbolism, but that doesn't mean he embodied all of Christ's doings. Plus, just because we knew all about these old gods and savior-figures, doesn't mean early Jews and the founders of Christianity did. It seems to me that someone would have to be super dooper well read and traveled, and motivated, to create a new religion with a savior with all of these collaborated traits.



It was BS for the writer to even suggest that in the first place. I scoffed a little inside. 'Jesus is the OG cause he's teh Messiahs, the others were not called Messiah'.



What was that about? The Bible doesn't talk about gates in heaven one must pass to go through to enter (as in a feat of faith or skill), and it wasn't guarded by demons with knives, only angels there to welcome you. That long block of text is boring and, IMO, useless.

Also, Hell in the Christian belief, in it's simplest form, is not fire and brimstone and death, it's separation from God. So naturally the Jewish hell was outside the city walls with the dead and trash and fire, it was a desolate place outside of God and his residence.



Why do you get joy out of trashing peoples religions, or even just shouting that other people are gullible and stupid? Does it make you feel good to flaunt your worldly experience? That seems selfish, IMO.

Dan, read what i wrote again, carefully, and you'll answer some of your own questions. As for the ones you wont be able to answer:


Baptism: You say it's about rebirth and a new life, I say it's about purifying the participant thereby granting him a new chance at spiritual life. At either case, the fact remains baptism existed, for mostly the same reasons before Christianity (if you REALLY want other examples other than Judaism, I'll find them for you.)

Heroics: you misread. I was saying that dying for the sins of all man kind is a heroic death, if I've ever heard of one. You, much like the author of the article, are trying to argue semantics. you are trying to disprove my argument by saying that heroes before Jesus died heroically for glory or for their family, while Jesus died Heroically for mankind. In the eyes of a person who isn't a a believer, there is no difference for Jesus was never proven to die for the sins of mankind, which leaves him with all the other heroes as dying some sort of heroic death.

Dionysus: First of all, I think it is very far beyond you to decide what the followers of Dionysus met and feasted for, when texts support what I said....Second of all, the followers of the cult of Dionysus (in case you misread what i posted) believed the wine WAS Dionysus, and they drank it to BRING THE GOD INTO THEM. much in the SAME manner that Christians will drink wine and eat bread in order to bring Jesus into them.

Not knowing about all the gods in ancient times: i almost want to ignore this because it's such a stupid thing to try and use as a support for your argument, but I will entertain it nonetheless. Christianity was developed in Israel, a crossroads between Africa, Europe, and Asia. Certainly, all the major civilizations you learn about in school have at some point ruled the territory that is Israel, which means their culture and religion was the accepted norm. to support this even more, Recall that for the three centuries before Jesus was said to have lived, Israel was under Hellenistic rule (a mix of mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Greek cultures....This influence is extremely evident in the new testament), then under Roman rule. In fact, it isn't only ignorant to assume you know more today ABOUT the ancient times than the people who lived in those times (and in that area for crying out loud), you should even assume they knew more than you do (think of how much was lost over the course of 2,000 years that was fresh in their times)! With all this information available, it actually makes perfect sense that Jesus would have traits of characters that came before him.

Heaven and Hell: Misread. read it again, it's clear enough how I said it last.

As for me being selfish by your opinion: Your opinion is that of a 15-18 year old, which honestly doesn't matter to me. I don't bash religion, I point out it's silliness and debatable uselessness in today's world, as it's position as a form of moral order can be replaced by much more efficient systems, if people would simply open their eyes and realize what they've been believing in.

In my Opinion.

 

[Dan.]

Dan, read what i wrote again, carefully, and you'll answer some of your own questions. As for the ones you wont be able to answer:


Baptism: You say it's about rebirth and a new life, I say it's about purifying the participant thereby granting him a new chance at spiritual life. At either case, the fact remains baptism existed, for mostly the same reasons before Christianity (if you REALLY want other examples other than Judaism, I'll find them for you.)

Heroics: you misread. I was saying that dying for the sins of all man kind is a heroic death, if I've ever heard of one. You, much like the author of the article, are trying to argue semantics. you are trying to disprove my argument by saying that heroes before Jesus died heroically for glory or for their family, while Jesus died Heroically for mankind. In the eyes of a person who isn't a a believer, there is no difference for Jesus was never proven to die for the sins of mankind, which leaves him with all the other heroes as dying some sort of heroic death.

Dionysus: First of all, I think it is very far beyond you to decide what the followers of Dionysus met and feasted for, when texts support what I said....Second of all, the followers of the cult of Dionysus (in case you misread what i posted) believed the wine WAS Dionysus, and they drank it to BRING THE GOD INTO THEM. much in the SAME manner that Christians will drink wine and eat bread in order to bring Jesus into them.

Not knowing about all the gods in ancient times: i almost want to ignore this because it's such a stupid thing to try and use as a support for your argument, but I will entertain it nonetheless. Christianity was developed in Israel, a crossroads between Africa, Europe, and Asia. Certainly, all the major civilizations you learn about in school have at some point ruled the territory that is Israel, which means their culture and religion was the accepted norm. to support this even more, Recall that for the three centuries before Jesus was said to have lived, Israel was under Hellenistic rule (a mix of mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Greek cultures....This influence is extremely evident in the new testament), then under Roman rule. In fact, it isn't only ignorant to assume you know more today ABOUT the ancient times than the people who lived in those times (and in that area for crying out loud), you should even assume they knew more than you do (think of how much was lost over the course of 2,000 years that was fresh in their times)! With all this information available, it actually makes perfect sense that Jesus would have traits of characters that came before him.

Heaven and Hell: Misread. read it again, it's clear enough how I said it last.

As for me being selfish by your opinion: Your opinion is that of a 15-18 year old, which honestly doesn't matter to me. I don't bash religion, I point out it's silliness and debatable uselessness in today's word, as it's position as a form of moral order can be replaced by much more efficient systems, if people would simply open their eyes and realize what they've been believing in.

In my Opinion.

It seems to me that you're the one arguing semantics. I'm saying the SYMBOLISM is different, and the act is similar. They all died heroically, but for a different reason. It's the thought that counts.

We live in the information age. They lived in a time when people could fight a climactic battle and take a day to give the news 26 miles away, where we have minor conflicts that can be reported on in an hour to places across the world. It's perfectly natural to think we have more info about their times than they do, besides the fact that those UNDERGROUND and SECRET cults were UNDERGROUND and SECRET.

No, your post was not clear. You stated that Heaven and Aaru were completely alike, minus gates full of demons and knives and monsters that eat your heart. And, that Aaru was influenced by HEBREW CONCEPTS. Hebrew just happening to be the parent of Christianity.

I would like to know what efficient systems for moral order exist. I seem woefully ignorant of them.

 

[Jaqen H'ghar]

Hebrew just happening to be the parent of Christianity.

You were going really well until that point...Judaism*


Anywho carry on *sits and watches in the shadows*

 

[Ser Yorick]

Lol Dan, if you would just read what I linked, you would have tons of ammo to use against Agri. Instead, you're making one hell of a piss poor argument, no offence.

 

[The Agriculturist]

god damn it dan, you don't read! I said Aaru was from egyptian mythology, not hebrew.

 

[Neutrino]

That video covered so much.

I thought it was all interesting.

But I really am wondering about that income tax bit. Is it true? I have always wondered what law said income tax returns must be filed. In school they don't mention it at all.

 

[The Agriculturist]

That video covered so much.

I thought it was all interesting.

But I really am wondering about that income tax bit. Is it true? I have always wondered what law said income tax returns must be filed. In school they don't mention it at all.

Honestly, I would take Parts II & III of the video with a grain of salt. Or the whole salt shaker.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Honestly, I would take Parts II & III of the video with a grain of salt. Or the whole salt shaker.

I'd take it with pretty much all of the salt in the world. I've seen this video before and those two parts are just absurd, as are all conspiracy theories about that sort of thing.

 

[Dan.]

god damn it dan, you don't read! I said Aaru was from egyptian mythology, not hebrew.

WTF are you on about? I said

You stated that Heaven and Aaru were completely alike, minus gates full of demons and knives and monsters that eat your heart. And, that Aaru was influenced by HEBREW CONCEPTS.

Geez, How about YOU read once in awhile. I just said Aaru was influenced by Hebrew mythology, because YOU said that it was.

You were going really well until that point...Judaism*

Sorry, in my mind Hebrew and Judaism are nearly synonymous.

 

[The Agriculturist]

WTF are you on about? I said


Geez, How about YOU read once in awhile. I just said Aaru was influenced by Hebrew mythology, because YOU said that it was.



.

Ok, let's try again, slowly. I stated, quite clearly, that Aaru comes from EGYPTIAN MYTHOLOGY. and that the concept behind aaru (including the dangerous journey to it, and the state of eternal pleasure that is to be found once it is reached) heavily influenced the ideas of heaven and hell.

 

[Dan.]

So, if we keep the final level of Aaru, where the god Osiris resides with those existing in eternal pleasure, and take all those gates and demons on the way and separate them, we just created heaven and hell, using ONLY egyptian mythology (there were many more influences, such as 'gehenom' what is regarded in hebrew as hell, but was really a pile of waste outside of the walls of a city, where dead animals, trash, feces, etc. was packed and BURNED

1. Your super confusing wording makes it sound as though Egyptian Mythology was influenced by Hebrew idea's, not the other way around.

2. And here's your argument, basically. 'Christianity copied heaven and hell from Egyptian mythology because the beginning and end are the same, even though the middle is armies of demons and difficult gates.' Listen to yourself! That is such BS.

 

[The Agriculturist]

1. Your super confusing wording makes it sound as though Egyptian Mythology was influenced by Hebrew idea's, not the other way around.

2. And here's your argument, basically. 'Christianity copied heaven and hell from Egyptian mythology because the beginning and end are the same, even though the middle is armies of demons and difficult gates.' Listen to yourself! That is such BS.

1. I'm being blamed because YOU can't understand. *looks left, looks right* I don't see anyone else complaining about wording....
2. My argument, was that the ideas of heaven and hell are not original to christianity and are the result of the modification and addition of preexisting versions of afterlife already found in the area of the middle east before and during the birth of Christianity. I used Aaru as an example to illustrate one of those preexisting versions of the after life. Obviously they are not identical, but it is very easy to draw parallels between the two, and since the egyptian mythology had existed for at least 2000 years before christianity, i can make the argument that early christians could have copied some of the ideas.

 

[Dan.]

1. I'm being blamed because YOU can't understand. *looks left, looks right* I don't see anyone else complaining about wording....
2. My argument, was that the ideas of heaven and hell are not original to christianity and are the result of the modification and addition of preexisting versions of afterlife already found in the area of the middle east before and during the birth of Christianity. I used Aaru as an example to illustrate one of those preexisting versions of the after life. Obviously they are not identical, but it is very easy to draw parallels between the two, and since the egyptian mythology had existed for at least 2000 years before christianity, i can make the argument that early christians could have copied some of the ideas.

1. No one else bothered to read that giant friggin wall of text, either.

2. Cool.