The Best Documentary I've ever seen.

Please watch this, it's so important and relevant.

Have some patience with the first part, it takes about 4 minutes to really kick on, but worth the way. I've posted a few links...

I know religion is a hot topic, but try to keep an open mind.

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnzwV8pYXXs&feature=related

part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAqhi6myuzQ&feature=related

I hope some of you find this interesting.

Norhan, eh...the bible has consistantly personified God as male, and Jesus as a lightly tanned white man...

Lol.

It feels to me you haven't really opened yourself to the message of this documentary regarding religion. Of course there will be small things no entirely accurage, but as you actually suggesting that Christianity didn't come from sun worship with key myth based components that were copied from dozens of other pre-dated religions?

can you honesty say that?

believe what you will if it gets you through your day, but don't think for a second the history of the bible or Jesus is anything but a politically inspired myth. it has good morals, kinda..but it's outdated and needs to be scrapped.

Well I'm not going to debate your faith, that is your choice.

But I'd be very interested in any counter arguments or evidence to support why you think the documentary isn't historically accurate.

Really though I'd love to you answer my question about the bizaare similarity between the sungod jesus and all the other ones. Best to keep things simple in these kind of discussions.

Oh I do look at peoples lives and the impact this has on their needs regarding religion Rikki, I understand well enough the kinds of experiences that usually draw a person to religion. If it isn't hammered into their heads when they are still soft, it's usually some tragic event or bad period in their lives (like a drug addiction) that gets them converted.

I know alot of religious people, mostly Christians I'll grant you, but none of them as an adult with no serious issues, just looked at religion objectively and decided it was the truth.

"oh this sounds totally plausible, the ark and the miracles heaven and hell!, hey Donny I think I found the meaning of life!!"

I checked out those links, and even though I don't take wikipedia as gospel (no pun intended) It does appear that there are inconsistencies with the documentary. Still I stand by it's overall ideal, that religion wasn't created in a divine way, but was made by men for men and with political notions in mind which for me, totally sullies any spiritual aspect to it.

If it's roots are highly suspect, and they are without a doubt, because if you make fantastical claims to creationism and all the other miracles etc, which form the basis to the God/Jesus myth, you need to have fantastical evidence to back it up. You need something more than faith and subjective stories about "feelings" and "experiences" people have that can never be tested or even proven.

Look at it this way.

If i tell you a ball will roll down a hill next to us, you'd believe me because you have the proof of the ball, the hill and you understand how these two things work in relation to each other. I don't need to ask you to have faith, you can believe 100% because the evidence and information is there.

If I then told you the ball would fly down the hill, vanish for 3 days and then rise up out of the ground, 4 times the size and ascend into heaven, and your lack of believe in this based purely on my words, or words I'd read from a book you'd want evidence or proof or even a very solid theory to back up my amazing claims.

I see no such evidence or proof for religion.

It sounds circular. You must have faith to believe...which translates into.."you must believe before you can believe".

Nice one Bob, I love that quote too...can't recall who said it but it's a good one.

Rikki, I myself am a huge fan of tangents in conversations, and I like all the numbers and "facts" in your tangent, but everything you said doesn't really contribute to the points we've been discussing except to back mine up I think.

The genesis religion you talk about whilst having no clear start point because of the lack of recorded history and no numerical system was clearly based around worship of the sun. The Sun of God, the Godsun which later became personified as Ra or Jesus or any number of other sungods...but it started with the Sun and it's giving of life powers.

Later on this personification became more advanced and whole myths were attached to the Sun along with backstories but it was all linked to astronomy and the same basic worship the most primitive man had.

Jesus/sun the giver of life, the light..the way who fights the darkness or Set, or evil and it followed around by 12 desciples or constellations (tarot signs in later times based on the seasons). He dies and is risen after 3 days ( refers to the suns 3 day low point during a lunar year, and the one degree rise on the 3rd day. The 3 wise men are constelllations...the star in the east is Orion....

It's all about a Primitive astrological concept woven over the years into a myth that later became a politically inspired religion thanks to old Constantine.

I'm still refining my personal understanding of all this, which is why this thread is great fun for me, keep it going.

Well, here goes my opinion:

At first the guy says that religeon is only an excuse for the goverment to get more money and live the life of luxury. This point has already been discussed before when the vatican seemed incharge in Italy, and it has been proved false, because some other religeons don't have any role in the government.

Then he mostly talks about Christianity (which was the true focus of the whole documentry, not religeon) and the greek and egyption religeons. There are millions, actually billions of other religeons which he hasn't even mentioned, if you are going to falsificate religeon, you have to falsificate each and every religeon and as Norhan said you can't do that using unreliable resorces and putting it into a short documentry. This way or the other he started with a religeon and brought all the others from it, he didn't prove that religeon is from nothingness, even if he proved all other religeons were false, he can't prove that the one he started with is false.

All this guy done here now is link information together which wasn't linked. Just like my number 11 thread, it's all people looking too hard for explanations which don't exsist, people didn't believe that and I didn't expect them to, now you're free to believe whatever you want to believe, but you can't expect people to believe in it based on consequence.

Ehm... In part four.. I actually laughed at this part, he says that there is no historical evidence to Jesuses exsistance, except in the bible. Well obviously this guy didn't do half the research he should've done. Because there are clear statments in many verses of the quran of the exsistance of both Jesus and Mosus, and they are highly similar to what is stated in both the Bible and the Torah, except that neither are considered a son of god, because in islam there is only one god and he has no sons, daughters or wives, and it is also mentioned that people will think of them as sons of god in the future. And I'm sure there is some other form of historical eveidence somewhere, if he looked for these instead of the amazing links he made from the constilations to religeon he would've found something. Of coarse you don't believe in miracles, so you don't believe that the sea could've turned to blood for Mosus and his people, well if you read page 38 of the Anglo-Saxon chronicles you will find that in the year 685 there was bloody rain and milk and butter turned to blood, that however, was after christ (not in the days of Mosus) but we (Shia Muslims) have a religeon related history at that exact date, and it has been told long before we knew of the book. There are other religeos stories like ones where people turn to stone which have been proved because they have actually seen people (real people) in some ancient village trapped in stone which looked like they were made of stone. I don't believe everything I hear, but with hard evidence like that I could believe.

If this guy done the research he should've, he would be very confused right now, and it would take him ages to reach to that point and if he looked further he would either be religeos or give up. I dare you to reach to a more reasonable conclusion which would leave people speachless and make them believe in your opinion.

Christ has died, Christ is Risen Christ will come again
The truth is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Some of my Christian friends have explained to me that there are no mysteries as they crucify my convictions with love

Oh, Kevo, we've got to get you watching some better documentaries!

Love,

Sibs

Rikki. When you drop a debate into name calling and being personally insulting, that is when I stop talking to you. I don't have an interest in that anymore on here. Have at it though if you feel it's a good way to conduct yourself, you write like someone who is a bit threatened. I never intended that. Read my first post, I didn't say I believed in everything in the documentary, only that I found it very interesting, which is clearly is given it's success and awards.

Sibs, yeah you are probably right deary, you usually are but all I wanted to do was share this piece of work and open it up for debate. I did that so fair play.

I'm not going to defend it anymore, it's not my work I just found it interesting. Many flawed things are, and they are still of worth.

I won't post anymore about this.

/tiphat.

No, come back!

I watched the first half, but not the second.

Like the others in here, I found a good deal of the logic problematic, but I still thought it was interesting. It made me realize again the profound overlapping patterns of mythology - themes and images showing up at different times, in different ways, perhaps meaning different things but tying them all together in a complicated tapestry. People are cool. The stories they tell, "real" or not... it's very amazing, I think.

^Not sure who you're talking to. I think that would correspond with Kevin's posts, if it's him.

I will agree that this documentary was very thought provoking, though it seemed to attempt to lead the viewer in the opposite direction that most would perceive that Karen Armstrong and C.S, Lewis would do with religious similarities. When science and religion appose it is most likely due to a failure stay within the boundary of there own focus. The more one knows about philosophy it seems the line between fact and fiction becomes blurred.

It also seems to me that academic excellence is not always the standard for popular videos on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jkBOU9etRA

Views: 1,715,422

Rikki your argument just backed up what Kevin was saying you're just to dumb to see it,

It seems you are one bitter and twisted individual with a nasty streak. You contradict yourself every time you put finger to keyboard, you misconstrue twist and quite frankly are painful to read......

Kevin Murray is one of the more intelligent members on this site, his views on religion are basically the same as yours he wasn"t advocating anything other that he had come across what he considered an interesting article nothing more. did you even see the article?? Your vindictive was unwarranted misplaced and bloody rude. As it is the boards are quiet and devoid of much interesting without driving more away

Maybe you think I'm a babbling idiot like Kevin,(there's some that do) if you do, I take it as a compliment.

lighten up dude....

Some of what she said had merit.

Pandering to egos is another way of saying politically correct

Which is one of the reasons the worlds in so much crap at the moment. In NZ you can be 1/32nd Maori and entitled to everything Maori, education grants, work opportunities, land grants, you name it, and they call themselves Maori. What of the other 31 bits of them that aren't Maori is that of no consideration? a lot of my friends are Maori and great friends but the system has been put in place what else but use it. but when a Blond blue eyed Maori stands in front of me and is entitled to all in sundry over me well the system is buggered

One misconception about the Maori being native to NZ, they aren't, they arrived on boats after the Moriori whom they wiped out and chased off to the Chatham Islands. Some of the few remaining descendants of the Moriori took the Maori to court but The Maori took an injunction out against them and that was the end of that....