Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Topics > Science, Math, and Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old 11-20-2007, 06:48 PM
Splendour Splendour is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 650
Default Re: Zeitgeist part I - \"The Greatest Story Ever Told\" (Christianity,et

[ QUOTE ]
So, why does Zeitgeist try to invalidate Christianity in Part I and then try to validate all of its prophecies in Part IV?

I want you non-believers to follow me real quick in this. I'm not trying to convert anyone or prove that this actually exists. I just want to bring up a greater question.

It's ridiculous in this. It divides the world down into ten supranational governmental entities like the European Union and then brings about a one-world government.

This is an exact plagirism of the the prophecies of Daniel:

From Daniel 7:

[ QUOTE ]
23 "He gave me this explanation: 'The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it. 24 The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings. 25 He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time. [a]

26 " 'But the court will sit, and his power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever. 27 Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be handed over to the saints, the people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.'

28 "This is the end of the matter. I, Daniel, was deeply troubled by my thoughts, and my face turned pale, but I kept the matter to myself."

[/ QUOTE ]

Further, this is Revelation 17:12

[ QUOTE ]
12"The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly, the Bible is stating that ten kingdoms will be formed and those ten will be only short-lived before the power is given to the beast (the Antichrist), the leader of the world government. Further, the AC comes as a prince of peace that is actually a prince of terror.

Zeitgeist covers "the plan" exactly in this manner.

Further, the film moves into the chip implant required to participate in the one-world economy.


Here we go again, in Revelation 13:

[ QUOTE ]
11Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon. 12He exercised all the authority of the first beast on his behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. 13And he performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men. 14Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the first beast, he deceived the inhabitants of the earth. He ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. 15He was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that it could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. 16He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, 17so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.

18This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666.

[/ QUOTE ]

The text is originally Greek and it was written by John on the isle of Patmos. The Greek word used for "mark" actually means "in". Further, the new "branding name" for the Verichip....what else but the X-Mark. Creepy.

OK, these are just two prophecies, but almost everything in the movie either is periphery to or an exact match for a Biblical prophecy. (Feel free to name one of your choosing ).


Alright, so here's the hypothetical question:

If we are to take Neilso and Zeitgeist at face value in Part IV, then Chrisitianity is either a 2,000+ year old fraud that was meant to be a control mechanism with "an out" for population control/reduction at a time when it might be needed (say when certain elites think the planet's getting overpopulated) OR Christianity is true and the elite money is used to finance work that undermines the faith of many.

The worst part of Zeitgeist is that it's primary thesis is not even put together by the end of the film. The producer
completely ignored this and did not bother to tell us why all of the prophecies in the film mirrored the Bible almost exactly. The is one huge thing to overlook in a film that attempts to undermine Christianity and then seemingly attempts to verify it. The producers don't tell us much about what the end game or the motive is for these supposed "elites."

If you're going to believe in the Zeitgeist conspiracy, then you have to put all the chips on the table and play a cosmic guessing game...where the wrong choice will either cost you your life or your soul. (If a Christian chooses wrong, he dies...if an atheist chooses wrong, he gets hell.) If the atheist was right, the Christian would be pissed (but he won't exist to know it) and if the Christian is right, then the atheist is going to have forever to dwell on that mistake).

I'm not telling anyone to believe this, FWIW. I think the film is interesting to watch, but it's got more than a few issues with it...(JFK speech is a totally out of context, BTW).

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to agree with your summation of Pascal's Wager Mempho.

A couple of days ago I came across this link along with a few others. I hope people can peruse this with an open mind because it is such a serious coincidence that some may want to watch it.

http://www.tedmontgomery.com/bblovrv...mes/index.html

Be sure to click on these sublinks in particular:
European Neighborhood Policy
Javier Solana
Islam
Action Plan
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 11-21-2007, 02:42 AM
soon2bepro soon2bepro is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,275
Default Re: Zeitgeist part I - \"The Greatest Story Ever Told\" (Christianity,et

[ QUOTE ]
The movie is some worthless crap put together by someone who doesn't care for facts or references. Most of his claims have no basis in fact. There are no third party sources that make the movie notable. Just because something has received a medium amount of views on the internet doesn't make it notable for an encyclopedia entry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it does. I encourage you to click the "random article" in wikipedia a few times, and see all the junk you find that has an article on it. I think it's ok, so long as the article is properly written and what it says is true.

These are my first 3 tries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_L._Miles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Orb..._Greatest_Hits
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CJBR-FM
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 11-21-2007, 05:55 AM
Phil153 Phil153 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,905
Default Re: Zeitgeist part I - \"The Greatest Story Ever Told\" (Christianity,et

[ QUOTE ]
Internet phenomena should certainly be documented in Wikipedia. The question of whether Zeitgeist is credible has no more relevance than the question of whether William Hung (or even Britney Spears) can sing.

[/ QUOTE ]
The criteria for notability, for better or worse, is a mention in the press, books, airing on television, etc. They do this to set some guidelines to keep the mountains of random, unnoteworthy internet crap and bios of random people from clogging the encyclopedia.

All of the phenomena you listed meet the notability criteria, having been reported in the media. They are also far more famous on the internet, to the point of becoming household names.

Anyway, the point I'm making is that this isn't some conspiracy, it's standard wikipedia policy that has nothing to do with this movie. I agree the stupidity of the movie is irrelevant to its inclusion.

BTW, it's kind of dismaying to see atheists take this [censored] seriously. If you don't care about the fact that the author's main assertions have no basis in fact and are unsourced, then you're no better than some brain dead fundamentalist. The veracity of his theory depends entirely on the credibility of the factual claims he's making. You can't just take the conclusions and say "yeah, that fits with my ideology, who cares if the main details are off".
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.