B
Birdstrike
Guest
Do you care to seriously talk about it? If so, what was your favorite part?
- Status
B
Blade_and_Blood
Guest
Oh! Is this question for me?
I loved the whole zodiac/astrology part. It makes me feel as if all human beings really are one… we just don’t acknowledge it yet.
B
Birdstrike
Guest
Regarding being “all one”, various religions have theories on this. Buddhism teaches this overtly, and Christianity teaches being “one in Christ” (one could say that this only works when people are acting “Christlike”, i.e., morally).
But without a God, there simply isn’t any reason to act morally, because there aren’t any morals. History also shows that man has a capability to be extremely violent and cruel, and evolutionary theory supports violence as a necessity as well.
So how does the Zeitgeist film’s call for the abolition of organized religion square with all of us “becoming one”? Indeed, it calls for population control, doesn’t it?!
But without a God, there simply isn’t any reason to act morally, because there aren’t any morals. History also shows that man has a capability to be extremely violent and cruel, and evolutionary theory supports violence as a necessity as well.
So how does the Zeitgeist film’s call for the abolition of organized religion square with all of us “becoming one”? Indeed, it calls for population control, doesn’t it?!
B
Blade_and_Blood
Guest
Well, of course, we have our special differences. The point I tried to make (but obviously failed to make it) was, technically, we have our one origin-- although there are fine lines that define specific religions, there are key similarities that brings together.
“Christlike”? Dude, let’s be honest: As you say, man is capable of violent and cruel acts. I have a distinct feeling that the first and last known Christian died on the cross.
Zeitgeist does not call for abolition of organized religion. It calls for educating the irrevelent beliefs out. Religion, in general, is not irrelevant; it’s something that should definitely be acknowledged as, in my opinion, a jewel of our history. It’s just that some of the vague characteristics or teachings within it are irrelevant for our time especially; those things can be debunked by knowledge.
B
Birdstrike
Guest
You say “let’s be honest”, and call for knowledge to debunk error.
So then why don’t you level with us regarding the Zeitgeist film? It is a vicious attack on “religion” - by name - which concocts a vast number of lies (the “similarities”, the “astrology” stuff, etc.) to attack Christianity (Islam is ignored for some reason). Even the producer says that the film “should not be taken as truth…”
You mention that “it makes me feel” a certain way. I don’t know how old you are, but the manipulation of “feelings” are certainly what raw propaganda like the Zeitgeist film are supposed to do. People have no knowledge of the past today, and seem to have lost the ability to critically evaluate propaganda when they see it.
Perhaps on some level, you know that the film is B.S., but you choose to believe it anyway, as it “feels good”, and allows you to construct your own “morality” (which allows you to do whatever you want).
So then why don’t you level with us regarding the Zeitgeist film? It is a vicious attack on “religion” - by name - which concocts a vast number of lies (the “similarities”, the “astrology” stuff, etc.) to attack Christianity (Islam is ignored for some reason). Even the producer says that the film “should not be taken as truth…”
You mention that “it makes me feel” a certain way. I don’t know how old you are, but the manipulation of “feelings” are certainly what raw propaganda like the Zeitgeist film are supposed to do. People have no knowledge of the past today, and seem to have lost the ability to critically evaluate propaganda when they see it.
Perhaps on some level, you know that the film is B.S., but you choose to believe it anyway, as it “feels good”, and allows you to construct your own “morality” (which allows you to do whatever you want).
B
Birdstrike
Guest
Blade:
Do forgive me if I’m overly harsh - I spent much time on a YouTube thread, dealing with atheists and other fans of the film, some of them “shills” directly associate with the making of the film. Checking on your profile tells me that you’re not a hard-boiled anti-Christian here!
The Zeitgeist movie is “brilliant”, and very entertaining. Yes, it even contains many truths that I’ve been watching for some time, particularly in the New World Order part. Yes, the North American Union stuff is true also, and the Federal Reserve part has much truth in it. But the “Religion” part is way, way false - that’s just a fact. If you need info debunking it, let me know.
Benjamin Franklin said once that a half-truth is “often the greater lie”. That’s what makes this film so dangerous.
Do forgive me if I’m overly harsh - I spent much time on a YouTube thread, dealing with atheists and other fans of the film, some of them “shills” directly associate with the making of the film. Checking on your profile tells me that you’re not a hard-boiled anti-Christian here!
The Zeitgeist movie is “brilliant”, and very entertaining. Yes, it even contains many truths that I’ve been watching for some time, particularly in the New World Order part. Yes, the North American Union stuff is true also, and the Federal Reserve part has much truth in it. But the “Religion” part is way, way false - that’s just a fact. If you need info debunking it, let me know.
Benjamin Franklin said once that a half-truth is “often the greater lie”. That’s what makes this film so dangerous.
B
Blade_and_Blood
Guest
Ha! Yeah, YouTube commenters are mean like that. I’ve had to deal with much worse on the comments for my drum videos.
Anyways, I definitely take the Astrology into consideration; I’m sure they’re off on the religion part, but I’ve always felt that you just couldn’t compete with Astrology. It’s too… “out there” and older than time itself (figuratively speaking).
So I don’t see it as completely false- more like a theory… an “untestable” theory.
B
Birdstrike
Guest
Blade:
Well, there’s no question that Christianity DID supplant pagan traditions - Dec. 25 clearly was a pagan holiday, until it was Christianized. But unlike the Zeitgeist thing claims, this had never been a secret, and the Church has a long history of Christianizing pagan things. The wedding ring and the Christmas tree are other examples!
But astrology has been pretty much debunked as far as I have heard. Besides, the Zeitgeist film is interested in attacking Christianity rather than promoting astrology.
Regarding the Catholic Faith, educator/catechist Luigi Giussani has some advice for young people: See it as a “working hypothesis”. The Catholic Faith, in an utterly scientific way, can be seen as a working hypothesis, which answers the very biggest and most important questions of all - namely: “Do humans have any inalienable rights or dignity? Is there any such thing as Love, Justice, Meaning, Morality, etc.? What do these concepts mean?”, etc.
After 40 years searching practically everywhere else, I “came home” to the Catholic Faith about 2 1/2 years ago. I can tell you that as silly as the Church might look from the outside, you’ll truly have a hard time finding a more reasonable hypothesis for these questions if you study what the Church really teaches.
Compare it with anything else - Atheism, Eastern spirituality, New Age philosophy, Protestantism, etc. - I truly think that the Catholic “hypothesis” is the most reasonable!
Well, there’s no question that Christianity DID supplant pagan traditions - Dec. 25 clearly was a pagan holiday, until it was Christianized. But unlike the Zeitgeist thing claims, this had never been a secret, and the Church has a long history of Christianizing pagan things. The wedding ring and the Christmas tree are other examples!
But astrology has been pretty much debunked as far as I have heard. Besides, the Zeitgeist film is interested in attacking Christianity rather than promoting astrology.
Regarding the Catholic Faith, educator/catechist Luigi Giussani has some advice for young people: See it as a “working hypothesis”. The Catholic Faith, in an utterly scientific way, can be seen as a working hypothesis, which answers the very biggest and most important questions of all - namely: “Do humans have any inalienable rights or dignity? Is there any such thing as Love, Justice, Meaning, Morality, etc.? What do these concepts mean?”, etc.
After 40 years searching practically everywhere else, I “came home” to the Catholic Faith about 2 1/2 years ago. I can tell you that as silly as the Church might look from the outside, you’ll truly have a hard time finding a more reasonable hypothesis for these questions if you study what the Church really teaches.
Compare it with anything else - Atheism, Eastern spirituality, New Age philosophy, Protestantism, etc. - I truly think that the Catholic “hypothesis” is the most reasonable!
B
Blade_and_Blood
Guest
Definitely. But I think I can see why Zeitgeist would attack all denominations of Christianity; it’s gone a little out of hand with the whole LDS Church and “God Hates Fags” signs and all those other scandals and such. It just makes us look bad.
As for those questions that can be answered by the Catholic Faith-- well, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist w/out Catholicism to really experience those feelings. People fall in love, people feel guilty, people learn their lessons, etc, regardless of religion. It just depends on the person, I think.
B
boilerup
Guest
Hi, everyone,
I didn’t feel like going through all twelve pages of comments, so if this has already been posted, I apologize. This is a link to a video that refutes the claims of Zeitgeist, which were generally entirely made up or clear misrepresentations of facts.
youtube.com/watch?v=juKFSlQWojs
I encourage anyone struggling with personal belief or with harassment by non-Christians on account of “Zeitgest” to watch this video!
I didn’t feel like going through all twelve pages of comments, so if this has already been posted, I apologize. This is a link to a video that refutes the claims of Zeitgeist, which were generally entirely made up or clear misrepresentations of facts.
youtube.com/watch?v=juKFSlQWojs
I encourage anyone struggling with personal belief or with harassment by non-Christians on account of “Zeitgest” to watch this video!
B
Birdstrike
Guest
It hasn’t been posted before. Thank you!
D
DashMN
Guest
Of the variations refutations of Zeitgeist out there, I have seen none that have truly addressed the issue of the quote from Justin Martyr, wherein he states, “And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.”
Let me start with a link to Justin Martyr’s First Apology from the Catholic Encyclopedia. The First Apology is more or less a plea with the powers-that-be to cease the persecution of Christians, and arguments as to why they should do so. The overall writing is quite lengthy, in the interest of saving you time, the sections relevant to this discussion can be found in chapters 20-24 and chapter 55.
It may help if you also read my introduction from the Meet and Greet thread #44 so that you understand my intentions. I am only interested in the truth, whether that supports the Catholic position, the atheist position, or some other position altogether.
Now then, as to the quote of Justin. There is another quote that is not commonly stated, even by the apologists. At the beginning of chapter 55 Justin says, “But in no instance, not even in any of those called sons of Jupiter, did they imitate the being crucified; for it was not understood by them, all the things said of it having been put symbolically.”
Justin says this after having claimed that the Greek and Roman gods were borrowed from earlier writings, but that they did not produce an exact replica of Christ; more on that later. Despite that later statement, Justin first goes to great lengths to convince the emporer that Christianity is really not all that different from any of the other religions of the day. The quote used in Zeitgeist, is at the beginning of chapter 21. Here are a few other relevant quotes…
Chapter 20
“…on some points we teach the same things as the poets and philosophers whom you honour, and on other points are fuller and more divine in our teaching…”
This one is particularly interesting to me, because, while Justin does not say as much, it certainly could be considered an implication that the early church fathers merely took the existing religions, and built on them from there.
“For while we say that all things have been produced and arranged into a world by God, we shall seem to utter the doctrine of Plato; and while we say that there will be a burning up of all, we shall seem to utter the doctrine of the Stoics: and while we affirm that the souls of the wicked, being endowed with sensation even after death, are punished, and that those of the good being delivered from punishment spend a blessed existence, we shall seem to say the same things as the poets and philosophers; and while we maintain that men ought not to worship the works of their hands, we say the very things which have been said by the comic poet Menander, and other similar writers, for they have declared that the workman is greater than the work.”
Justin is making a strong case that their beliefs closely parallel the beliefs of the other religions of the day, and he continues in chapter 21.
Chapter 21 (I won’t duplicate the quote from Zeitgeist here, but it came from chapter 21)
“For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; Æsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Cæsar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre?”
Chapter 22
“And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. But if any one objects that He was crucified, in this also He is on a par with those reputed sons of Jupiter of yours, who suffered as we have now enumerated. For their sufferings at death are recorded to have been not all alike, but diverse; so that not even by the peculiarity of His sufferings does He seem to be inferior to them…”
Notice that Justin acknowledges the differences in the stories. He is basically arguing that, while the stories are not identical, the similarities are too compelling to get hung up on subtle differences in the particulars of the story. See that’s the thing I don’t get when people claim they’ve debunked Zeitgeist. They point out things like, “Horus wasn’t born of a virgin” and claim that they’ve debunked it, but even if they’re right, that doesn’t change the fact that Horus was born of a miracle birth. Do the stories need to be identical in order to acknowledge the similarities? Justin Martyr doesn’t seem to think so.
Where the whole thing gets really interesting is that Justin Martyr spends most of Chapters 25-54 arguing that the Christ story was foretold by the prophets and that the pagan religions borrowed from those writings to conjure their gods. The majority of his argument is that since the Jewish writings pre-date many of the Greek and Roman gods, therefore, they must have borrowed it from Judeo-Christian scripture. And he does so despite the stories not being identical, but rather, “only” having similarities. Yet when Zeitgeist claims that the Egyptian religion bears many similarities to Christianity, and pre-dates it, the claim is called ridiculous and is “refuted” by pointing out that the stories are not identical. You can’t have it both ways, either Justin Martyr’s approach is just as ridiculous as Zeitgeist’s, or Zeitgeist’s approach is just as valid as Justin’s.
I’m not here to insult anyone, or offend anyone. I am only interested in hearing both sides of the story, and to examine each with a critical eye. As to what bearing Justin’s writings have on the Zeitgeist question, I guess that is up to each of us to decide for ourselves.
Let me start with a link to Justin Martyr’s First Apology from the Catholic Encyclopedia. The First Apology is more or less a plea with the powers-that-be to cease the persecution of Christians, and arguments as to why they should do so. The overall writing is quite lengthy, in the interest of saving you time, the sections relevant to this discussion can be found in chapters 20-24 and chapter 55.
It may help if you also read my introduction from the Meet and Greet thread #44 so that you understand my intentions. I am only interested in the truth, whether that supports the Catholic position, the atheist position, or some other position altogether.
Now then, as to the quote of Justin. There is another quote that is not commonly stated, even by the apologists. At the beginning of chapter 55 Justin says, “But in no instance, not even in any of those called sons of Jupiter, did they imitate the being crucified; for it was not understood by them, all the things said of it having been put symbolically.”
Justin says this after having claimed that the Greek and Roman gods were borrowed from earlier writings, but that they did not produce an exact replica of Christ; more on that later. Despite that later statement, Justin first goes to great lengths to convince the emporer that Christianity is really not all that different from any of the other religions of the day. The quote used in Zeitgeist, is at the beginning of chapter 21. Here are a few other relevant quotes…
Chapter 20
“…on some points we teach the same things as the poets and philosophers whom you honour, and on other points are fuller and more divine in our teaching…”
This one is particularly interesting to me, because, while Justin does not say as much, it certainly could be considered an implication that the early church fathers merely took the existing religions, and built on them from there.
“For while we say that all things have been produced and arranged into a world by God, we shall seem to utter the doctrine of Plato; and while we say that there will be a burning up of all, we shall seem to utter the doctrine of the Stoics: and while we affirm that the souls of the wicked, being endowed with sensation even after death, are punished, and that those of the good being delivered from punishment spend a blessed existence, we shall seem to say the same things as the poets and philosophers; and while we maintain that men ought not to worship the works of their hands, we say the very things which have been said by the comic poet Menander, and other similar writers, for they have declared that the workman is greater than the work.”
Justin is making a strong case that their beliefs closely parallel the beliefs of the other religions of the day, and he continues in chapter 21.
Chapter 21 (I won’t duplicate the quote from Zeitgeist here, but it came from chapter 21)
“For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; Æsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Cæsar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre?”
Chapter 22
“And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. But if any one objects that He was crucified, in this also He is on a par with those reputed sons of Jupiter of yours, who suffered as we have now enumerated. For their sufferings at death are recorded to have been not all alike, but diverse; so that not even by the peculiarity of His sufferings does He seem to be inferior to them…”
Notice that Justin acknowledges the differences in the stories. He is basically arguing that, while the stories are not identical, the similarities are too compelling to get hung up on subtle differences in the particulars of the story. See that’s the thing I don’t get when people claim they’ve debunked Zeitgeist. They point out things like, “Horus wasn’t born of a virgin” and claim that they’ve debunked it, but even if they’re right, that doesn’t change the fact that Horus was born of a miracle birth. Do the stories need to be identical in order to acknowledge the similarities? Justin Martyr doesn’t seem to think so.
Where the whole thing gets really interesting is that Justin Martyr spends most of Chapters 25-54 arguing that the Christ story was foretold by the prophets and that the pagan religions borrowed from those writings to conjure their gods. The majority of his argument is that since the Jewish writings pre-date many of the Greek and Roman gods, therefore, they must have borrowed it from Judeo-Christian scripture. And he does so despite the stories not being identical, but rather, “only” having similarities. Yet when Zeitgeist claims that the Egyptian religion bears many similarities to Christianity, and pre-dates it, the claim is called ridiculous and is “refuted” by pointing out that the stories are not identical. You can’t have it both ways, either Justin Martyr’s approach is just as ridiculous as Zeitgeist’s, or Zeitgeist’s approach is just as valid as Justin’s.
I’m not here to insult anyone, or offend anyone. I am only interested in hearing both sides of the story, and to examine each with a critical eye. As to what bearing Justin’s writings have on the Zeitgeist question, I guess that is up to each of us to decide for ourselves.
B
Birdstrike
Guest
Thank you, Dash.
As you say, Justin mentions Jupiter because he is attempting to show that the belief in a “man/God” dying and being raised from the dead is no crazier than what they believe. But he is NOT saying that the beliefs are the same, as Zeitgeist implies.
Zeitgeist is masterful propaganda - NOT truth.
As you say, Justin mentions Jupiter because he is attempting to show that the belief in a “man/God” dying and being raised from the dead is no crazier than what they believe. But he is NOT saying that the beliefs are the same, as Zeitgeist implies.
Zeitgeist is masterful propaganda - NOT truth.
D
DashMN
Guest
Yes, Justin is demonstrating that the stories are similiar, and not identical. I’m glad to clarify that matter. However, a further reading of Justin reveals that in chapters 25-54 he argues that the Greek and Roman gods were borrowed from earlier writings containing prophecy as to the coming of the Christ. So, what he is saying is that they took the stories, misunderstood them and/or changed them a little bit, and created their gods. So why is his claim that the Greeks and Romans borrowed from scriptural prophecy any different than Zeitgeist’s claim that Christians borrowed from the Egyptian religion?
You’ve taken what I wrote and focused only on those parts that support your case, while choosing to ignore the rest. As I’ve said, I’m interested in the truth, all of it, not just those parts of it that are most convenient to me or anyone else. Tell me why Justin’s reasoning was sound when he claims that Greek and Roman gods were borrowed from the earlier scriptural writings, but Zeitgeist’s reasoning is invalid when claiming that Christians borrowed from earlier Egyptian beliefs. Either Justin, like Zeitgeist, is writing masterful propaganda, or Zeitgeist, like Justin, is making a valid case. You can’t have it both ways. So the question remains, which is it? You feel that Zeitgeist is masterful propaganda, so am I to assume that you believe that the writings of an early church father are masterful propaganda?
J
johngh
Guest
It took me less than 10 minutes to realize that movie was full of horse poo so I stopped watching it. I have way better things to do with my time.
D
DashMN
Guest
I just watched the first 10 minutes of the movie again. Somewhere right around the 10 minute point of the movie is a man claiming that the religious institutions have engaged in deception. If you are unwilling to abide someone making such claims, I really can’t fault you that.
But, in the first 10 minutes of the movie, there are only opinions expressed, and no presentation of what the movie purports to be facts. Essentially then, you dismissed the movie without viewing one second of what they claim to be facts. I’m only trying to be fair here, but in fairness, you are only in a position to be able to state that it is your opinion that the opinions expressed in the first 10 minutes of the movie are “horse poo”, and you are not in a position to be able to discuss the accuracy, or inaccuracy, of any of the purported factual information presented in the movie.
B
Birdstrike
Guest
Dash,
I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at. We all know that Zeitgeist is “propaganda”; even the producer has said that it “shouldn’t be taken as truth. . .”. One cannot play scholar by referencing adolescent-grade stuff like Zeitgeist.
Finding a grain of truth in the movie doesn’t wash it clean. As Benjamin Franklin once said, “A half-truth is often the greater lie.”
I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at. We all know that Zeitgeist is “propaganda”; even the producer has said that it “shouldn’t be taken as truth. . .”. One cannot play scholar by referencing adolescent-grade stuff like Zeitgeist.
Finding a grain of truth in the movie doesn’t wash it clean. As Benjamin Franklin once said, “A half-truth is often the greater lie.”
D
DashMN
Guest
Birdstrike,
You are avoiding the question, but alas, I will address your concerns. The above quote is taken from post #3 in this thread. The link no longer leads to the Statement page for the original movie, it leads to a statement that addresses both the first and second movies. However, I was able to locate an internet archive with the original statement for the first movie. I’ll paste the text here for your convenience, but you can follow the link to verify the authenticity.
The bolded portions are my highlights. Upon reading the full quote, you can clearly see that he is stating that you should not just blindly accept things from the movie, but rather you should research them yourself. That is the point of stating, “…it is my hope that people will not take what is said in the film as the truth, but find out for themselves…” He’s basically saying, “here’s some information for you to consider, now go research it yourself and see what you find.”
With apologies to the poster quoted above, the truncated version of the statement that was presented, is a mischaracterization of what was actually being stated.
Name-calling like, “adolescent grade” does not dismiss anything that I’ve stated. I suppose I could state that it was an “adolescent grade” attempt to change the subject, but I won’t, because I am operating under the assumption that you wouldn’t even engage in this conversation if you held your beliefs out of intellectual laziness. I respect that you have what you consider valid reasons to believe what you believe, I simply want to hear your reasons, and I ask only for the same level of respect.
Now then, having addressed your concerns, are you willing to address mine?
As a reminder, the question to you was, why is Justin Martyr’s claim that the Greek and Roman gods were borrowed from earlier scripture any different from Zeitgeist’s claim that Christianity was borrowed from earlier Egyptian beliefs? Can you, in fairness, call Zeitgeist masterful propaganda, without also calling Justin Martyr’s writings masterful propaganda, considering that each uses nearly identical methods? And as long as I’m thinking of it, should we also consider the writings of Justin Martyr, “adolescent grade”? Frankly, I don’t think Martyr’s writings are adolescent grade, but your characterization of Zeitgeist’s similar methods would seem to suggest otherwise.
D
DashMN
Guest
As a follow-up to the above, I acknowledge that some here might misunderstand my intentions. So allow me to clarify a few points.
First, it is my belief that the current pope has a greater devotion to truth than the early church fathers did. Hate me or ban me for that statement if you must, but it stems in part from a great respect for the current pontiff, regardless of my religious convictions, or the lack thereof. Benedict XVI has shown a deep intellectual desire to maintain the validity of the Catholic faith in light of scientific advancements that continue to raise questions. That can be particularly illustrated in his address to the University of Regensburg, wherein he basically calls for a sort of reconciliation between theology and science. For anyone who hasn’t read it, I would strongly encourage you to do so, it is a brilliant piece. Benedict seeks a synthesis between faith and reason, and in his Regensburg speech, he boldly demonstrates his belief that his faith is not irreconcilable with science. He further demonstrates that belief in having called the battle between creationism and evolution, “an absurdity”. Benedict, unlike Protestant fundamentalists, believes that creation is not irreconcilable with science. Which he demonstrates in the following quote:
Benedict sets a wonderful example for all Christians, Catholics in particular, not to run from science, and not to shy away from scientific examination.
Now, having said all that, Zeitgeist, and other ideas like it, are a rising tide that are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. Zeitgeist is not alone in its claims, there are many others making similar assertions. You cannot dismiss all of them as “adolescent grade”, and I highly doubt that Benedict would. In fact, if you read the Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, as presented by the Pontifical Biblical Commission on March 18, 1994, you will find that, while the Biblical Commission addresses what they consider limitations of critical methods of evaluating the Bible, they also acknowledge that it forces discussion on the matter, leading in some instances to a fuller understanding of the truth. In particular, if you read section I. subsection F, you will also find that the Biblical Commission recognizes the human limitations to the Bible and that “the inspired word of God has been expressed in human language and that this word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources.” You might also note that the preface to that document was signed by a fellow by the name of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Perhaps you’ve heard of him.
The point? While there is no doubt that the Vatican will never be 100% in agreement with the ideas put forth in Zeitgeist, Benedict is far too intelligent to dismiss out of hand the rising tide of comparative religion studies and the implications derived therefrom.
Now then, Birdstrike, or any other interested parties, shall we continue with the particular topic of this thread, specifically my questions regarding Justin Martyr’s writings, or would you prefer to take turns hurling insults?
First, it is my belief that the current pope has a greater devotion to truth than the early church fathers did. Hate me or ban me for that statement if you must, but it stems in part from a great respect for the current pontiff, regardless of my religious convictions, or the lack thereof. Benedict XVI has shown a deep intellectual desire to maintain the validity of the Catholic faith in light of scientific advancements that continue to raise questions. That can be particularly illustrated in his address to the University of Regensburg, wherein he basically calls for a sort of reconciliation between theology and science. For anyone who hasn’t read it, I would strongly encourage you to do so, it is a brilliant piece. Benedict seeks a synthesis between faith and reason, and in his Regensburg speech, he boldly demonstrates his belief that his faith is not irreconcilable with science. He further demonstrates that belief in having called the battle between creationism and evolution, “an absurdity”. Benedict, unlike Protestant fundamentalists, believes that creation is not irreconcilable with science. Which he demonstrates in the following quote:
At the moment, I don’t have a link for that quote, but I can certainly find it if it is considered necessary.
Benedict sets a wonderful example for all Christians, Catholics in particular, not to run from science, and not to shy away from scientific examination.
Now, having said all that, Zeitgeist, and other ideas like it, are a rising tide that are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. Zeitgeist is not alone in its claims, there are many others making similar assertions. You cannot dismiss all of them as “adolescent grade”, and I highly doubt that Benedict would. In fact, if you read the Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, as presented by the Pontifical Biblical Commission on March 18, 1994, you will find that, while the Biblical Commission addresses what they consider limitations of critical methods of evaluating the Bible, they also acknowledge that it forces discussion on the matter, leading in some instances to a fuller understanding of the truth. In particular, if you read section I. subsection F, you will also find that the Biblical Commission recognizes the human limitations to the Bible and that “the inspired word of God has been expressed in human language and that this word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources.” You might also note that the preface to that document was signed by a fellow by the name of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Perhaps you’ve heard of him.
The point? While there is no doubt that the Vatican will never be 100% in agreement with the ideas put forth in Zeitgeist, Benedict is far too intelligent to dismiss out of hand the rising tide of comparative religion studies and the implications derived therefrom.
Now then, Birdstrike, or any other interested parties, shall we continue with the particular topic of this thread, specifically my questions regarding Justin Martyr’s writings, or would you prefer to take turns hurling insults?
D
DashMN
Guest
Okay, well, I realize that my question about Justin Martyr is one that might take some time and research into reading Justin’s writings.
You can refer to the comments about Justin Martyr as a “grain of truth”, but it’s a pretty significant grain. Even if you debunk every last claim in the movie (except that one) you can’t get away from the fact that Martyr acknowledges that Christianity bears striking similarities to the other religions of the day. But let’s try a different question.
Considering the above quote, which points out the known ways in which Christianty has borrowed from pagan traditions, how is one to be assured that those are the only aspects of Christianity that were borrowed from pagan tradition?
See, I don’t get how people can claim to debunk the astrotheology portions of the movie by saying, “well the Bible doesn’t say that Jesus was born on December 25th, so Jesus wasn’t based on astrotheology.” Okay, the Bible doesn’t say that Jesus was born on December 25th, I’ll give you that. But the very fact that Jesus’ purported birth date was changed to December 25th stands as proof that there was some borrowing going on. At that point, it isn’t a matter of whether Christianity borrowed from pagan tradition, it is only a matter of how much.
- Status