Thread: Do you see a pattern here?

Yup...now your getting it.

btw, the information is from the website www.zeitgeistmovie.com They made a documentary/movie in which you can watch online for free.

thats a crazy documentary indeed... its all based on facts, and how truhly humanity is manipulated by the elites.. thumbs up!

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 O'nus

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...?
~

It would seem that your appraisal as a whole is absolutely right on target.

However, it would also seem that most of the religions fielding a major role in the world today are subtly "piggybacking" common teachings that really have nothing to do with those religions as they have so perhaps evolved.

Religion is a phenomenon that seems focused entirely in duality, yet laced within its fabric are teachings of Non-duality, something that is as completely foriegn to religion itself.

Just from observing the relationship it would seem as though religion grew out of the "thread" of Non-Duality, then weaved itself around it, over it and through it, almost completely obscuring Non Dualities presence within its own fabric.

Just an observation.

The question arises as to which is more likely, the human mind creating religion out of nothing, or rather the human mind creating religion over the top of something that already existed?

You guys gotta remember that the movie is based on Theories and not actual fact although things seems very obvious it's all true because they made it all fit in so perfectly it persuaded a lot of people including me and what I thought about religion (agnostic here) but I still don't assume that it's all true.

Research for yourself is the answer.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

It would seem that your appraisal as a whole is absolutely right on target.

However, it would also seem that most of the religions fielding a major role in the world today are subtly "piggybacking" common teachings that really have nothing to do with those religions as they have so perhaps evolved.

Religion is a phenomenon that seems focused entirely in duality, yet laced within its fabric are teachings of Non-duality, something that is as completely foriegn to religion itself.

Just from observing the relationship it would seem as though religion grew out of the "thread" of Non-Duality, then weaved itself around it, over it and through it, almost completely obscuring Non Dualities presence within its own fabric.

Just an observation.

The question arises as to which is more likely, the human mind creating religion out of nothing, or rather the human mind creating religion over the top of something that already existed?

I am not sure if you already have, but I am really interested in reading you postulate your theories of non-duality.

Originally Posted by Fale55

You guys gotta remember that the movie is based on Theories and not actual fact although things seems very obvious it's all true because they made it all fit in so perfectly it persuaded a lot of people including me and what I thought about religion (agnostic here) but I still don't assume that it's all true.

What sort of things involved are not factual...?

You see, I have not seen the movie, so I am curious what was involved that did not adhere to facticity.
~

Originally Posted by O'nus

What sort of things involved are not factual...?

You see, I have not seen the movie, so I am curious what was involved that did not adhere to facticity.
~

It would take a long time to explain what was theory and what was fact it's 2 hours long and they have "Evidence" behind their theories that is well put out and to detailed so I would watch the movie and you could see what is theory and what is fact. Since you havn't seen it yet if your super religious I wouldn't watch the first part of the movie.

Originally Posted by Fale55

It would take a long time to explain what was theory and what was fact it's 2 hours long and they have "Evidence" behind their theories that is well put out and to detailed so I would watch the movie and you could see what is theory and what is fact. Since you havn't seen it yet if your super religious I wouldn't watch the first part of the movie.

lol I am not religious at all... so I'll be watching it soon.

However, I was wondering if people are questioning their evidence or their formed hypothesis.
~

Many symbols are shared among religions. They are changed in order to fit the times/culture, but their spiritual value does not diminish. Unfortunately but also inevitably, people use these symbols for their inverted purpose, namely to control others. The perceived external meaning of these symbols diminishes over time as the original internal meaning is forgotten. Instead of treating the symbols as a way to internal truth, people started mistaking them for the truth itself. The rites of the ancients have lost all meaning and are followed blindly today. No wonder there are so many who doubt religion today, for it has lost all spiritual meaning. Doubting religion in the modern world is a smart and cautious thing to do, but those who do so should not take it at face value. Religious symbols may meaning something quite different than what most people think. The only way to 'know' their meaning is to take them back to the source within yourself.

Originally Posted by syzygy

Many symbols are shared among religions. They are changed in order to fit the times/culture, but their spiritual value does not diminish. Unfortunately but also inevitably, people use these symbols for their inverted purpose, namely to control others. The perceived external meaning of these symbols diminishes over time as the original internal meaning is forgotten. Instead of treating the symbols as a way to internal truth, people started mistaking them for the truth itself. The rites of the ancients have lost all meaning and are followed blindly today. No wonder there are so many who doubt religion today, for it has lost all spiritual meaning. Doubting religion in the modern world is a smart and cautious thing to do, but those who do so should not take it at face value. Religious symbols may meaning something quite different than what most people think. The only way to 'know' their meaning is to take them back to the source within yourself.

Well said.

I am more inclined to think that if all humans conceived of the same religious archetypes, then there is a higher chance that these religious archetypes were human conceived. This is because the next step would be that they are archetypes because they are integral to our "spirit" and "soul" and then we would also have to say the samething about every other human emotion.
~

Originally Posted by Jeff777

I assure you, the information above is factual.

Then provide sources other than Zeitgeist, please.

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 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.