Did Christians believes in 3 Gods ??

The Zietgeist has been refuted many times on this forum, not by myself though. I think it is funny that people will base their worldview on a movie with horendous factual errors, and ridicule those who base it on a book with just as little support.

 

I think that's a gross over-simplifcation of something far more interesting, and frankly, the more I hear such statements from those who cite Zeitgeist as a source, the more I kind of do want to see it, just so that I can legitimately criticise it (since one should never criticise anything based on a secondhand account of it, in much the same way that one should neither dismiss nor accept the existence of God based solely on the evidence of one book about him).

 

From the synopsis I read, it's little more than a patchwork of fairly famous conspiracy theories (as in, the type that seem to be able to circulate for decades at a time without becoming any more convincing) and fairly obvious observations about the ironies of religion and faith (applicable all religion and faith, including paganism) that are hardly news, let alone "zeitgeist", given that they're been observed by everyone from Aristophanes to Voltaire to Dave Allen. I don't personally believe in a god, but I'm consistently amazed by what the more reactionary, anti-religious "atheist" is willing to believe.

 

Not I, mate, someone else was talking about that (assuming the Trimurti is the Irish trinity referred to earlier). I'd broadly agree that similarities between two myths should not imply that they are "the same" per se, and certainly do not indicate that one is in any way superior or more authentic than the other.

I really wish I could just post the whole of Mythologiques on these forums, or ideally somehow inject it directly into people's brains in an instant. I just feel it would resolve so many of the petty squabbles that arise over and over again.

 

it's been known for a long time that christianity has pagan origins. it was well known ages before zeitgeist was ever made. doesn;t having statues of saints and christ and mary strike you a bit much as being a form of idolatry?

 

http://www.amazon.com/Pagan-Christs...=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225745790&sr=1-9

 

So presumably you think Paganism is nonsense too, right?

 

no, i think it's just silly to outright deny that christianity is full of pagan influences. but i remember my protestant upbringing well, they always spoke of the father, son and holy ghost in church. but as far as i can tell the congregents considered those three things to be part of a larger whole. that book i posted a link to was first published in 1903 by the way. it's just way too extensively documented for anyone in their right mind to deny that christianity has pagan roots.

 

Ah. I think it is.

Who did that?

Well it's a good job no-one did that then.

All I was saying was that the relationship is a little more complex. Most religions are "cousins" or otherwise interrelated. In the case of Christianity, you'll find that traditionally, pretty much every country celebrated Christmas on different dates. While a solstice/equinox would vary regionally, something like the date of a birth surely would not.

But then, one can argue that, since the exact date of the birth/death of Christ could never really be known, it is hardly surprising that there is no definite date for Christmas. And yes, it is very likely that, when a ballpark date was selected, the Pagan traditions of local areas were a factor in the decision; far easier to get people to adopt your religion if you let them encorporate their own into it.

This is what I suspect; that British/Western European Christianity was modified to increase acceptance by natives. Then, when these countries gained empires that governed at some point the majority of the globe, and when speed of travel and such began to permit accurate timekeeping across large distances, these festivals became somewhat "standardised". Cultural imperialism in action, in other words.

That's my theory, anyway. I don't know whether it's true, but it does explain a lot.

There's other stuff, obviously, that is similar. But I think a lot of that stuff will be similar not just between Christianity and Paganism, but with a wide range of human religions the world over, even those that developed in a "vacuum" of sorts. An explanation for this would be that the symbols of these religions - virgin birth, floods, resurrection, etc. - have powerful psychological links to aspects of human biology, since the human animal is just about the only identifiable constant between these religions.

 

human animal? it's too bad that the abrahamic faiths think humans are above the animals rather than themselves being animals. why do you think paganism is silly?

 

You don't think there's any validity in establishing a hierarchy of animals? Most societies do so. Show me a culture that is truly omnivorous, and I might reconsider the value of "forbidden fruit" in flesh-form.

Because nature very obviously doesn't give a shit whether we live or die and it's foolish to imagine that appeasing or celebrating it with rituals has any effect. Modern pagans might believe that these rituals are not merely petitioning the elements to be nice to us, but then, why would anyone care what they think?

 

If you held up a statue of Christ or an icon of Chrsit and said "this is truly Christ, worship this" then yes it would be idolatry in the mindset of a christian. The statues and more properly icons are there to represent something beyond our immediate understanding. Icons are meant to be a window into the divine. A meditative tool rather then an object of worship. Aslo, it is the person in the image that is revered, not the object itself.

I do not think that Christanity has had pagan origins in itself, but it has beena very flexible religion allowing the influx of practices and rituals from whichever culture it is taken up in. For example, Ukrianian Christians put green foliage in their windows on Zeleni Sviata (Pentacost) to keep the souls of unbaptized babies away. This has origins in pre-Christian east slavic society.

 

Oh sorry. I guess I misread your post in reference to the Trimurti. Going back, I think I understand what you were writing.

By the by, I am interested. Who wrote Mythologiques? I've heard of it before, but have never read it nor have I even looked upon it I think. But again, you have sparked my interest.

 

Claude Lévi-Strauss. Should be more widely recognised really, he's one of the important figures in 20th century thinking, along with Sassure, Althusser and some others. Basically they're people who built upon Marxism, in much the same way that the likes of Lacan built upon Freud. A big contribution Strauss makes is in trying to establish why cultures are the way they are.

One of the things he observes is that many cultures which are completely isolated from one another have similar myths, and very often strikingly similar myths, right down to the most apparently trivial of details. The most logical progression from here seems to be to try and figure out why these similarities exist, by identifying what those cultures have in common.

These biological factors I've mentioned are my own extrapolation (although I'd be surprised if no-one else has ever posited them), but Lévi-Strauss certainly did most of the legwork for 20th century philosophy. Then post-modernism came along and ruined it.

 

Hmm, interesting. I hae an anthology of writings on religion including Otto, eliade, turner, Malinowski, Durkheim, Mary douglas. I may have to go back and see if there is an excerpt from Levi-Strauss in there.

 

His work is more about culture than religion. The two just tend to be heavily linked. A hell of a lot that he describes could probably be related to secular cultures as well.

 

gods in the 4th dimension

 

such as?

Don't get me wrong, I know the game, I am aware very well of what they are trying to do behind the scenes. But doctrines are still 1/2 truth and are meant to make people feel guilty, and fear their god. It's a tool of control.

Gospels preach unlimited love and forgiveness.

The two have never jived for me, nor will they.

Which is why i'm always very clear when I define myself as a heretic,

Jesus is indeed a prophet and savior, but i'm not so sure we have the message and mission delivered to the masses quite right. The way it operates now it divides us, it doesn't unite us.

Not very "Christian" like.

That's always been my problem with the whole thing.

I don't claim to be the sharpest tool in the shed, and I could very well be hell bound, who the hell am I to claim I really KNOW anything. Life is is all about faith, even when learning to walk you had to have faith in your own legs to take the first step. There are just some things that remain "mystery" that CAN and should be debunked. And that is why I continue reading. And don't settle for 1/2 truths

 

Only for people. The idea of forgiveness is, I think, to bring people peace of mind when an injustice is beyond their ability to remedy. It's not necessarily because someone who steals your handbag or kills your son SHOULD be forgiven, but it doesn't do a body any good to grow bitter. And unlimited love seems fair. I don't know if it means to love everyone, but if your love is unlimited, that SHOULD exclude the need to keep it to just your little group, your little cult, or whatever.

I know that it can seem odd to ask that someone who has objectively wronged another to be loved and forgiven. But it does at least mean that someone who could subjectively be seen as having wronged another is not hated for it.

 

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=260052&highlight=zeitgeist&page=2

Most of the good retorts to the claims of the movie are by Okiefreak.

Do they? Luke's gospel has a passage in it about Christ coming to divide up houses and to cause strife.