Every month I write a lengthy letter that I send to family and friends. After my previous letter a very good (American) friend of mine emailed me, admitting that she took offence to my negative opinions of America and how the current government is addressing the economic problems.
Lest I offend any more people, I would like to say here publically, as I replied to my friend in private, that my comments on America are not critique, as much as it is vocalized observation. In other words, my purpose is not to criticize America in these letters. (For that I have this blog ;-) .) It is primarily to note the symptoms, ponder on the causes, and extrapolate possible future results.
Let me give you an example. When Zimbabwe started to feel an economic hardship they started to print extra money. This money was not based on anything real, like gold. Such printing of unsubstantiated money created inflation (i.e. you needed more money to pay for things), and the government tried to “solve” this problem by printing even more money. Again, since the money was not substantiated by something real its value decreased. A cursory look at Zimbabwe’s complete depreciation in currency is a glimpse into what will happen to the American Dollar if America continues to print more money. I’d like to mention two other observations that are underscoring the issue with this continued printing of unsubstantiated money in America. The first is the Chancellor of Germany’s critique of America’s economic plan. From experience, Germany knows all too well the type of reality where you need a wheelbarrow load of money to buy bread. The second is China, Russia, Brazil and India’s discussion of abandoning the US Dollar as the trade currency of choice. If these countries have lost faith in the American Dollar, it should say something – keeping in mind that these countries are some of the biggest exporters in the world.
My friend asked me a very serious and probably fair question: “What would YOU do instead of what is being done with the banks?” Firstly, let me not pretend to have the solutions to this problem. As I said in a previous letter, this problem is too big for any one person (i.e. Obama or any president and his cabinet) to fix. One thing I would not do is to continue to print valueless money. Printing unsubstantiated money is not solving the problem. It is merely prolonging the inevitable, and by doing so it is increasing the seriousness of the collapse when it occurs. Obama’s recent proposal to give the Federal Reserve Bank more power is another thing I would not do. The US’s Federal Reserve Bank is not “federal”, it is a private company. As I heard one guy say, the Federal Reserve Bank is as “federal” as Federal Express. Part of the mess the US is in, is because companies have gotten too much power over government. Increasing their power will increase the problem.
Also, I don’t think bailing out the these “too big to fail” companies will solve the problem, and here is why: The premise is that by helping these companies the money pumped into them will tinkle down from top-to-bottom until the common man at grassroots level benefits. This is mostly not the case. The money dumped into these companies will mostly be used to pay off the debt (often abroad). In other words, the money will not somehow soak down to the average citizen that needs it the most; instead, the money will go out of America, or save the butts of the rich elite whom have their own savings, yachts, holiday houses in tropical countries and European sports cars.
What would I do instead? Personally I would distrust these major companies, and if need be let them fail.
What I would do with all these billions of dollars in bailout money is invest from the bottom up. I’d invest in emergency projects, encourage entrepreneurial businesses, improved education, build up the infrastructure and not cut infrastructural budgets (like that of the education system, police, etc.). The basic difference between what is being done, and what I think ought to be done can best be described by an analogy of a very sick person. Currently the sick person’s symptoms are being treated. I propose that the person’s immune system be boosted. If one continue to treat the symptoms the person might superficially seem to improve (and that is what the continual printing of money will achieve in the short run), but suddenly the sickness will flare up and the inevitable will happen. (The printing of money will only go so far, until Zimbabwean results occur.) On the other hand, if you focus not on the symptoms, but on boosting the immune system, the patient will be in serious pain and suffering at first, but there is a very good chance that the person will start to heal naturally if you make sure that the causes are not still in place. This healing will not be a superficial covering of the symptoms, but actual recovery. The focus should not be on improved comfort and relief, but on actual healing.
Of course, I do not pretend to know it all – I’m not a politician or economist. I’m merely an observer.
To come back to my criticism of Obama, let me be clear that I’m not criticizing him in particular. (Again, I’m not so much a critic as an observer.) I’ve been equally critical of Bush, even more so, but for different reasons. Bush moved America towards an Orwellian Big Brother state. Obama has done very little to counter that momentum. However, I must admit that I’ve lost my faith in Obama long ago. Any true perusing of the media will reveal that what Obama says often contradicts what his administration says. It would seem that his job is mostly PR.
I do not trust politicians. I didn’t trust Bush. I do not trust Obama.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Britain's Spy Chief's Cover Blown on Facebook
That's one for Facebook and zero for Lady Sawyers (wife of the [now ex] Chief of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service). The bright Lady Sawyers posted family pictures, including that of her husband, on her Facebook account. Now the whole world knows who Britain's Spy Chief is.
From News24.Com:
Spy Chief's Cover Blown
2009-07-05 14:20
From News24.Com:
Spy Chief's Cover Blown
2009-07-05 14:20
London - The wife of the new head of Britain's spy agency has posted pictures of her husband, family and friends on internet networking site facebook, details which could compromise security, a newspaper said on Sunday.
Sir John Sawers is due to take over as head of the Secret Intelligence Service in November. The SIS, popularly known as MI6, is Britain's global intelligence-gathering organisation.
In what the Mail on Sunday called an "extraordinary lapse", the new spy chief's wife, Lady Shelley Sawers, posted family pictures and exposed details of where the couple live and take their holidays and who their friends and relatives are.
The details could be viewed by any of the many millions of facebook users around the world, but were swiftly removed once authorities were alerted by the newspaper's enquiries.
"There were fears that the hugely embarrassing blunder could have compromised the safety of Sir John's family and friends," the newspaper said.
Publishing the story on its front page and the pictures on a double-page spread, the Mail on Sunday said the information "could potentially be useful to hostile foreign powers or terrorists".
It was the latest in a string of security blunders, lapses and leaks by British officials that have embarrassed the government of embattled Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
- Reuters
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Your Facebook Password for a Job
How strongly do you want that job? Strongly enough to give up your privacy? Applying for a job at the city of Bozeman, Montana, requires you to give your passwords to your blogs, Facebook and other social networking accounts and email accounts to the potential employer.
Is this even legal? If so, I can imagine how in the future employers may attempt similar invasion of privacy in order to see if you are a "...a child molester or had some sort of information out there on the Internet that kind of showed those propensities..."
Read the article at Cnet News.
Is this even legal? If so, I can imagine how in the future employers may attempt similar invasion of privacy in order to see if you are a "...a child molester or had some sort of information out there on the Internet that kind of showed those propensities..."
Read the article at Cnet News.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Sunday, May 31, 2009
5 Reasons People Give Up on Christianity and 5 Replies
Earlier this month, a friend sent me a link to a news article reporting on a presentation by Prof. Scott McKnight, a New Testament theologian at North Park University, Chicago. McKnight revealed the trend of numerous people leaving the Christian faith. This is something I’ve noticed amongst friends and acquaintances when I visited South Africa earlier this year as well. McKnight proposes five reasons why former Christians gave up on Christianity.
(1)
The first, he says, is the rigid doctrine of Biblical infallibility / inerrancy. When Christians actually start to read the Bible for themselves, instead of sitting back and waiting for their pastors and priests to do their reading and thinking for them, they are disillusioned when they find contradictions in the Bible. This shakes their faith and they abandon Christianity. I wrote a post on this called “Who Wrote the Bible?” on my blog, showing that there are in fact errors (contradictions) in the Bible, but that this does not lessen the inspirational quality of the Bible. Inspiration is not spirit-possession. When God inspired the Bible writers, God did not possess them like a spirit possesses a medium and literally “write through them”; nor did God always dictate. Rather, God inspired them with thoughts and they transformed these thoughts into words, using their own cultural paradigms, their own words, their own understanding. As one writer puts it: “The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God’s mode of thought and expression. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God’s penmen, not His pen.” Also, the Bible is not a handbook with principles clearly spelled out in bulleted points. Instead, it is a compilation of case studies. It is our responsibility to identify the principles in these case studies. One preacher I recently listened to explained it in similar terms: “The Bible is not a codebook; it’s a casebook.”
For my post on “Who Wrote the Bible?” you can go here.
(2)
The second reason McKnight believes so many people are leaving Christianity is because of the clash between faith and science. This is a sad turn of events, and not as clear cut as people would like us to believe. The pioneers of modern science saw no such dichotomy between faith and science. Isaac Newton, for instance, felt no need to give up his faith while pursuing scientific truth. There need be no “clash” between faith and science. Science, I believe, is the discovery of the marvel of God’s creation. I like how the little book Steps to Christ put it: “Nature and revelation alike testify of God’s love”; “Nature speaks to our senses without ceasing”; “The poet and naturalist have many things to say about nature, but it is the Christian who enjoys the beauty of the earth with the highest appreciation, because he recognizes his Father’s handiwork and perceives His love in flower and shrub and tree. No one can fully appreciate the significance of hill and vale, river and sea, who does not look upon them as an expression of God’s love to man.” While science and faith have areas of overlap, there are also areas where each is wholly in a sphere of its own. For instance, there is a limit to what science can say about God, in the same way there is a limit to what the art critic can say about the artist. While it is true that the artwork reveals somewhat of the artist, it only reveals a fraction. Science’s study of creation only reveals a fraction of the Creator.
(3)
McKnight’s third point for why so many people are leaving Christianity is the example of Christians; and he specifically refers to the sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church in the USA. I think there are two points that need to be made here. Firstly, the Christianity itself teaches (or should I rather say, the Bible teaches) that the Church will become utterly corrupt. The Bible’s critique of the latter day church is much worse than ours. She is called Babylon: “fallen”, “the habitation of devils” and “foul spirits”, the “Mother of harlots and abominations of the Earth” (Revelation 18:2, 17:5). The Church’s degradation should in fact strengthen our faith in the validity of the Christian religion; while at the same time it should make us highly critical of the institutions (the “Church”). We are warned, thus, to think for ourselves, to be weary of the Church – even to “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues” (Revelation 18:4). One need not be in a mainstream church to be a Christian. However, the Bible is clear that we ought to be part of a community of faith; there is thus room for “church”, but let’s be careful not to deify the church. The “church” is not the Christian goal – Jesus Christ is the goal.
This brings me to the second point I’d like to make here: The Church has never been intended to be the “example” for what a Christian is supposed to be. After all, the Church is a hospital for sick people (sick with sin) – it is not a little heaven-on-earth. The only example, the only true pattern for Christianity is the Christ, Jesus. No fallible man is to be our model, no fallible Christian our guide. Christ alone is the example for the Christian life. The moment you take your eyes of Jesus and start criticising the church, make sure that you make a clear distinction. The “Church”, is not the essence of Christianity.
(4)
The fourth point why many people are leaving the Christian faith is the (unbiblical idea) of Hell where God keeps souls alive so that He can torture them for ceaseless millennia for the sins they committed during their relatively short lives. This is, I believe, a sick doctrine rooted in pagan traditions and an honest and true study of Scripture shows that it is not Biblical.
I’ve written about this and related topics on my blog as well:
“The Shaky Pillars of Hell”
“I Don’t Have a Soul, I Am a Soul”
“Christians Wrong About Heaven, Says Bishop”
“The Hell of Heaven”
“The Comfort of Sleeping the Sleep of Death”
(5)
McKnight’s final point for why so many people are leaving the Church is the terrifying “God of the Bible”. According to McKnight the age old Question of Evil, is a prime reason for abandonment of faith. The dilemma goes something like this: If God is all-powerful, He cannot be Good, for the world would not have been so full of Evil. And if He is Good, He cannot be all-powerful, for then He would have done something about the Evil.
This argument is flawed, because God’s Goodness (or rather God’s Love) is not properly understood. The Bible is clear that God’s greatest priority is Love. In fact, the Bible says “…God is Love…” (1 John 4:16). For Love to exist there must be Freedom of Choice. For this very reason the Evil in this world should not be surprising. As I wrote in a previous update letter: “A requirement for Love is the freedom of choice. Forced love is an oxymoron. Bribed love is not love, it’s prostitution. Coerced love is not love, it’s molestation. Forced love is not love, it’s rape.” This is the reason why Evil can exist and at the same time God can be both Good and All-powerful, because Love so important that God refuses to take away people’s freedom of choice. If God did, then Love could not exist. Unfortunately, there is a price to pay – people are using their free choice, not to love, but to hurt, to pursue their own selfish desires.
I’ve written about God and this topic to some degree on my blog as well:
“God”
“Life and Death in a Nutshell”
“Christ vs. Church”
“Why I’ll Never Be a Pantheist Again”
“A Freewill Dilemma”
Another point I ought to make here, specifically with people reading the Bible and particularly their abhorrence of the God of the Old Testament, is that Christians have a reference for understanding Scripture. Jesus Christ is our example of who God is, and what God is like. “God having spoken in many parts and in many ways formerly to the fathers in the prophets, at the end of these days has spoken to us in the person of the Son…” (Heb. 1:1,2a). There is a hierarchy of the revelation of God’s character – while the prophets in the Old Testament revealed some of it, it was the Son who has “the express image” of God (Heb 1:3), who said “if you have seen Me, you have seen the Father” (Joh. 14:9), that showed us what God is really like. We understand therefore the Old Testament revelation of God filtered through the example of Jesus’ character.
(1)
The first, he says, is the rigid doctrine of Biblical infallibility / inerrancy. When Christians actually start to read the Bible for themselves, instead of sitting back and waiting for their pastors and priests to do their reading and thinking for them, they are disillusioned when they find contradictions in the Bible. This shakes their faith and they abandon Christianity. I wrote a post on this called “Who Wrote the Bible?” on my blog, showing that there are in fact errors (contradictions) in the Bible, but that this does not lessen the inspirational quality of the Bible. Inspiration is not spirit-possession. When God inspired the Bible writers, God did not possess them like a spirit possesses a medium and literally “write through them”; nor did God always dictate. Rather, God inspired them with thoughts and they transformed these thoughts into words, using their own cultural paradigms, their own words, their own understanding. As one writer puts it: “The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God’s mode of thought and expression. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God’s penmen, not His pen.” Also, the Bible is not a handbook with principles clearly spelled out in bulleted points. Instead, it is a compilation of case studies. It is our responsibility to identify the principles in these case studies. One preacher I recently listened to explained it in similar terms: “The Bible is not a codebook; it’s a casebook.”
For my post on “Who Wrote the Bible?” you can go here.
(2)
The second reason McKnight believes so many people are leaving Christianity is because of the clash between faith and science. This is a sad turn of events, and not as clear cut as people would like us to believe. The pioneers of modern science saw no such dichotomy between faith and science. Isaac Newton, for instance, felt no need to give up his faith while pursuing scientific truth. There need be no “clash” between faith and science. Science, I believe, is the discovery of the marvel of God’s creation. I like how the little book Steps to Christ put it: “Nature and revelation alike testify of God’s love”; “Nature speaks to our senses without ceasing”; “The poet and naturalist have many things to say about nature, but it is the Christian who enjoys the beauty of the earth with the highest appreciation, because he recognizes his Father’s handiwork and perceives His love in flower and shrub and tree. No one can fully appreciate the significance of hill and vale, river and sea, who does not look upon them as an expression of God’s love to man.” While science and faith have areas of overlap, there are also areas where each is wholly in a sphere of its own. For instance, there is a limit to what science can say about God, in the same way there is a limit to what the art critic can say about the artist. While it is true that the artwork reveals somewhat of the artist, it only reveals a fraction. Science’s study of creation only reveals a fraction of the Creator.
(3)
McKnight’s third point for why so many people are leaving Christianity is the example of Christians; and he specifically refers to the sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church in the USA. I think there are two points that need to be made here. Firstly, the Christianity itself teaches (or should I rather say, the Bible teaches) that the Church will become utterly corrupt. The Bible’s critique of the latter day church is much worse than ours. She is called Babylon: “fallen”, “the habitation of devils” and “foul spirits”, the “Mother of harlots and abominations of the Earth” (Revelation 18:2, 17:5). The Church’s degradation should in fact strengthen our faith in the validity of the Christian religion; while at the same time it should make us highly critical of the institutions (the “Church”). We are warned, thus, to think for ourselves, to be weary of the Church – even to “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues” (Revelation 18:4). One need not be in a mainstream church to be a Christian. However, the Bible is clear that we ought to be part of a community of faith; there is thus room for “church”, but let’s be careful not to deify the church. The “church” is not the Christian goal – Jesus Christ is the goal.
This brings me to the second point I’d like to make here: The Church has never been intended to be the “example” for what a Christian is supposed to be. After all, the Church is a hospital for sick people (sick with sin) – it is not a little heaven-on-earth. The only example, the only true pattern for Christianity is the Christ, Jesus. No fallible man is to be our model, no fallible Christian our guide. Christ alone is the example for the Christian life. The moment you take your eyes of Jesus and start criticising the church, make sure that you make a clear distinction. The “Church”, is not the essence of Christianity.
(4)
The fourth point why many people are leaving the Christian faith is the (unbiblical idea) of Hell where God keeps souls alive so that He can torture them for ceaseless millennia for the sins they committed during their relatively short lives. This is, I believe, a sick doctrine rooted in pagan traditions and an honest and true study of Scripture shows that it is not Biblical.
I’ve written about this and related topics on my blog as well:
“The Shaky Pillars of Hell”
“I Don’t Have a Soul, I Am a Soul”
“Christians Wrong About Heaven, Says Bishop”
“The Hell of Heaven”
“The Comfort of Sleeping the Sleep of Death”
(5)
McKnight’s final point for why so many people are leaving the Church is the terrifying “God of the Bible”. According to McKnight the age old Question of Evil, is a prime reason for abandonment of faith. The dilemma goes something like this: If God is all-powerful, He cannot be Good, for the world would not have been so full of Evil. And if He is Good, He cannot be all-powerful, for then He would have done something about the Evil.
This argument is flawed, because God’s Goodness (or rather God’s Love) is not properly understood. The Bible is clear that God’s greatest priority is Love. In fact, the Bible says “…God is Love…” (1 John 4:16). For Love to exist there must be Freedom of Choice. For this very reason the Evil in this world should not be surprising. As I wrote in a previous update letter: “A requirement for Love is the freedom of choice. Forced love is an oxymoron. Bribed love is not love, it’s prostitution. Coerced love is not love, it’s molestation. Forced love is not love, it’s rape.” This is the reason why Evil can exist and at the same time God can be both Good and All-powerful, because Love so important that God refuses to take away people’s freedom of choice. If God did, then Love could not exist. Unfortunately, there is a price to pay – people are using their free choice, not to love, but to hurt, to pursue their own selfish desires.
I’ve written about God and this topic to some degree on my blog as well:
“God”
“Life and Death in a Nutshell”
“Christ vs. Church”
“Why I’ll Never Be a Pantheist Again”
“A Freewill Dilemma”
Another point I ought to make here, specifically with people reading the Bible and particularly their abhorrence of the God of the Old Testament, is that Christians have a reference for understanding Scripture. Jesus Christ is our example of who God is, and what God is like. “God having spoken in many parts and in many ways formerly to the fathers in the prophets, at the end of these days has spoken to us in the person of the Son…” (Heb. 1:1,2a). There is a hierarchy of the revelation of God’s character – while the prophets in the Old Testament revealed some of it, it was the Son who has “the express image” of God (Heb 1:3), who said “if you have seen Me, you have seen the Father” (Joh. 14:9), that showed us what God is really like. We understand therefore the Old Testament revelation of God filtered through the example of Jesus’ character.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Rumsfeld = God (?)
In 2003, then US President, George Bush, declared that God told him: “George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan” and “George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq.”
It turns out that the “Voice of God” was Donald Rumsfeld. An article by GQ-magazine reveals that Rumsfeld often prepared top secret reports on the Afghan and Iraqi wars, with quotes from the Bible, often juxtaposed with images from the battlefront. While the verses are frequently comforting and motivational, their effect when placed in association with the images creates a tone reminiscent of the Crusades. “This mixing of Crusades-like messaging with war imagery, which until now has not been revealed, had become routine,” writes Robert Draper.
It would seem that George Bush was hearing a voice; he just mistook whose voice it was.
Monday, May 18, 2009
The Value of the Conscience...
I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. -- Martin Luther
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Some Thoughts on Zeitgeist the Movie
Have you wondered about the claims Zeitgeist: The Movie makes regarding Christianity? If so, this post is for you.
More and more people are swept up by the whole Zeitgeist-movement, spurred on by the controversial Zeitgeist documentary movies. “Zeitgeist” is a German term literally meaning “time-ghost”, i.e. the spirit of the time. The time we are living in at present is called Postmodernism. Postmodernism is known for its subversion of grand narratives; in other words, Postmodernism questions and rebels against claims of authority and grand truths. For instance conventional science, conventional governmental regimes and major religious systems are all grand narratives that are challenged and undermined. Therefore, the name “Zeitgeist”, and its implied reference to the postmodern-zeitgeist in particular, is a very apt name for these films as the main function of these films are to question just such grand narratives: religion and government. The first Zeitgeist-film is divided into three parts. The first part, named “The Greatest Story Ever Told”, questions the legitimacy of all major world religions and continues to argue that all major religions are basically based on pagan sun-worship – Christianity included. The second part, called “All the World’s a Stage”, shows how the 9/11 catastrophe was actually an inside job masterminded not by terrorists outside of America, but by key players within the American governmental and economical institutions. The last section is called “Don’t Mind the Men Behind the Curtain” and proposes that all the major wars since the 20th century were actually instigated by “international bankers” who benefited tremendously from these wars. It also shows how these power-mongering “international bankers” created the Great Depression and by implication this includes this latest Global Economic Collapse we are facing at present as well.
Let me start by saying that these documentaries are very well crafted, and uses extremely persuasive cinematographic and rhetoric techniques. I will also concur that much of these conspiracy theories are grounded in fact. I agree that a great deal of what we understand to be modern Christianity is heavily blighted with pagan influences; that the 9/11 incident—specifically at Ground Zero—is very questionable, since the engineers that build the Twin Towers actually designed them to withstand being hit by airplanes and the buildings collapsed in practically the exact fashion that a controlled demolition would occur; and lastly, that the banks are really intend more on making profit than caring for the wellbeing of their customers, as any one that works in the banking industry can attest. However, I would like to consider for a moment the first part, regarding Christianity, and point out some obvious flaws in their argument, mostly due to really bad scholarship. Nevertheless, my argument will not be to try and redeem orthodox Christianity, since I believe that the maker of Zeitgeist does have a point. Christianity as it is practiced today is indeed heavily influenced with pagan ideas, including sun-worship ideologies.
A Summary of Part I: The Greatest Story Ever Told
In short, “Part I: The Greatest Story Ever Told” argues that most religious are based on pagan and sun-worship cults derived from astronomical facts and astrological mythologies. These are all basically telling the same narrative—the same “Greatest Story”. The aim of Part I is to prove that Christianity is essentially a conglomeration of pagan myths weaved into a Jewish-turned-Roman narrative. The following quotation by Thomas Paine is presented in the Zeitgeist movie: “The Christian religion is a parody on the Worship of the sun, in which they put a man called Christ in the place of the sun, and give him the adoration originally payed to the sun.” To prove their hypothesis they present an interpretive reading of the Christian story from an astrological perspective and also point out similarities between Jesus Christ and other sun-god myths, for instance Horus, Krishna, Dionysus and Mithra. Similarities identified are the Virgin Birth, 25 December as the birth date, three kings or magi bringing tribute to the god-infant, the child-teacher, twelve disciples, death by crucifixion, a three day burial—descend into hell—and eventual resurrection, and the performing of miracles. These elements are explained as myths that describe astrological events; for instance, the twelve disciples depict the twelve months or zodiac signs; the Virgin Birth and birth date is basically the Winter Solstice at December 25 when the sun rises in the area of Virgo (the Virgin); the three Magi are the “Three Kings”, the three starts in Orion’s Belt, and so on.
These similarities are, indeed, quite clear. Orthodox Christianity does teach that Jesus was born from a virgin on December 25th, that there were three Kings or Magi that brought Him tribute, that he had twelve disciples, that He died by Crucifixion, that He descended into hell, and that He was raised from the dead after three days.
Orthodox Christianity versus Untainted Christianity
Unfortunately the reasoning of Peter Joseph (Zeitgeist’s writer, director, editor and producer) is flawed because he fails to make the distinction between Orthodox Christianity and Untainted Christianity. Allow me to explain the distinction. With “Orthodox Christianity” I mean Christianity as it has been practiced at large since the early Roman Church, including its various modern manifestations in most present day denominations, counting the Orthodox or Catholic Churches, as well as the protestant evangelical and charismatic movements. Orthodox Christianity is blighted with pagan ideas, rightly noted by the Zeitgeist creator. On the other hand, Untainted Christianity is not derived from pagan traditions and any similarities are purely coincidental, based on mythical universals (archetypes). With “Untainted Christianity” I mean Christianity as was manifested by the “Early” or “Apostolic Church”, in other words the type of Christianity that started directly after Jesus’ earthly ministry and developed under the leadership of His original followers. I call this type of Christianity “untainted” because it was not yet influenced by any outside pagan influences, as was the case with Christianity under the Roman rule. Pure Christianity is characterized by “Sola Scriptura”; i.e. solely Scripture, or the Bible alone. Some pockets of this type of Christianity have survived, or have been revived, but they are not common. Unfortunately, by far the greater majority of Christianity today is not Untainted Christianity. Many Orthodox Christian churches believe themselves to be based on Sola Scriptura, the Bible alone, but we know for a fact that they are not and this is something that the Zeitgeist movie reveals clearly. In this, the Roman Catholic Church is one of the few denominations that are honest about her hybrid character. The Roman Catholic Church makes it clear that she does not base her dogmas on Sola Scriptura, but instead, Catholic beliefs are a combination of Scripture and Tradition.
Much of what is believed to be Christian is actually pagan and not based on Scripture at all. Here are some examples: The Bible never states that Jesus was born on December 25th. We do not know from Scripture when Jesus was born. What we do know is that it would not have been during December (high winter in the northern hemisphere), because the story tells of shepherds with their sheep sleeping outside in the hills. During the winter months the shepherds and their flocks took shelter and would not have been outside, open to the elements. The Zeitgeist-producer is completely correct in saying that December 25 is a pagan holy-day and that it is the birth date of many of the sun deities. When Orthodox Christianity celebrates Christmas as a holy-day, they are doing so based on the traditions of paganism.
Let’s look at some other examples. Tradition has it that three Magi brought tribute to the baby Jesus. The Bible is completely silent about the number of Magi; for all we know they could have been 56 in number! Orthodox Christianity teaches that after Jesus’ death, He descended into Hell. This idea is also foreign to the Bible; it’s a completely pagan idea – indeed, part of a sun-deity myth where the sun-god descends into the Underworld to fight off the god of death or the god of winter, depending on the variation, and then rises again to bring light (or summer) back to the world. Another example would be the weekly worship on Sunday, named after the sun because this is the day whereupon sun-worshippers venerated the Sun-god. Christians that really follow the Bible should worship on the Sabbath, i.e. Saturday, as have been done by the Jews to this day and was the custom and example of Jesus.
(When people ask me what my religion is, or if I am a Christian, I sometimes find it quite difficult to answer them; their idea of “Christianity” and my idea of “Christianity” are worlds apart. I have not celebrated Christmas as a holy-day for many years now. I also worship the Creator-God on the seventh day Sabbath, instead of the typical pagan Sunday. Therefore, my religious or spiritual practices are quite foreign from what people would usually consider to be typical Christian practise; and they would be correct, I am not an Orthodox Christian. Nevertheless, I do consider myself to be a Christian as I believe that Jesus Christ is God-Incarnate, i.e. God in human form, and I do try to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ in their pure Sola Scriptura rendition, rather than as taught through church traditions derived from pagan religions. I also use sound philosophical reasoning, based on Biblical premises – for instance that God is Love, or God is the source of Life. Strangely, my attempt to practise a purer version of Christianity is considered sectarian, cultic of fanatical by mainstream Christianity.)
Similarity Claims and Terrible Scholarship
Having made this distinction between Orthodox and Untainted Christianity let’s continue to see why I say that the Peter Joseph made use of terrible scholarship.
Most of the similarities listed between Jesus and these other sun-god deities are just plain false. My conclusion has to be that Peter Joseph did not read the myths he assert are the basis for the “Jesus Myth”, conversely he did not read the Bible that recounts the story of Jesus. As mentioned earlier, it is claimed that the story of Jesus and these other deities share some of the following: Born on December 25th, from a virgin, three kings or magi venerated him, he was a child-teacher, was baptised at age 30, had twelve disciples, performed miracles, died by crucifixion, descended into hell, was resurrected on the third day, and ascended into heaven.
Let’s start by the similarity-claim between Jesus and Horus.
It is claimed that Horus was born on December 25 (not that this matters since Jesus was not born on that date), that he was born from a virgin by “immaculate conception”, that there was a star in the East signalling his birth, that he was adorned by three kings, that he was a teacher at 12, baptised at 30 and had 12 disciples.
Horus’s mother is Isis and his father is Osiris; however, before Osiris could father the child he is killed. Isis finds his body and with a magic spell brings him back to life just long enough to impregnate her and then he dies again. Another version has it that Osiris is chopped into pieces by his brother Set. Isis retrieves the pieces and puts Osiris back together again, but his penis is missing (it was eaten by fish), so she makes an artificial phallus, puts it on the mummy and has sex with it and Horus is the result. Peter Joseph says in Zeitgeist that Horus’s “immaculate conception” is “exactly like the story of Jesus’ miracle conception”. Well, you be the judge, not to mention that the phrase “immaculate conception” is wrongly used, as it used in Roman Catholicism to refer to Mary’s conception, not Jesus’ conception. Also, it is not Horus that is resurrected, as claimed by Peter Joseph, but Osiris. However, Osiris is resurrected as ruler of the Underworld. In other worlds, he is alive in the Realm of Death; meaning that he was never physically resurrected. This is nothing like the Resurrection account of Jesus.
As for Krishna, Peter Joseph says that he is born of a virgin, there was a star in the east, he performed miracles and he was resurrected.
Krishna was the eighth child of his mother Devaki and his father Vasudeva. Clearly not a virgin birth. Some accounts have it that Vasudeva impregnated his wife psychically, in which case there was no sexual contact. Still, Devaki was not a virgin. Interestingly, Krishna was born in July, which is probably closer to Jesus’ real birth date than December 25th. That Krishna performed miracles ought not to be thought significant as that is what one would expect of a deity. He was a child-teacher, true. I don’t know about the Star in the East.
Another supposed parallel to Jesus listed is Dionysus (or Bacchus). Supposedly he is also born of a virgin on December 25th, performed miracles, is called “King of Kings” and “Alpha and Omega” and is resurrected.
Dionysus was not born of a virgin. His mother Semele was impregnated by Zeus, one of many mortals with whom Zeus had intercourse. Neither was Dionysus resurrected – although he was “twice born”. When Zeus’s wife, Hera, found out of her husband’s infidelity she devised a plan to get Semele killed. Zeus rescued the foetus of Dionysus by implanting it into his thigh. Dionysus is later “born again” from his father’s thigh, full grown. This can hardly be called a resurrection as Dionysus never actually died. I can find no authentic appellation accounts of Dionysys as either “King of Kings” or “Alpha and Omega”. He was known among other things as “Ruler”, “twice born”, “the thunderer” and “liberator”. The latter refers to his ability to free his devotees from by making them go into ecstasy or go mad, or through the over consumption of wine. This is quite contrary to Jesus who actually made madmen sane.
Another supposed parallel is Mithra, the Persian sun-god and deity of Zoroastrianism. According to Joseph Peter Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th, he had 12 disciples, performed miracles, was resurrected, is worshipped on Sunday and is known as the “Truth” and the “Light”. Mithra might have been born on December 25th, but that has no bearing on the real Jesus. Mithra was not born of a virgin. Actually, he was born of no one. He came fully grown out of a solid rock. Unless Joseph Peter’s consider the rock to be the “virgin”, this is clearly not a virgin-birth. There is no account of him having twelve disciples, apart from a depiction of him standing in the centre with six people at either side of him. This depiction dates well after Christianity developed, which may well indicate that the artist plagiarised Christianity, rather than Christianity copying from Mithraism. Also, there is no pre-Christian account of Mithra’s resurrection. As mentioned before, Sunday-worship is not authentically Christian and while it does incriminate Sunday observance by the majority of Christians today, it does not weaken the authenticity of Christianity in its Sola Scriptura form.
Asserting that the Judeo-Christian religious ideas are just plagiarized renditions from earlier pagan ideas are either proof of ignorance or of wilful deceit. The Judeo-Christian ideas about God are in essence nothing like any of the other religions of antiquity. For one, all the other religions involved pantheisms or polytheisms. The monotheistic idea of a single God, outside of creation, that created everything ex nihilo (out of nothing), is completely foreign to anything typically conceivable to early man. The monotheistic paradigm, which started within the Hebrew nation (Israelites), is a complete mystery when compared to any of the other ancient cultures from Judeo-Christian thought was supposed to have sprung. As I said, claiming that the Judeo-Christian religion is a spoof of earlier pagan ideas reveals either ignorance or deceitfulness. Either those claiming it have not done proper research, or they are wilfully lying to their audience.
The "Jesus Myth"
Peter Joseph clearly does not understand mythology and has probably never properly read ancient myths and compared them to the “Jesus Myth”. Take a typical mythological version of a virgin-birth, death and resurrection as an example:
The “virgin-birth” story of Attis goes something like this: Zeus (or Jupiter) dropped semen on Mount Agdistis, which then began to grow male and female attributes, including a phallus. The other Olympian gods were disgusted with Agdistis and cuts off its phallus and throws it away. There where the phallus landed an almond-tree grew and bore fruit. One day, Nana, the daughter of Sangarios River, passes by, picks an almond and lays it in her lap. The almond assimilates into her; the impregnation results in the birth of Attis. Abandoned by his mother, Attis is raised by a he-goat. Later in life, Attis is to mary the daughter of King Pessions. Agdistis (who is in effect Attis’ mother) in the form of Cybelle (the Mountain-Mother Goddess, or Earth Goddess, known as Gaia in Greek) wedding-crashes the ceremony. She has fallen in love with her offspring and is jealous of his relation with his bride-to-be. This causes Attis to go insane and cut off his genitals, or go into ecstasy and cut of his genitals – depending on the version. For some reason King Pessinons also castrates himself. Attis dies from his wounds, but Agdistis ensures his rebirth (resurrection?) in the form of an evergreen Pine Tree.
Compare this story with the Virgin-Birth, Death and Resurrection of Jesus and decide for yourself how striking the similarities are. Clearly, when reading the Jesus-story it lacks practically all mythological elements. Compared with the other myths, be it Egyptian or Greek, the Jesus-story is just plain too boring, lacks adequate archetypal imagery and is void of typical mythical elements to even come close to anything one would expect of proper mythology. Saying that the Jesus-story is a copycat of older myths or even saying that the Jesus-story is a mythological narrative screams of ignorance regarding mythological narratives.
Conclusion
Basically none of the similarity-claims made by Joseph resembles anything like the Jesus story. There are no real virgin-births and no real resurrections. The claim that most of these other sun-deities were crucified is also bogus. Besides, crucifixion as a means of execution was a Roman invention.
Peter Joseph continues to try and debunk the authenticity of Christianity (as a fairytale invented for political reasons) and of Jesus, but does so with very selective quotations and over all bad scholarship. Frankly, I have to wonder whether Peter Joseph did any proper research at all. The numerous sources listed at the end of the movie are dubious at best. Among them are Acharya S and D. M. Murdock (they are the same person), a controversial author of many “Jesus Myth”-books. Also Gerald Massey, a 19th century spiritualist poet (similar to William Blake). Another 19th century reference is John E. Rembsburg, who disbelieved the existence of Jesus as a historical figure, something that is doubted by very few scholars today. Most scholars of history believe that Jesus was a real historic figure, hence all the books about the “Historic Jesus”. They may not believe in his divinity, but they do not question his historicity.
As I said before, Peter Joseph is either ignorant or guilty of really bad scholarship. Alternatively, he is wilfully deceiving his audience.
There is so much more I can write about Part I of this film, but it hardly feels worth the effort. A superficial scratching at the surface of this section of the documentary, as I have done, reveals such uncomplimentary mistakes, and plain lies, that it is hard to take it serious at all.
I do, however, believe that some good can come out of Joseph’s faulty film. It will give those nominal Christians that do not really want to be part of their faith an excuse to leave it. Conversely, it will force the other Christians to re-examine what they believe and hopefully get rid of the pagan influences that have blighted Christianity for so long. Hopefully Zeitgeist will cause a revival for Sola Scriptura Untainted Christianity.
More and more people are swept up by the whole Zeitgeist-movement, spurred on by the controversial Zeitgeist documentary movies. “Zeitgeist” is a German term literally meaning “time-ghost”, i.e. the spirit of the time. The time we are living in at present is called Postmodernism. Postmodernism is known for its subversion of grand narratives; in other words, Postmodernism questions and rebels against claims of authority and grand truths. For instance conventional science, conventional governmental regimes and major religious systems are all grand narratives that are challenged and undermined. Therefore, the name “Zeitgeist”, and its implied reference to the postmodern-zeitgeist in particular, is a very apt name for these films as the main function of these films are to question just such grand narratives: religion and government. The first Zeitgeist-film is divided into three parts. The first part, named “The Greatest Story Ever Told”, questions the legitimacy of all major world religions and continues to argue that all major religions are basically based on pagan sun-worship – Christianity included. The second part, called “All the World’s a Stage”, shows how the 9/11 catastrophe was actually an inside job masterminded not by terrorists outside of America, but by key players within the American governmental and economical institutions. The last section is called “Don’t Mind the Men Behind the Curtain” and proposes that all the major wars since the 20th century were actually instigated by “international bankers” who benefited tremendously from these wars. It also shows how these power-mongering “international bankers” created the Great Depression and by implication this includes this latest Global Economic Collapse we are facing at present as well.Let me start by saying that these documentaries are very well crafted, and uses extremely persuasive cinematographic and rhetoric techniques. I will also concur that much of these conspiracy theories are grounded in fact. I agree that a great deal of what we understand to be modern Christianity is heavily blighted with pagan influences; that the 9/11 incident—specifically at Ground Zero—is very questionable, since the engineers that build the Twin Towers actually designed them to withstand being hit by airplanes and the buildings collapsed in practically the exact fashion that a controlled demolition would occur; and lastly, that the banks are really intend more on making profit than caring for the wellbeing of their customers, as any one that works in the banking industry can attest. However, I would like to consider for a moment the first part, regarding Christianity, and point out some obvious flaws in their argument, mostly due to really bad scholarship. Nevertheless, my argument will not be to try and redeem orthodox Christianity, since I believe that the maker of Zeitgeist does have a point. Christianity as it is practiced today is indeed heavily influenced with pagan ideas, including sun-worship ideologies.
A Summary of Part I: The Greatest Story Ever Told
In short, “Part I: The Greatest Story Ever Told” argues that most religious are based on pagan and sun-worship cults derived from astronomical facts and astrological mythologies. These are all basically telling the same narrative—the same “Greatest Story”. The aim of Part I is to prove that Christianity is essentially a conglomeration of pagan myths weaved into a Jewish-turned-Roman narrative. The following quotation by Thomas Paine is presented in the Zeitgeist movie: “The Christian religion is a parody on the Worship of the sun, in which they put a man called Christ in the place of the sun, and give him the adoration originally payed to the sun.” To prove their hypothesis they present an interpretive reading of the Christian story from an astrological perspective and also point out similarities between Jesus Christ and other sun-god myths, for instance Horus, Krishna, Dionysus and Mithra. Similarities identified are the Virgin Birth, 25 December as the birth date, three kings or magi bringing tribute to the god-infant, the child-teacher, twelve disciples, death by crucifixion, a three day burial—descend into hell—and eventual resurrection, and the performing of miracles. These elements are explained as myths that describe astrological events; for instance, the twelve disciples depict the twelve months or zodiac signs; the Virgin Birth and birth date is basically the Winter Solstice at December 25 when the sun rises in the area of Virgo (the Virgin); the three Magi are the “Three Kings”, the three starts in Orion’s Belt, and so on.
These similarities are, indeed, quite clear. Orthodox Christianity does teach that Jesus was born from a virgin on December 25th, that there were three Kings or Magi that brought Him tribute, that he had twelve disciples, that He died by Crucifixion, that He descended into hell, and that He was raised from the dead after three days.
Orthodox Christianity versus Untainted Christianity
Unfortunately the reasoning of Peter Joseph (Zeitgeist’s writer, director, editor and producer) is flawed because he fails to make the distinction between Orthodox Christianity and Untainted Christianity. Allow me to explain the distinction. With “Orthodox Christianity” I mean Christianity as it has been practiced at large since the early Roman Church, including its various modern manifestations in most present day denominations, counting the Orthodox or Catholic Churches, as well as the protestant evangelical and charismatic movements. Orthodox Christianity is blighted with pagan ideas, rightly noted by the Zeitgeist creator. On the other hand, Untainted Christianity is not derived from pagan traditions and any similarities are purely coincidental, based on mythical universals (archetypes). With “Untainted Christianity” I mean Christianity as was manifested by the “Early” or “Apostolic Church”, in other words the type of Christianity that started directly after Jesus’ earthly ministry and developed under the leadership of His original followers. I call this type of Christianity “untainted” because it was not yet influenced by any outside pagan influences, as was the case with Christianity under the Roman rule. Pure Christianity is characterized by “Sola Scriptura”; i.e. solely Scripture, or the Bible alone. Some pockets of this type of Christianity have survived, or have been revived, but they are not common. Unfortunately, by far the greater majority of Christianity today is not Untainted Christianity. Many Orthodox Christian churches believe themselves to be based on Sola Scriptura, the Bible alone, but we know for a fact that they are not and this is something that the Zeitgeist movie reveals clearly. In this, the Roman Catholic Church is one of the few denominations that are honest about her hybrid character. The Roman Catholic Church makes it clear that she does not base her dogmas on Sola Scriptura, but instead, Catholic beliefs are a combination of Scripture and Tradition.
Much of what is believed to be Christian is actually pagan and not based on Scripture at all. Here are some examples: The Bible never states that Jesus was born on December 25th. We do not know from Scripture when Jesus was born. What we do know is that it would not have been during December (high winter in the northern hemisphere), because the story tells of shepherds with their sheep sleeping outside in the hills. During the winter months the shepherds and their flocks took shelter and would not have been outside, open to the elements. The Zeitgeist-producer is completely correct in saying that December 25 is a pagan holy-day and that it is the birth date of many of the sun deities. When Orthodox Christianity celebrates Christmas as a holy-day, they are doing so based on the traditions of paganism.
Let’s look at some other examples. Tradition has it that three Magi brought tribute to the baby Jesus. The Bible is completely silent about the number of Magi; for all we know they could have been 56 in number! Orthodox Christianity teaches that after Jesus’ death, He descended into Hell. This idea is also foreign to the Bible; it’s a completely pagan idea – indeed, part of a sun-deity myth where the sun-god descends into the Underworld to fight off the god of death or the god of winter, depending on the variation, and then rises again to bring light (or summer) back to the world. Another example would be the weekly worship on Sunday, named after the sun because this is the day whereupon sun-worshippers venerated the Sun-god. Christians that really follow the Bible should worship on the Sabbath, i.e. Saturday, as have been done by the Jews to this day and was the custom and example of Jesus.
(When people ask me what my religion is, or if I am a Christian, I sometimes find it quite difficult to answer them; their idea of “Christianity” and my idea of “Christianity” are worlds apart. I have not celebrated Christmas as a holy-day for many years now. I also worship the Creator-God on the seventh day Sabbath, instead of the typical pagan Sunday. Therefore, my religious or spiritual practices are quite foreign from what people would usually consider to be typical Christian practise; and they would be correct, I am not an Orthodox Christian. Nevertheless, I do consider myself to be a Christian as I believe that Jesus Christ is God-Incarnate, i.e. God in human form, and I do try to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ in their pure Sola Scriptura rendition, rather than as taught through church traditions derived from pagan religions. I also use sound philosophical reasoning, based on Biblical premises – for instance that God is Love, or God is the source of Life. Strangely, my attempt to practise a purer version of Christianity is considered sectarian, cultic of fanatical by mainstream Christianity.)
Similarity Claims and Terrible Scholarship
Having made this distinction between Orthodox and Untainted Christianity let’s continue to see why I say that the Peter Joseph made use of terrible scholarship.
Most of the similarities listed between Jesus and these other sun-god deities are just plain false. My conclusion has to be that Peter Joseph did not read the myths he assert are the basis for the “Jesus Myth”, conversely he did not read the Bible that recounts the story of Jesus. As mentioned earlier, it is claimed that the story of Jesus and these other deities share some of the following: Born on December 25th, from a virgin, three kings or magi venerated him, he was a child-teacher, was baptised at age 30, had twelve disciples, performed miracles, died by crucifixion, descended into hell, was resurrected on the third day, and ascended into heaven.
Let’s start by the similarity-claim between Jesus and Horus.
It is claimed that Horus was born on December 25 (not that this matters since Jesus was not born on that date), that he was born from a virgin by “immaculate conception”, that there was a star in the East signalling his birth, that he was adorned by three kings, that he was a teacher at 12, baptised at 30 and had 12 disciples.
Horus’s mother is Isis and his father is Osiris; however, before Osiris could father the child he is killed. Isis finds his body and with a magic spell brings him back to life just long enough to impregnate her and then he dies again. Another version has it that Osiris is chopped into pieces by his brother Set. Isis retrieves the pieces and puts Osiris back together again, but his penis is missing (it was eaten by fish), so she makes an artificial phallus, puts it on the mummy and has sex with it and Horus is the result. Peter Joseph says in Zeitgeist that Horus’s “immaculate conception” is “exactly like the story of Jesus’ miracle conception”. Well, you be the judge, not to mention that the phrase “immaculate conception” is wrongly used, as it used in Roman Catholicism to refer to Mary’s conception, not Jesus’ conception. Also, it is not Horus that is resurrected, as claimed by Peter Joseph, but Osiris. However, Osiris is resurrected as ruler of the Underworld. In other worlds, he is alive in the Realm of Death; meaning that he was never physically resurrected. This is nothing like the Resurrection account of Jesus.
As for Krishna, Peter Joseph says that he is born of a virgin, there was a star in the east, he performed miracles and he was resurrected.
Krishna was the eighth child of his mother Devaki and his father Vasudeva. Clearly not a virgin birth. Some accounts have it that Vasudeva impregnated his wife psychically, in which case there was no sexual contact. Still, Devaki was not a virgin. Interestingly, Krishna was born in July, which is probably closer to Jesus’ real birth date than December 25th. That Krishna performed miracles ought not to be thought significant as that is what one would expect of a deity. He was a child-teacher, true. I don’t know about the Star in the East.
Another supposed parallel to Jesus listed is Dionysus (or Bacchus). Supposedly he is also born of a virgin on December 25th, performed miracles, is called “King of Kings” and “Alpha and Omega” and is resurrected.
Dionysus was not born of a virgin. His mother Semele was impregnated by Zeus, one of many mortals with whom Zeus had intercourse. Neither was Dionysus resurrected – although he was “twice born”. When Zeus’s wife, Hera, found out of her husband’s infidelity she devised a plan to get Semele killed. Zeus rescued the foetus of Dionysus by implanting it into his thigh. Dionysus is later “born again” from his father’s thigh, full grown. This can hardly be called a resurrection as Dionysus never actually died. I can find no authentic appellation accounts of Dionysys as either “King of Kings” or “Alpha and Omega”. He was known among other things as “Ruler”, “twice born”, “the thunderer” and “liberator”. The latter refers to his ability to free his devotees from by making them go into ecstasy or go mad, or through the over consumption of wine. This is quite contrary to Jesus who actually made madmen sane.
Another supposed parallel is Mithra, the Persian sun-god and deity of Zoroastrianism. According to Joseph Peter Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th, he had 12 disciples, performed miracles, was resurrected, is worshipped on Sunday and is known as the “Truth” and the “Light”. Mithra might have been born on December 25th, but that has no bearing on the real Jesus. Mithra was not born of a virgin. Actually, he was born of no one. He came fully grown out of a solid rock. Unless Joseph Peter’s consider the rock to be the “virgin”, this is clearly not a virgin-birth. There is no account of him having twelve disciples, apart from a depiction of him standing in the centre with six people at either side of him. This depiction dates well after Christianity developed, which may well indicate that the artist plagiarised Christianity, rather than Christianity copying from Mithraism. Also, there is no pre-Christian account of Mithra’s resurrection. As mentioned before, Sunday-worship is not authentically Christian and while it does incriminate Sunday observance by the majority of Christians today, it does not weaken the authenticity of Christianity in its Sola Scriptura form.
Asserting that the Judeo-Christian religious ideas are just plagiarized renditions from earlier pagan ideas are either proof of ignorance or of wilful deceit. The Judeo-Christian ideas about God are in essence nothing like any of the other religions of antiquity. For one, all the other religions involved pantheisms or polytheisms. The monotheistic idea of a single God, outside of creation, that created everything ex nihilo (out of nothing), is completely foreign to anything typically conceivable to early man. The monotheistic paradigm, which started within the Hebrew nation (Israelites), is a complete mystery when compared to any of the other ancient cultures from Judeo-Christian thought was supposed to have sprung. As I said, claiming that the Judeo-Christian religion is a spoof of earlier pagan ideas reveals either ignorance or deceitfulness. Either those claiming it have not done proper research, or they are wilfully lying to their audience.
The "Jesus Myth"
Peter Joseph clearly does not understand mythology and has probably never properly read ancient myths and compared them to the “Jesus Myth”. Take a typical mythological version of a virgin-birth, death and resurrection as an example:
The “virgin-birth” story of Attis goes something like this: Zeus (or Jupiter) dropped semen on Mount Agdistis, which then began to grow male and female attributes, including a phallus. The other Olympian gods were disgusted with Agdistis and cuts off its phallus and throws it away. There where the phallus landed an almond-tree grew and bore fruit. One day, Nana, the daughter of Sangarios River, passes by, picks an almond and lays it in her lap. The almond assimilates into her; the impregnation results in the birth of Attis. Abandoned by his mother, Attis is raised by a he-goat. Later in life, Attis is to mary the daughter of King Pessions. Agdistis (who is in effect Attis’ mother) in the form of Cybelle (the Mountain-Mother Goddess, or Earth Goddess, known as Gaia in Greek) wedding-crashes the ceremony. She has fallen in love with her offspring and is jealous of his relation with his bride-to-be. This causes Attis to go insane and cut off his genitals, or go into ecstasy and cut of his genitals – depending on the version. For some reason King Pessinons also castrates himself. Attis dies from his wounds, but Agdistis ensures his rebirth (resurrection?) in the form of an evergreen Pine Tree.
Compare this story with the Virgin-Birth, Death and Resurrection of Jesus and decide for yourself how striking the similarities are. Clearly, when reading the Jesus-story it lacks practically all mythological elements. Compared with the other myths, be it Egyptian or Greek, the Jesus-story is just plain too boring, lacks adequate archetypal imagery and is void of typical mythical elements to even come close to anything one would expect of proper mythology. Saying that the Jesus-story is a copycat of older myths or even saying that the Jesus-story is a mythological narrative screams of ignorance regarding mythological narratives.
Conclusion
Basically none of the similarity-claims made by Joseph resembles anything like the Jesus story. There are no real virgin-births and no real resurrections. The claim that most of these other sun-deities were crucified is also bogus. Besides, crucifixion as a means of execution was a Roman invention.
Peter Joseph continues to try and debunk the authenticity of Christianity (as a fairytale invented for political reasons) and of Jesus, but does so with very selective quotations and over all bad scholarship. Frankly, I have to wonder whether Peter Joseph did any proper research at all. The numerous sources listed at the end of the movie are dubious at best. Among them are Acharya S and D. M. Murdock (they are the same person), a controversial author of many “Jesus Myth”-books. Also Gerald Massey, a 19th century spiritualist poet (similar to William Blake). Another 19th century reference is John E. Rembsburg, who disbelieved the existence of Jesus as a historical figure, something that is doubted by very few scholars today. Most scholars of history believe that Jesus was a real historic figure, hence all the books about the “Historic Jesus”. They may not believe in his divinity, but they do not question his historicity.
As I said before, Peter Joseph is either ignorant or guilty of really bad scholarship. Alternatively, he is wilfully deceiving his audience.
There is so much more I can write about Part I of this film, but it hardly feels worth the effort. A superficial scratching at the surface of this section of the documentary, as I have done, reveals such uncomplimentary mistakes, and plain lies, that it is hard to take it serious at all.
I do, however, believe that some good can come out of Joseph’s faulty film. It will give those nominal Christians that do not really want to be part of their faith an excuse to leave it. Conversely, it will force the other Christians to re-examine what they believe and hopefully get rid of the pagan influences that have blighted Christianity for so long. Hopefully Zeitgeist will cause a revival for Sola Scriptura Untainted Christianity.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
A Return to Slavery in the USA
Will America condone slavery once more? Although the very idea sounds rediculous, the pawns are already moving into place.
Recently Obama signed a bill [HR1444] that will, among other things, research: "Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds."
Now, I have nothing against the Obama Administration's focus on volunteer work, but this is clearly not the ultimate aim. The ultimate aim is "mandatory service required for all". A government is probably allowed to draft people during times of war (although that is in itself questionable, since these wars are often caused by daft governments and ought not be supported). However, expecting involuntary servitude is reminiscent of Hitler Jugend, and many are finding it ironic that the first American president of colour should consider anything tainting of slavery.
Will mandatory service occur during Obama's presidency? Maybe not. But that is the issue. The issue is that laws will be instated which the next president could use to inaugarate the Facist state, which America is steadily moving towards.
Recently Obama signed a bill [HR1444] that will, among other things, research: "Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds."
Now, I have nothing against the Obama Administration's focus on volunteer work, but this is clearly not the ultimate aim. The ultimate aim is "mandatory service required for all". A government is probably allowed to draft people during times of war (although that is in itself questionable, since these wars are often caused by daft governments and ought not be supported). However, expecting involuntary servitude is reminiscent of Hitler Jugend, and many are finding it ironic that the first American president of colour should consider anything tainting of slavery.
Will mandatory service occur during Obama's presidency? Maybe not. But that is the issue. The issue is that laws will be instated which the next president could use to inaugarate the Facist state, which America is steadily moving towards.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Reasons for the Death of a President (JFK)
I think this is why JFK was assassinated, and yes, I believe it was an inside-job.
Speech to the American Newspaper Publishing Association. You can listen to it here.
Speech to the American Newspaper Publishing Association. You can listen to it here.
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:
I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.
You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.
You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.
We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."
But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.
If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.
I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.
It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.
Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.
Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.
If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.
On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.
It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.
My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.
I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.
This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.
I
The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.
Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.
If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.
Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.
For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.
The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.
The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.
On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.
I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.
Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.
And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.
Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.
II
It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.
No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.
I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.
Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.
This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.
III
It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.
And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Time Bombs
"The world is now pocked with cities that feel as if they are perched on top of bombs. The bombs have yet to explode, but the fuses have been lit, and there’s nothing anyone can do to extinguish them." Michael Lewis (2008)
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Global Warming on Other Planets?
Global Warming by ~SordxMaelstrom on deviantART
What does it mean if global warming occurs on Mars and the moons of Jupiter too?
I really believed that global warming is the cause of man’s selfish destruction of the environment, of cattle farts and burps, of bad gasses in our spray canisters and refrigerators, of car exhaust fumes. I watched Al Gore’s documentary, Inconvenient Truth. I recycle. Regardless, I may need to review how I think about global warming; not only I, but everyone that's honestly looking at the (newly discovered) facts.
Research of other planets in our solar system, planets without people and their exhaust fumes, without burping cattle, without factories, show that they are also experiencing global warming.
While I still believe in our God-given duty to take care of Nature (hence I'll continue to recycle), it is crucial for us to reconsider our views on global warming given new findings and alternative theories on global warming.
La Rage
This is the future . . . People are becoming more and more angry at their governments, international institutions, conglomerate companies, modernist authorities . . .
This part really struck me:
This part really struck me:
The rage, for this world does not suit us, but does feed us with false dreams and true ramparts. / The rage, for this world does not fit us, and Babylon grows fat and starves us to death.The truth about the Babylon-system, spoke about in the Book of Revelation, is slowly seeping into the consciousness of the common man.
Rev 18:1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory.
Rev 18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
Rev 18:3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
Rev 18:5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
MTV Martial Law Warnings
Hopefully some of the people watching these warnings that aired on MTV took notice.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Requirement for Love
A requirement for Love is the freedom of choice. Forced love is an oxymoron. Bribed love is not love, it’s prostitution. Coerced love is not love, it’s molestation. Forced love is not love, it’s rape.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)