Thread: Do you see a pattern here?

What a hoax.

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

What a hoax.

I assure you, the information above is factual.

^^

Jeff does not lie. Personally i already knew of the Egyptian one, when we did a little Ancient Egyptian at school we briefly went over the religion and how stories of the main Gods. Well i had to ask the teacher about the Horus thing, it's a Christian school and he didn't want to offend, he just said there was an interesting note about religions and that maybe we should look it up.

Also Krishna, we did that in RS anyway, got a pretty good debate going, teacher got into a little bit of trouble there since she was Atheist and had used it as an example of how modern religions can be seen to be based on events of previous ones just changed to suit the time period, the people, what ever is necessary.

Originally Posted by Jeff777

I assure you, the information above is factual.

I meant the Jesus story.

Originally Posted by Jeff777

I assure you, the information above is factual.

You realize that you just said all the stuff mentioned in your first post is truth, right?

Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but Christ was actually born during the fall months (I'm 99% certain) and not December 25.

There also happen to be about a bazillion other gods (native american gods, norse, incan, aztec, etc.) which are not only part of polytheistic belief systems, they also obviously have nothing to do with the few similar gods shown.

That being said, all gods could be expected to share basic similarities, because the general concept of a god shows up across cultures - it's somehow part of the human psyche. Since we're all humans with similar psyches, one would expect us all to come up with roughly similar gods (all-powerful, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, invisible, big, and animal shaped).

uhh, I think his point was to show the fact that they were all similar and so that disproves the authenticity of any of the religions.

I happen to take the opposite stance, I knew about these similarities but to me it indicates the opposite. Not that Jesus was the son of a god, but that the similar pschye comes from there in fact being something more and that none of us have the ability to grasp it, thus the glaring differences but also striking similarities of the religions.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

uhh, I think his point was to show the fact that they were all similar and so that disproves the authenticity of any of the religions.

I happen to take the opposite stance, I knew about these similarities but to me it indicates the opposite. Not that Jesus was the son of a god, but that the similar pschye comes from there in fact being something more and that none of us have the ability to grasp it, thus the glaring differences but also striking similarities of the religions.

Or...all the religions were created by man to keep us in line.

When considering the development of religions and faiths, we must keep in mind the very quintessential common characteristic of all of them; they were created my a human mind.

All human minds operate fundamentally the same. We also operate on the same psychological phenomena. What individualises us is your anomalous characteristic traits.

With this said, "Attachment, Evolution, and Psychology of Religion" by Lee Kirkpatrick shows how religion is developed by humans and suits there immediate needs and forms of social maintenance.

Yes, it is very likely that these religions were arbitrarily created in order to maintain social reform. However, a human still conjured up these religious beliefs and contemplated them thoroughoughly before pontificating them. Otherwise, they would be subject to analysis by great minds such as the presocratics and further philosophers. My point here is that, even if they were aribitarily created as a form of control, they are still the manifest content of well contemplated beliefs of an individual.

Furthermore, humans have tendencies in which they choose and propogate beliefs. There are strong correlations between religious choices with the individuals family life. For example, atheism advocation as the result of feeling distant from parents (ie. divorced parents) or social alienation.

I could write so much about this.. but I will hold-back. I think this explains what I was getting at.

My point is that it is not always a form of social control but also the result of natural quintessential human characteristics.

What do you think...?
~

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but Christ was actually born during the fall months (I'm 99% certain) and not December 25.

There also happen to be about a bazillion other gods (native american gods, norse, incan, aztec, etc.) which are not only part of polytheistic belief systems, they also obviously have nothing to do with the few similar gods shown.

That being said, all gods could be expected to share basic similarities, because the general concept of a god shows up across cultures - it's somehow part of the human psyche. Since we're all humans with similar psyches, one would expect us all to come up with roughly similar gods (all-powerful, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, invisible, big, and animal shaped).

Not only that, if you operate under the assumption that any one religion is in any way correct, then all religions must be representations of the same god with some cultural variations, and so every god must share similar attributes.

Originally Posted by Jeff777

I assure you, the information above is factual.

Then provide sources other than Zeitgeist, please.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Then provide sources other than Zeitgeist, please.

It's not very hard for you to do that yourself but since you asked so nicely...I'll provide two. http://paganizingfaithofyeshua.netfi..._25_births.htm http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Origin...f-God&id=93709 Should you want more information regarding the life and times of the "coincidentally similar gods", the internet is at your disposal.

Your sources are all unsubtantiated attempts to link the different religious figures and the mythology surrounding them, and have no basis in historical information.

There is no specific birth date that I can find for Horus. Here is a link to a site that has direct translations of Egyptian monuments on the subject. Also, Horus never died, and so could not be ressurected.

One of your sites lists The Buddha as being born on dec 25 to a virgin mother which is false. Siddartha Gautama was the child of King Shuddodana Gautama and his wife Mahamaya. The only birth month I can find listed for The Buddha is May on this site but most sources only say that he was born around 563 B.C. with no specific date because there are no accurate historical records on the subject.

Mithras was not born of a virgin, or of a female at all. All mithraic myths say that mithras sprouted from a rock before the beginning of time (meaning there could not have been a date).

Krishna was born to his parents, Princess Devaki and her husband Vasudeva in the month of Sravan which compares to late august, early semptember. According to references in the Bhagavata Purana, Bhagavad Gita, and the Matsya Purana, he died around 3100 BCE at the age of 125 years and there is no mention of a ressurection similar to Christ's.

There are two things you have to realize.

A)Christians changed a lot of previous mythology to appear similar to their own

B) The authors of Zeitgeist and those other sites have an agenda that they are pushing and are willing to bend the truth to accomplish their goals. Perhaps you should do some research of your own instead of taking this sort of sensationalist propaganda at face value.

Edit: While looking for sources for all this information, I found a thread on another forum in which someone said something that I think is very important and worth repeating, especially after several advocates of this film have thrown the word 'fact' around;

What I find so absurd is that these people tell us, the "brainwashed masses" to open our eyes and stop blindly accepting the lies told to us by the government, religion, and mass media. Yet they see something on YouTube or read something on a blog and turn around and repeat it as fact, and get angry when someone challenges it.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Your sources are all unsubtantiated attempts to link the different religious figures and the mythology surrounding them, and have no basis in historical information.

There is no specific birth date that I can find for Horus. Here is a link to a site that has direct translations of Egyptian monuments on the subject. Also, Horus never died, and so could not be ressurected.

One of your sites lists The Buddha as being born on dec 25 to a virgin mother which is false. Siddartha Gautama was the child of King Shuddodana Gautama and his wife Mahamaya. The only birth month I can find listed for The Buddha is May on this site but most sources only say that he was born around 563 B.C. with no specific date because there are no accurate historical records on the subject.

Mithras was not born of a virgin, or of a female at all. All mithraic myths say that mithras sprouted from a rock before the beginning of time (meaning there could not have been a date).

Krishna was born to his parents, Princess Devaki and her husband Vasudeva in the month of Sravan which compares to late august, early semptember. According to references in the Bhagavata Purana, Bhagavad Gita, and the Matsya Purana, he died around 3100 BCE at the age of 125 years and there is no mention of a ressurection similar to Christ's.

There are two things you have to realize.

A)Christians changed a lot of previous mythology to appear similar to their own

B) The authors of Zeitgeist and those other sites have an agenda that they are pushing and are willing to bend the truth to accomplish their goals. Perhaps you should do some research of your own instead of taking this sort of sensationalist propaganda at face value.

Edit: While looking for sources for all this information, I found a thread on another forum in which someone said something that I think is very important and worth repeating, especially after several advocates of this film have thrown the word 'fact' around;

Good job researching Xaqaria, I went to a few of the websites you listed and must say they are questionable as well. Though this website seems to go in depth regarding what you and I both are clashing a bit on.

If you doubt sources like E. A. Wallis Budge who was a well known translator of Egyptian texts and curator of Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities at the British Museum from 1894 to 1924, David Ulansey, a professor of religion who has had several books and articles published on the subject and translations of original Hindu texts describing the life and death of Krishna then I don't know what to say. Your ability to deny all that opposes what you want to believe is beyond the scope of my understanding.