TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Who was Jesus Christ ?
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

jeezez was a man, a brave man who did alot of good tings. He also had alot of freinds. jeezez was a man with long hair and long bierd. If jeezez was alive then he would be more famouse than michel jackson and even elvis prisly!

quote:

Originally posted by Googooly jeezez was a man, a brave man who did alot of good tings. He also had alot of freinds. jeezez was a man with long hair and long bierd. If jeezez was alive then he would be more famouse than michel jackson and even elvis prisly!

wow

no raisin? srsly?

quote:

Originally posted by Googooly jeezez was a man, a brave man who did alot of good tings. He also had alot of freinds. jeezez was a man with long hair and long bierd. If jeezez was alive then he would be more famouse than michel jackson and even elvis prisly!

Fuckin' Zeitgeist again...

There's no conspiracy. It's just openly accepted that the government owns you and your money. Of course it's never stated like that, but in a roundabout way that's what it is.

quote:

Originally posted by Space Marine Does "If its on the internet: then it must be true" apply to this movie?

quote:

Originally posted by inconspicuous no raisin? srsly?

ha!

it took me a while to get around to watching it, even though i didnt want to.

here's just a few general observations.

-real documentaries are not just a narration from one person telling you how it is. if they're talking about egyptian religion there would be a professor of egyptian studies interviewed. real docos have experts. thus i found of lot of the assumptions in part 1 to be a little problematic, but without further study i cannot conclusively call bullshit.

-i TRIED to watch part 2, but no surprises i couldnt make it all the way through. i really hoped that there would be something new or interesting in here, but there wasn't. the same, tired fallacies, bad science and debunked bullshit surfacing again. absolutely nothing to see here. this obviously caused me to doubt the veracity of other parts of the film, given that they were repeating stuff i know not to be true.

-i was unsure exactly what part 3 was trying to do. it crashed halfway through anyway so i didnt get through all of it. the only thing stood out was the argument that secret bankers deliberately created the depression = controversial at best. stating something like this as FACT doesn't lend a lot of credibility to the movie.



all in all, an average often annoying production (honestly, a 5 min intro without narration??) that might seem nice to your highschool student who doesn't actually know anything or bother to research further, but really doesn't maintain any sense of authority on any of the topics covered, simply because it lacks any expert testimony or differing points of view. except for the anti christian sentiments at the beginning, i wouldn't be surprised to find out this is a niche production from american white supremacists, with their strong anti (US) government positions and hatred of the (jewish) banking class.

amazing

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN im gay! OUT OF THE CLOSET BABY!!!!

cmon we all knew that already

quote:

Originally posted by Googooly jeezez was a man, a brave man who did alot of good tings. He also had alot of freinds. jeezez was a man with long hair and long bierd. If jeezez was alive then he would be more famouse than michel jackson and even elvis prisly!

w0rd.

I wub this movie. I'm watching it again!

that was surprisingly good. i was worried it was a loose change rehash - and in some ways it was...but overall it made me feel important.

but am i really?|

Jesus was.

quote:

Originally posted by Spike cmon we all knew that already

oh, you creative genius you.

quote:

Originally posted by justin I wub this movie. I'm watching it again!

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN ...might seem nice to your highschool student who doesn't actually know anything or bother to research further...

great film. too bad the people who need to watch it the most never will...

I was wondering whether or not I'd watch it now but, after reading its sources, I guess I'll wait till I'm on vacation or something...

plz elaborate.

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_M plz elaborate.

he means that he is an avid tertiary-level researcher, and he finds the references used in this stinking pile of excrement to be less than compelling.

he, like any other educated young fellow, thinks its a crock of shit and he hasnt even seen the partisan production!

Ha! I guessed after seeing the first section that Acharya S. was heavily involved. And now there is proof.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN he means that he is an avid tertiary-level researcher, and he finds the references used in this stinking pile of excrement to be less than compelling. he, like any other educated young fellow, thinks its a crock of shit and he hasnt even seen the partisan production!

I was going to say that in a more polite way but, yeah, the bibliography looks kinda dodgy.

You find among the authors of the first part Geral Massey, John Allegro and John Remsburg. I admit I picked these names at random, because I had never heard about any of those guys: all of them seem to be rather "controversial" figures. Also, they all seem to focus on the same hypothesis by taking just one perspective, which is another bad sign.

So, if I watch it, I want to pay as much attention as possible. That way, I'm not going to be unfair or naive.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN he means that he is an avid tertiary-level researcher, and he finds the references used in this stinking pile of excrement to be less than compelling. he, like any other educated young fellow, thinks its a crock of shit and he hasnt even seen the partisan production!

I'm going to find out who the people in the references are and decide whether you are justified in your criticism. I don't think you are justified in criticizing the first part because I doubt if you know any of the references. You are basing your entire opinion about the first part from the other two parts. The idea that Jesus Christ never existed as a physical person is certainly plausible.

As for the other two parts, you seem to form your opinions entirely in the black or the white and don't even want to recognize that gray areas exist. If the CTs are at one extreme you are at the other. And neither may be correct. But I guess you refuse to even accept such a possibility and are harshly critical of anything that has even a hint of CT. I don't think holding such rigid beliefs is correct.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira I was going to say that in a more polite way but, yeah, the bibliography looks kinda dodgy.

you're a much better human being than i am though lira, thats why

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_M I'm going to find out who the people in the references are and decide whether you are justified in your criticism. I don't think you are justified in criticizing the first part because I doubt if you know any of the references. You are basing your entire opinion about the first part from the other two parts. The idea that Jesus Christ never existed as a physical person is certainly plausible.

i dismiss most of the first part because of its lack of presentation. as i have said before, it comes across as one person's soapbox, not as a real intellectual examination. it feels partisan when compared with real documentaries. I don't need to know any of the references when i have actually seen the doco though

i am not saying the first part doesn't have some merit, but most of the ideas are NOT original and they are not presented in a way that garners credibility. i dont believe jesus existed anyway, so i dont really care.

quote:

As for the other two parts, you seem to form your opinions entirely in the black or the white and don't even want to recognize that gray areas exist. If the CTs are at one extreme you are at the other. And neither may be correct. But I guess you refuse to even accept such a possibility and are harshly critical of anything that has even a hint of CT. I don't think holding such rigid beliefs is correct.

this is your fundamental flaw. you have made the fallacious assumption that there is even a debate on the subject (specifically part 2) when there isnt.

quote:

Denialism: the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions. Examples of common topics in which Denialists employ their tactics include: Creationism/Intelligent Design, Global Warming Denialism, Holocaust Denial, HIV/AIDS Denialism, 9/11 conspiracies, tobacco carcinogenecity denialism (the first organized corporate campaign), anti-vaccination/mercury autism denialism and anti-animal testing/animal rights extremist denialism. Denialism spans the ideological spectrum, and is about tactics rather than politics or partisanship. We believe there are five simple guidelines for identifying denialist arguments. Most denialist arguments will incorporate more than one of the following tactics: Conspiracy, Selectivity, False Experts, Impossible Expectations/Moving Goalposts, and Argument from Metaphor/violations of informal logic.

cant describe it any better myself. just because a few crackpots and internet detectives see what isnt there does not mean there is ANY veracity to their crazy delusions. your first error is assuming the CTs have something to provide in the first place, which they do not.

there is nothing wrong with being "harshly critical" of something that deserves it. i have seen 100 different bullshit 911 theories smashed by real evidence and/or science. i think its far far worse to be led round by the nose by a bunch of denialists that think poking holes in accepted fact is somehow equal to providing real evidence.

the difference between you and i is that i have read enough to consider the "debate" closed. don't view having a supposed "open mind" as a virtue if having that open mind equates with accepting all nonsense no matter how unbelievable or unsubstantiated.

ie, dont leave your mind so open your brain falls out

Vicente Fox, ex President of Mexico Admits Plan For Single North American Currency, live on CNN, October 9th.

North American Union, not too far now...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=58052

http://www.prisonplanet.com/article..._fox_admits.htm

www.rense.com
www.prisonplanet.com

for news and opinions. ive found these sites informative and interesting. one might not agree with everything that these display but if any one is interested in more reading on topics such as were discussed in Zeitgeist, do check it out. hope this helps.

quote:

Originally posted by Azi www.rense.com www.prisonplanet.com for news and opinions. ive found these sites informative and interesting. one might not agree with everything that these display but if any one is interested in more reading on topics such as were discussed in Zeitgeist, do check it out. hope this helps.

yeah, if anyone is interested in the crazy full-time conspiracy theorist alex jones. but hey, you can buy a mug!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.