Does God exist? (4 Viewers)

[*TRUE*]

Why does the nature of the universe need a creator? Maybe it just exists, by nature as you put it. There's no possible answer other than "because god/the bible says so." Which like I said, becomes circular.

Oh..thats what you meant. Pardonez

 

[chloedanielle89]

First of all, I'll start by saying:
1. I believe there is no God (and attend a Catholic school).
2. I respect and acknowledge whatever you believe in, I hope you'll do the same for me.

I'll accept God as a metaphor for good, not as anything more than that.
If religion gives you security and meaning to your life then that's a good thing, if it justifies killing/harming others (which it can, has and does do so very well) then it isn't.

First of all, watch the first section of this movie (Disturbing image warning, disturbing images in first 9 minutes in the introduction - you can skip that if you like, the good stuff starts at 9-12 minutes): http://zeitgeistmovie.com/main.htm
If you do anything, don't read any of this, just watch that.
Interesting, huh?

As has been asked about 46 times in this thread, why is it that the Universe needs a creator and yet God doesn't? Why can't the universe have always been here?

To the believers, do you think your God (Christian, Jewish, Muslim etc) has precedence over another's? What about over the 100 or so Greek, Roman or Egyptian Gods? Or the Hindu Gods? In my eyes they've got just as much credibility as each other, the Egyptian Gods the most credible considering Egypt having the longest (about 5000 years) history.
Or how about about my new cult, Carrot And Broccoli Worship For Humans, which I invented just now? Is that equal to the monotheistic Semitic-rooted God? All systems of belief have to start somewhere... (On that, I'm looking for some prophets too, come 1000 years nobody will laugh, you'll be credited as writing a very influential book/website - albeit a cookbook considering how I've set this up.)

To paraphrase Peter Fitzsimmons (who was paraphrasing someone else), once you realise why you don't accept Pluto, Horus, Poseidon, The Toothfairy or Santa you will understand why I don't accept your god.

 

[inasero]

ahh zeitgeist...a well presented and seemingly believable documentary, but i'm afraid it's wrong when it comes to christianity...after having done some basic research, i found that many of the claims the "documentary" are outright lies (e.g. Horus was never resurrected) and take bible verses out of context (e.g. the Bible doesn't say there were three magi, or that Jesus' birthday was on the 25th of December.)

The “zeitgeist movie,” which is available for viewing on the Web – http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com, is essentially a baseless conspiracy theory focused on attacking the Christian faith and the government of the United States. What is interesting, though, is that while nearly all the assertions put forth are in the movie are completely wrong, the end fear promoted by the movie is correct and backed by Scripture (depending on one’s view of biblical eschatology).

The purpose of this article is to address the first conspiracy theory (out of four) put forth in the movie—that Jesus is a mythological amalgamation of various pagan gods and deities invented by the Egyptians and other cultures. Time will not be spent addressing the two major claims that follow in the movie—that the U.S. government architected and planned the attacks that occurred on 9/11 (with assertions being made that a pattern of such domestic attacks exists in history) and that there is a major banking conspiracy attempting to control the finances of all U.S. citizens and ultimately, the world. In the end, a comment will be made concerning the last theory—that a one-world government is coming.

The allegations concerning Jesus in the Zeitgeist movie can be summarized as follows: The Jesus proclaimed in the Bible is not a historical person, and in fact He never existed. Instead, Jesus is an invention of the biblical authors who painstakingly copied attributes of ancient pagan deities and created a new god to be worshipped. Jesus mirrors various pagan deities in very exacting ways such as the manner of his birth, life, death, and resurrection.

Further, the movie asserts that astrology is the foundation behind much of the writing in Scripture. The end conclusion is that Christianity is a myth—just as all the pagan religions that came before it—and is therefore untrue. To address these assertions, it is helpful to break them down into three groups:

• The subject of astrology and the Bible.

• The supposed similarities between Jesus and mythological heroes.

• The evidence for the truthfulness of the gospel accounts.

The Zeitgeist movie (from the German meaning “spirit of the age” or literally “time” Zeit “spirit” Geist) claims that the Bible is based on astrology and the stars. Perhaps one of the most telling statements in all the Bible regarding the importance God places on the stars is found in Genesis 1:16b: “He made the stars also.” This simple statement reveals the extent of the importance of the stars’ creation. Some biblical commentators have said this brevity of description is deliberate as God wants to in no way give the stars significance. In truth, rather than giving the stars, sun, and moon any value beyond what they were created for, there are a number of places in Scripture that denounce their worship. Deuteronomy 4:19 says, “And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars—all the heavenly array—do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the LORD your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven.” In fact, Deuteronomy 17:2-5 prescribes a death sentence for anyone found worshipping the creation rather than the Creator.

In Isaiah 47:13 God mockingly asks if the star-gazers can actually protect those who follow them from the real Power of the universe: “All the counsel you have received has only worn you out! Let your astrologers come forward, those stargazers who make predictions month by month, let them save you from what is coming upon you.” So the Zeitgeist movie’s claim that the Bible is based on astrology goes against what is written in the actual Book itself.

In addition to the faulty concept of astrology and the Bible being joined at the hip, the specific statements made in the film about this supposed link disregard historical facts. For example, the movie states that the number 12 in the Bible refers to the 12 zodiacal signs. So the 12 patriarchs, 12 tribes of Israel, 12 disciples of Jesus, are supposed to match the number of the astrological signs. This is out of the realm of possibility as Genesis was written around 1,000 B.C. with the actual events having occurred much earlier. History shows that the division of the stars/constellations into the 12 zodiacal signs did not occur until the Babylonians made the divisions around the fifth century B.C.

The meatier part of the first section of the movie is devoted to allegations of Jesus being nothing but a combination of pagan deities whose attributes the gospel writers borrowed to create their own new god. The main authority used in this portion of the movie, and the first major mythological figure presented as a forerunner of Jesus, is the Egyptian god Horus. If we see that the research on their primary character is flawed, it follows that the same faulty investigation methods/materials will be present in everything else.

The Zeitgeist movie makes these claims about the Egyptian god Horus:

• He was born on December 25th of a virgin (Isis Mary)
• A star in the East proclaimed his arrival

• Three kings came to adore the new-born “savior”
• He became a prodigious teacher at age 12
• At age 30 he was “baptized” and began a “ministry”
• Horus had twelve “disciples”
• Horus was betrayed
• He was crucified
• He was buried for three days
• He was resurrected after three days

If true, this would certainly be unsettling to followers of Christ. However, examining each point in detail is quite revealing. First, it is true that Egyptian legend has Horus being born to Isis. But where did the trailing name of “Mary” that used in the movie come from? No mention in any Egyptian literature links the name Isis to the name Mary. Isis was also not a virgin. No account of Horus’ birth makes this statement. Isis was not a virgin, but the widow of Osiris, another Egyptian god who conceived Horus with Isis. Finally, Horus was supposedly born during the month of Khoiak (Oct/Nov), and not on December 25th, a fact which does not help their claim of marrying the stories of Horus to Jesus anyway because the Bible never assigns a birth date to Christ.

Next, the film states that a star in the East announced his birth and that three kings came to bring gifts to the “savior.” However, when stories detailing the birth of Horus are examined, there is no star or three kings who come to visit him. Trying to link this to Christianity fails in any event as the account of Christ’s birth in Matthew has magi (wise men, not kings) coming to Jesus with their actual number not being stated. Finally, the movie calls Horus a “savior.” There are no descriptions of Horus being a savior to anyone or serving in that capacity.

This is an important point: the movie takes extreme liberty in the quick and subtle uses of Christian words and phrases that in no way accurately describe the actual pagan god or his attributes. This is seen again in the statements made of Horus being “baptized” and starting a “ministry.” The only accounts remotely related to Horus and water are the stories told of Osiris (his father who is sometimes combined in ancient accounts with Horus to form one individual) whose body was cut up into 14 pieces by his enemy, Set, and scattered throughout the earth. Isis supposedly found each part of the body and after having Osiris float in the Nile, he came back to life or became the lord of the underworld, depending on which account is read. In any event, stating that Horus was “baptized” is simply playing fast and loose with Christian terminology.

In addition, Horus had no “ministry.” Horus becoming a teacher at age 12 (mimicking Jesus’ account at the temple as a youth) is nowhere to be found in accounts of Horus; neither are there any statements to the effect that he had 12 “disciples.” According to the Horus accounts, Horus had four semi-gods that were followers and some indications of 16 human followers and an unknown number of blacksmiths that went into battle with him. No accounts of Horus being betrayed are found in his portrayals and he certainly did not die by crucifixion in any account. There is an incident described in one story of Horus being torn to pieces, with Iris requesting that the crocodile god fish him out of the water he was placed into, but the movie does not mention this as it does not fit in with their agenda. Further, the movie puts the account of Horus as originating in 3,000 B.C., which predates the invention and practice of crucifixion, so there is another historical problem that must be overcome.

The claims of Horus being buried for three days and resurrected are not to be found in any ancient Egyptian texts either. Some accounts have Osiris being brought back to life by Isis and going to be the lord of the underworld. But there is no mention of a burial for three days and no mention of his physically coming out of a grave in the same physical body he went in with and never dying again. And there is certainly no account of Horus dying for others as Jesus did.

In the end, the attempt to prove Horus was a picture/forerunner of Jesus simply fails from lack of any historical evidence. The movie continues in this same vein with all the other mythological pagan deities that pre-dated Jesus (Attis, Krishna, etc.) As just another simple example, the Zeitgeist movie says that Hindu’s Krishna was also crucified and resurrected. However, Hindu teachings clearly state that Krishna was killed by an arrow shot from a hunter who accidentally hit him in his heel and after he died, he ascended to be with Brahman. None of the pagan deities, when accurately examined, mirror the Son of God recorded in the New Testament gospels.

Of course, neither does the movie note the following facts:

• The many archaeological details confirming New Testament accounts.

• The historically confirmed references to the details of the life of Christ.

• The early dating of the Gospel accounts during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses.

• The deep moral convictions of the authors and their commitment to truth.

• The accounts of the apostles going to their deaths for what they believed.

• The typology of Joseph and Jesus (used by the film to supposedly debunk the actual existence of Christ) is very well known and accepted by conservative Christian scholars as a foreshadowing of the first coming of Jesus.

• All the good produced by Christianity (see “How Christianity Changed the World” by Dr. Alvin Schmidt), which are brushed aside with only the crusades and other like events being highlighted.

It is interesting to note that the person of Jesus and Christianity is the only faith attacked in the movie – Islam, Hinduism, and others don’t warrant a mention. Though the faith of the producers is not exposed, there is a blurb at the end speaking to the effect that “all is one,” with a clip of noted evolutionist / materialist Carl Sagan saying that the earth is a single organism and that a `new consciousness is developing` that shows all is one. This is paganism, pure and simple.

At the end of the movie, religion is called a distraction engineered by a secret group of people who are using it (along with the media and other mechanisms) to dumb down the population so they will accept with open arms a coming one-world government. This is the one proposition put forth by the movie that is plausible insofar as it is backed by prophetic statements made in both the Old and New Testaments. The books of Daniel, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, and Revelation speak to the ambition of a predicted world ruler who is to come.

It is interesting also that the movie quotes Jesus – someone they say never existed – from John 8:32: “you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free,” although they misquote it and say “you must seek the truth and the truth will set you free.” The producers of the Zeitgeist movie unfortunately do not do this and instead choose to align themselves with very questionable and outright fabricated sources to malign Christianity and label it and all religions as pawns used by a secret organization they claim is currently working to take over the world. One thing is for certain, reaching such a conclusion using faulty materials certainly requires a lot of faith. Much more faith, in fact, than it takes to accept the truth and historical validity of Christianity.

Christians should not be surprised that such unfounded claims are invented in the imaginations of unbelievers and passed along by others as fact, and in reality, they are to be expected. Peter writes in his first epistle, “But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves” (2 Peter 2:1).

 

[inasero]

So you see, the 'good' book contradicts itself a lot, allowing a fundamentalist to easily match it to whatever he's currently arguing, and evade logical consistency completely.

I didn't mean to imply Riet was right when I said "the Bible also says"...actually the Bible never says we're free to sin. Sorry if there was any misunderstanding.

 

[goliwog]

Lastly, where did I say this thread wasn't salvageable? If I didn't think it was salvageable, I wouldn't be posting in it. If you had actually read my posts, you'd see that I'm not reading inasero's posts because they freak me out. I think that discussions do go back and forward, and that noone seems to get wiser, but I'm still happy to discuss things.

I think it is human nature to debate , theres nothing like the challenge of a good debate. But the thing about does God exist is that it can never be universal. I can gather information that convinces me as an individual but i could never gather information that convinces all intelegable people. No-one can. This is an arguement that only an immortal being can solve. But if we knew an immortal being we wouldnt have to solve it would we ???

 

[Enteebee]

I think it is human nature to debate , theres nothing like the challenge of a good debate. But the thing about does God exist is that it can never be universal. I can gather information that convinces me as an individual but i could never gather information that convinces all intelegable people. No-one can. This is an arguement that only an immortal being can solve. But if we knew an immortal being we wouldnt have to solve it would we ???

I disagree that is it an argument that only an immortal being can solve, unless you're proposing that we need absolute knowledge to disprove something, in which case I'd say the question of "red cows in china" or ... well pretty much any question becomes that which "only an immortal being can solve".

 

[bigboyjames]

Atheism is a recently revived phenomena, let it grow and give it some time. The loonies will come out from the atheist as well. The only difference will be that majority of the muslims and christians can be convinced through reasons of their religion. These religions have a basis which can be used reach a same or similar conclusion but for the Atheist nothing of that sort will ever come out.

There is a very strong perception in the world at the moment built mainly on lack of knowledge that Atheism is without it's fair share of blood and cruelty. Maybe a brief history of Enver Hoxa's Albania the first atheist state in history would enlighten the few who think that Atheism leads only to the pacifist version of Humanism.

 

[Enteebee]

Atheism is a recently revived phenomena, let it grow and give it some time. The loonies will come out from the atheist as well. The only difference will be that majority of the muslims and christians can be convinced through reasons of their religion. These religions have a basis which can be used reach a same or similar conclusion but for the Atheist nothing of that sort will ever come out.

There is a very strong perception in the world at the moment built mainly on lack of knowledge that Atheism is without it's fair share of blood and cruelty. Maybe a brief history of Enver Hoxa's Albania the first atheist state in history would enlighten the few who think that Atheism leads only to the pacifist version of Humanism.

The thing is... atheism doesn't imply any sort of political/ethical stance really, just like 'theism' doesn't.

 

[bigboyjames]

The thing is... atheism doesn't imply any sort of political/ethical stance really, just like 'theism' doesn't.

lol

 

[Enteebee]

I always think it's odd when people assume their predjudices to be correct without being able to articulate why they are.

 

[Riet]

I always think it's odd when people assume their predjudices to be correct without being able to articulate why they are.

Lol = "fuck, i can't win."

 

[bigboyjames]

i just cant be fucked with religion at the moment. srsly. its a fucking waste of time debating. you just go around in circles.

 

[bigboyjames]

Lol = "fuck, i can't win."

hahaha

 

[Enteebee]

i just cant be fucked with religion at the moment. srsly. its a fucking waste of time debating. you just go around in circles.

You came in here with some sermon-like rant then when questioned on it "it's a waste of time debating", if you don't think a debate is worthwhile then I think you shouldn't bother laying out your opinions because opinions shielded from critical examination are worthless.

 

[Riet]

I didn't mean to imply Riet was right when I said "the Bible also says"...actually the Bible never says we're free to sin. Sorry if there was any misunderstanding.

I am true to god.

 

[bigboyjames]

http://www.chillistyle.com/obchod/images/FUCK OFF - BU151.jpg

 

[Enteebee]

http://www.chillistyle.com/obchod/images/FUCK OFF - BU151.jpg

yeah nice failure man.

 

[squeenie]

http://www.chillistyle.com/obchod/images/FUCK OFF - BU151.jpg

This isn't the place for personal attacks and insults, you know.

Anyways, back to what everyone was discussing before this idiot came in,

I didn't mean to imply Riet was right when I said "the Bible also says"...actually the Bible never says we're free to sin. Sorry if there was any misunderstanding.

Yeah, but don't you Christians say that we have free will, so then doesn't that mean you're also free to sin?

I've been meaning to mention this for a while, I don't know if anyone else has. Some people say that they use religion as a source of values/ethics/morals or whatever else, but do we really need religion for that? For example, the moral 'value others as you value yourself' did not originate in the Bible, it has been around for hundreds of years before that. It was mentioned in the Tao Te Ching, an ancient Chinese philosophical text:

From Chapter 13 of the Tao Te Ching:

Why respecting trusted subordinate is the same as respecting oneself?
The reason that I have these trusted subordinate is I care about myself.
If I do not care about myself, what trusted subordinate do I have?
So, If [you] can change respecting yourself into respecting the world,
then the world will be able to be reposed in you;
If [you] can change loving yourself into loving the world,
then the world will be able to be reposed in you.

So if we don't need religion for ethics, then what would you need it for? We don't have a lot of proof for God's existence or non-existence, and until we do, I don't think we'd get too far in this debate... But while it may seem like we're going nowhere, I have gotten something out of participating in this thread, and I'm sure a lot of other people have, too.

 

[*TRUE*]

Mmm i dont know Squeenie.
When i meet an full on atheist (im not talking the agnostic who lives as an atheist , im talking firey atheist) who has respect for others despite differing beliefs , then i might think religion-free ethics has a chance at being genuine -until then, full on atheists to me seem intolerant and atheism one of the worst ideologies.
The way so many of them talk... you can imagine them burning Christians at the stake as heretics, lol
History....

 

[inasero]

I am true to god.

do you not suppose that if there was a God, he/she/it would also encourage adherence to right living? why is it that the majority of religious systems teach morals?

if that's the case, how can you possibly claim to be true to God?