were most witnesses very intelligent, in your honest opinion?
What I wanted to say have been said, and more eloquently than I could, so... I agree with Seeker4.
-It's not like I have a higher IQ now that I'm an ex-JW, but I'm allowed to do more research, there are no longer any static, everlasting Truths, and so I can at least gather more knowledge than they are allowed to. And since faith without proof is a virtue to them, they tend to be rather gullible in other areas as well. But stupid, no, not necessarily at least.
i love a good coincidence.
it is the closest i get to the supernatural these days.
how about this one.. a couple of days ago i was working from my home office and while doing so was listening to a bbc radio 7 re-run of the 1960's radio comedy, "i am sorry i will read that again", with john cleese etc.
I'll meet you somewhat half-way and say that if a mind boggling unlikely string of events happens, and it has an emotional impact on you, you shouldn't just brush it aside as nothing and be stone cold about it. Even if it doesn't really come from a supernatural source, it may very well be good to reflect on whatever it may be that happened. For instance, you may have lost a loved one several years ago, and then one day, after having dreamt of this person, as you're cleaning the living-room you happen to find a pendant or ring that belonged to that person. Anyone experiencing that would/should have some kind of emotional response to that I think, even an evil atheist ().
i love a good coincidence.
it is the closest i get to the supernatural these days.
how about this one.. a couple of days ago i was working from my home office and while doing so was listening to a bbc radio 7 re-run of the 1960's radio comedy, "i am sorry i will read that again", with john cleese etc.
I don't agree.
We always have choices to make and I think that things happen as a result of those choices. Therefore, a seeming "coincidence" may happen as a result of our previous choices.
The initial example in this thread. This only happened because decisions were made beforehand (to sort the mail etc.) but it resulted in this thread and discussion and had a ripple effect on others. Rather than saying such a coincidence was meaningless, one could just as easily say that it resulted in a fair number of individuals having a discussion on the subject
So... "actions have consequences". I don't think we (can) disagree there. Can it lead to something good or bad? You bet. Is it guided by some intelligent force? Then we have no choice. The final outcome must be what the intelligent force planned for, and although that point could be reached via various routes, once it happens we had to experience it (and perform the actions leading up to it).
IMO.
i love a good coincidence.
it is the closest i get to the supernatural these days.
how about this one.. a couple of days ago i was working from my home office and while doing so was listening to a bbc radio 7 re-run of the 1960's radio comedy, "i am sorry i will read that again", with john cleese etc.
As Oprah says: "There are no coincidences".
So, 'the Universe'/God/whatever evidently saw it necessary to bring about a miracle in order to make hillary_step aware of the fact that there is a musician called John Leslie.
If there is no such thing as coincidences, then there is no such thing as free will.
(as an example) I came up to a branching point in the road while I was out walking, and in the opposite direction of where I originally was going to go, I coincidentally saw an old friend I hadn't seen for years, but had had a dream about the previous night, so instead of going in the direction I had planned, I went to meet my friend, and after the encounter took that road instead. It was also a coincidence that that friend walked instead of driving that day. So it was a coincidence that we met, and a following coincidence that I went another route. One can then extrapolate and say that I was later mugged, and that was a coincidence because it hadn't happened if I hadn't met my friend (because I would then have taken the originally planned route).
If there are no such things as coincidences, these things had to happen. If they had to happen; were meant to happen, then I have no free will. One could say that yes, I could choosenot to meet my friend, even when I saw him/her, and keep going in the direction I had planned. But what then if some unlikely events happened as a consequence of that? If I couldn't avoid those coincidences, then to meet my friend was never available as a choice for me. If this is not true, then I'm too stupid to understand how these things work, and need some help here. Perhaps I shouldn't ponder these kinds of things when I'm as tired as I am now.
i am starting a sort of campaign to get this movie distributed and have as many people as possible get exposed to it.
the documentary is in 3 parts.
part one deals with the pagan mythological origins of bible myths, part 2 is about 9/11 and supports the theory that the towers were demolitioned and part 3 deals with the federal reserve agressive take over in the 1920s by international bankers.
This Zeitgeist movie comes up for discussion every now and then.
I'm only going to comment on the religion part of the movie.
Since I have already replied to the same topic before, on another forum in my own language, I thought I'd just translate those thoughts here. So here are my (then) thoughts. It is not a 'scholarly dissertation', it's simply a few observations I made when I last saw the movie (some time ago).
If what I say here is demonstrably wrong or caused by misunderstandings, I have no problem with 'updating' my view.
-It's a fascinating, thought provoking piece of supposition, but it is a little light on the facts. Zeitgeist rolls out the similarities between various god myths, among them the date the 25th. of December, a date on which many gods supposedly have been born.
Let's take Jesus (he's the best known to us): that date is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible [as anyone on this forum knows], but was incorporated a couple hundred years later to ease the transition for the pagan religions into Christianity. Pretty much the opposite of what Zeitgeist says.
-If the 'fact' that all these deities mentioned in the movie were born on the same date of Dec. 25th. was either caused by an ancient conspiracy, and/or the result of all religions having the same origin (astrology, sun worship), the date should of course have been directly mentioned in the original biblical manuscripts (because the originators of the conspiracy would have put it there, or in the other scenario, it would have been retained from its pagan origins), and not 'tacked on' much later. In other words; if Jesus was a copy of the ancient myths, and those earlier mythical gods were born on December 25th., one would expect that in the 'copying process', the date would have been mentioned in the Bible as well.
Zeitgeist argues that the three Kings were in reality the three stars in Orion's Belt, which on Dec. 25th. is in line with Sirius ('the guiding star') and the sun (Sun/Son), and that they therefore 'pointed' toward the birthplace of Jesus (the sun), because Jesus was nothing more than a symbol of the sun (according to Zeitgeist). As mentioned, Dec. 25th. is out of the picture already when it comes to Jesus, and when it comes to 'the three Kings', [as we know] they are 1) not numbered in the Bible other than in the number of gifts for Jesus (they could have been ten people who thought these three gifts were the best), and 2) they are not called Kings, but more like astrologers ('magi'). These attributes are later additions to the story in later traditions. So - how can the 'three kings' be an astrological symbol of the three stars of Orion, when we don't know from the biblical story how many these "kings" were?
The movie says that the Son (and also "the Sun = Son") died and was resurrected after three days at solstice, because - according to the movie - Jesus is nothing but a symbol of the Sun. Since this (solstice) happens in December, I don't understand what they're saying here. Jesus did (according to the Bible) not die in December, so how do these two things gel? Again - if the Jesus story is only a copy of older myths, he should have died around solstice in the Bible as well, to be in accordance with this movie's suggestions.
When it comes to the other gods who allegedly have a lot in common with Jesus; born Dec. 25th, of a virgin, etc. etc., it's hard to find sources that verify this for many of these things (in the little search I've done). On the contrary, if one simply uses Wikipedia and look up Krishna, Mithra and Horus, they're not said to have been born on Dec. 25th. By all means - some other sources say that Mithra for instance was born on Dec. 25th., but since that's around solstice, it's not so strange that a sun god is born then. But the Zeitgeist producers use this as proof that Jesus and therefore Christendom is based on sun worship and that the Bible is little else than an astrological book/manual. But when it comes to the Bible, the Dec. 25th. date was added in later traditions, as said.
-They also have quite a few rather weird and far fetched 'word plays' which they say proves what they're asserting: 'Son' is supposed to come from 'Sun', and "god's son" is therefore also "god's sun" (!?). Horus is then evidently close enough to the English word 'hours' that they just as well say that 'hours' comes from the name Horus. Isn't it rather the case that the English word 'hours' comes from the Anglo-French 'ure', 'eure', from Late Latin 'hora', and from Greek hora, as a dictionary tells me? Zeitgeist also says that the English word 'horizon' comes from 'Horus has risen'. It's a tempting superficial likeness, but... When I look it up, I find this: [Middle English orizon, from Old French, from Latin, from Greek horizôn (kuklos), limiting (circle), horizon present participle of horizein, to limit, from horos, boundary.]
Not only that; the god Set fights against Horus and wins (or loses, depending on the time of day), and this according to Zeitgeist shows that the English word 'sunset' comes from the name of the god Set. OK... "Sunset". One also says "the setting of the Sun" in English. Does this then mean that the sentences "She set him straight" or "He set the plates on the diner table" has anything to do with the god Set? Likewise; Can one then just as well say that the god Horus was the 'god of the Whores', since the words look alike? [sorry about that flippant remark] I find these similarities in (English) words a strange form of argument, especially since I can't find any sources to back them up.
Jesus says in a biblical passage that his disciples are going to meet a guy with a pitcher of water, and that that guy will tell them where to go. According to Zeitgeist, this has to symbolize the zodiac sign Aquarius. OK - - it couldn't just happen to be a guy with a pitcher of water, then? I find it far fetched that this shows that the Bible is nothing but an astrological manual.
The halo (with cross) around Jesus' head in icon paintings is used as 'proof' that Jesus is the center of the zodiac wheel, and therefore 'the Sun'. But looking at the icon paintings, it could just as well simply be a representation of a halo with a cross in the middle, or a crown of thorns and a cross. - In fact, Zeitgeist takes this as far as claiming that "crown of thorns" must point to rays of sunlight through the branches of trees (!?), in an effort to show the further likeness between Jesus and a sun god. This part of the movie is just a little too out there for my tastes...
In the first version of Zeitgeist that was uploaded, in the part where they ask for extra biblical sources of Jesus' existence, they said "None. There are no such sources." (or words to that effect). When I saw the finished version on Google video, they had suddenly included Tacitus and Josephus, but quickly brushed them aside. The fact that they didn't mention them in the first draft tells me they either didn't know (bad research and basic knowledge), or knew but chose not to include it.
All this said, there are a lot of similarities between various religions, and they may in many respects have the same origin. I don't disagree with this thought, I just find that this movie (last I saw it) is reaching too much and is too speculative. The movie brings up quite a few interesting things that sound logical, but I feel that when they allow themselves to use arguments that are so far fetched, one has to question the veracity of the rest of their claims as well.
Even as an atheist, it's smart not to hang on to any story and say "That's exactly what I thought - it's all bullshit!". It may well all be 'bullshit', but I think that the arguments should be solid anyway and well researched.
I think the Zeitgeist movie is a good reminder not to trust anything we're told just because it's been told by a lot of people over a long period of time. But the (deliberate?) irony here is that the movie itself should be treated the same way, with a healthy dose of skepticism.
[edited] I'm re-watching it now, and they seem to have updated some of it since I last saw it. The reference to 'sunset' having to do with Set seems to have been removed, among probably other things. [/edited]
okay everybody, grab your barf bag because i just got a steaming shovel full of craptastic notes from gerrit's zone visit to the land down under !!.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ read at your own risk ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~puke.
zone overseer was losch and his side kick was a big black guy, quite a scolar, cant remember his name though.
Has anyone identified anything genuinely "new" in the Loesch's talk yet? I haven't spotted that yet.
1. Leaving babylon the great no longer fleeing from false to true religion, now it is fleeing from material things and possibly geographical.
I think this is a potential new item.
5. Everyone will see Jesus, unlike 1914, every living human will literally see Jesus ( possibly in a vision)
At least somewhat new? Totally new?
6. Unknown if FDS will survive Armageddon.
This is a flickering light I think, and as such perhaps not new, but wasn't it said in an article recently that "evidently Jehovah has seen to it that there will be anointed among us" blah blah? (para-phrase). I guess perhaps that was up until Armageddon, and not through it? I couldn't find the article right now.
8. Matt 24:14- Now totally fulfilled!!!
Perhaps not new, but... really!? So they'll stop now? Or... what?
12. With the celestial phenomena, it is literal and may include Tsunami as the scripture on the roaring of the sea ( which use to mean the sea of mankind) could now be the literal sea.
I think there is a change here somewhere.
That's probably it as for 'news' (?).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lzpmsv7hr4.
it claims to be for jehovah's witnesses but includes sections from a lot of apostate videos.
i guess we can thank him for the publicity..
My first impression is that the user is an ex-JW himself, posing as a JW, and labeling his videos as pro-JW while they contain ex-JW material.
He must obviously have gone through quite a lot of videos of 'apostates' to put this together, not to mention watched them in detail while editing the video, and I find it strange that an active JW would subject himself to that. Especially when he ironically (if he is an active JW) ends the video with the "bad associations spoil useful habits" scripture.
okay everybody, grab your barf bag because i just got a steaming shovel full of craptastic notes from gerrit's zone visit to the land down under !!.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ read at your own risk ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~puke.
zone overseer was losch and his side kick was a big black guy, quite a scolar, cant remember his name though.
or is this just a joke by evil apostates?
I've been here a while (well, actually you've been here longer, lol)and for the most part, these 'previews' have tended to be correct. But I do hope we get audio or video or get it in official writing soon.
There's always a chance of misunderstandings creeping in.
i'm searching for long lost family, and i am hoping someone on this blog might know them.
i am looking for fowler's from either the kansas or missouri areas of the us.
i am willing to give first names if someone thinks they might be able to help me out.
Welcome copperbunny. Don't get too discouraged. I'm sure if there are anyone here able to help you, you'll get a helpful reply eventually. But there is some truth to what has been said; we've had some problems with phony forum members before, so people here are perhaps on the cautious side.
after the flood, were the alligators in the days of noah known for their mountaineering skills when coming down from ararat ,?.
and how did the polar bears get back to the north/south pole,?.
and how did the koalas and kangaroos get back to australia,?
Don't forget, he released all those freshwater fish he kept in aquariums since they would not survive a salt water flood. They somehow swam across seas to all continents. Yes, they did.
-You haven't kept up with the work done by the esteemed Creationist Scientists, I see. It's pretty obvious that the fresh water (with the fish inside) floated up like a bubble in the salt water, and floated on top of the salty sea until it was over. If you don't believe this, all you have to do is go visit the Creation Museum. They can cite evidence for this, such as... well, let's see, there's clear evidence of this in the... the... when we dig through the layers of... the..... OK - see, the evidence... It's... erm... well... it's complicated. It just happened that way, OK!?
