Josy, as one who knows far better than most what it's like to be misinterpreted or have his posts 'twisted', I will rephrase what I wrote so that it better conveys the meaning which I intended.

I am sorry that you feel I was being a hypocrite in this case.

I try to never post without providing evidence for my contentions in those posts Josy, and it is no different in this case. I elected to rebut Zeitgeist and so pasted a few links out of many which I believe corroborate my claims in my rebuttal with facts and logic.

Ramsay actually did politely ask me what I found or thought was wrong in the video, so I responded and provided the links which is both polite and fair.

If that is hypocritical of me, then it was not my intention and I apologise.

complete and utter nonsense. Christ rebelled against the rich and told the masses to fight the power!

Now I know we don't live in a Christian democracy then! :laugh:

You had already posted the same links three times before Karl asked you what you found wrong with the movie though Kirk.

Getting back to the topic at hand..

I think now there is so much information freely available to research on the internet etc, people are becoming a lot more aware of things like religion, having their eyes opened to a lot and realising that maybe we shouldn't always just believe what were are told to.

Every day, even now we see information published that is uncorroborated. It sits there as information for future generations to reference and make of it what they will. Interspersed with this are corroborated facts validated from proven multiple sources.

Historically, we have no method of reliably identifying corroborated fact. Simpy because an event is recorded on multiple occasions and has some commonality with other recorded events doesn't make them corroborated fact. That is the crux of the problem we are faced with. So much information was passed down from generation to generation that it is impossible to say without a shadow of a doubt that the event now reported actually happened in the form and context that it is being reported in. That's not to say its not possible for an event 2000 years ago to be factually accurate, just by laws of probability, incredibly, incredibly unlikely.

QUOTE JOSY: "You had already posted the same links three times before Karl asked you what you found wrong with the movie though Kirk.[/B]

Not so in actuality Josy - I do not know if you have the technological means to check, but I actually went back into my responses as an afterthought and edited them in order to post the links. If you look back at my posts you will see that Ramsay asked the question at 12:12 AM. and I actually answered him with links at 1.22 am. I then edited the earlier posts to paste in the links at 1,.23 am, 1.23 am, and I think 1.24 am - all AFTER I responded to Ramsay, and hardly giving me time to time to compose individual posts if I was not telling the truth.

"Getting back to the topic at hand..

I think now there is so much information freely available to research on the internet etc, people are becoming a lot more aware of things like religion, having their eyes opened to a lot and realising that maybe we shouldn't always just believe what were are told to."

Exactly my point because this applies as much to anti-Religious articles as it does pro-Religious ones, which is why I responded as I did - that we definitely shouldn't believe everything we are told or what we see or read or watch, without questioning and further research and cross referencing.

I am quite sure that were I to post a lengthy article on 'The Case For Jesus As The Messiah' but unbeknown to me news had broken on the internet that a tomb had been discovered in Jerusalem which contained an intact ossuary complete with bones and an inscription verified as; These are the remains of Yeshua of Nazareth, son of Joseph and Mary, brother of James, who was crucified in the reign of Tiberius etc' - then I am quite sure that my post would be rapidly followed by a dozen or more rebuttal responses

I believe that the first link I provided competently debunks the Jesus/Mithras/Horus claim part of the Zeitgeists movie and my use of it is no different to the above in that the intention was to say; "Don't believe everything you read".

Alot of people don't dispute that such a person may have existed though Kirk, the main thing that I would dispute would be that this person, if he ever existed, was "the son of god" and that he performed miracles, rose from the dead etc

we live in a so called democracy in which the true words of Christ are often perverted by cheats and liars.....we should never blame Christ we should always blame the cheats and liars

I'm talking about organised religions which are man made. I don't believe in Christ

whether they were all literally miracles or symbollic allegories is a moot point..for once I was blind but now I can see is pretty open to interpretation etc . Regardless of how corrupt a minority of preachers are or how hypocritical some church goers are, the words of the original message are more important than the perversions of corrupt messengers...however its his teachings, the beliefs, the morals and values that surely are the most important lessons to be learned , understood and carried forward.

youre talking in generalities about 100s of different religions, belief systems, stories, people, books etc That's a dangerous thing to do imo as theyre all vastly different , Im talking specifically about Christ.

Sure but nice messages and beliefs coming from wonderful people aren't specific to religion or a God. It's the miracles and rising from the dead etc that essentially prove that Jesus was the son of God. Being a good and moral person isn't exclusive to religious people

You may be specifically talking about Christ but I wasn't and you were the one who quoted my post that was specifically about organised religions :shrug:

The supernatural stuff was added to get the followers and by getting the numbers you get power and status as being one of the ones in the know

look at any church today with those in the know, everyone trying to be the ministers pal etc

But what if the cheats and liars are the advocates of the religion, surely that would make you question the moral authority of said religion?
Is it not better to abandon that and follow your own path according to specific teachings.

I agree, but I never said otherwise? I certainly didn't say being a good moral person was exclusive to religion. I cant understand why youd want to tear down Christ. which of his beliefs of teachings do you hate so much youd want to spend your days tearing him down. because whether its your intention or not that is what youre doing.

no. the exact opposite is the case. Christs teachings were fantastic and timeless. the fact some corrupt people will pervert his words his irrelevant to the beauty of his teachings. there will always be evil there will always be cheats and liars perverting messages , playing devils advocate and bearing false witness and twisting peoples words for their own ends. you don't quit your own beliefs simply because of evil, in fact it strengthens your beliefs to stand firm in the face of the lies and adversity. do we quit democracy just because of some corrupt liars, no.

supernatural stuff is the least important part imo, Christ's teachings are the real jewels than enrichen our lives

I meant according to Jesus specific teachings... you would still effectively be a Christian, just not aligned with those you felt were for whatever reason corrupting the established Christian religions.

I never said you did say otherwise, I was replying to something Kirk said about proving that there was such a person called Jesus :shrug:

Also, I don't believe in Christ so the rest of your post means nothing to me tbqh :laugh:

That's what I mean though Niamh - Christians believe that Christ 'rose body and soul' into heaven, so IF his bones/body ever turned up then all our beliefs fly out of the window.

I'm sure if that unthinkable did happen I wouldn't hear the last of it.

Oh my apologies, I misunderstood your post

I can't speak for Niamh, but assuming that Jesus as a man did exist, claiming to be the son of a supernatural deity in order to gain a following of cultists is reason enough for me to want to tear someone down...

As it happens, I personally don't believe that the literal Jesus of the Bible ever existed at all. I'm open to the idea that the character was loosely based on a real individual, but the truth of that individual's life would be so far removed from the biblical stories as to make them as good as fiction for all intents and purposes.

With THAT in mind, I no more want to "tear down" Jesus than I want to "tear down" Harry Potter. I just reserve the right to point out that believing in wizards, dragons and house elves is somewhat questionable.

you were responding to me and my quote?

Yes - That is exactly what I am Kizzy. I firmly believe in Jesus Christ, but I steer clear of the 'organized' 'Church' for exactly those reasons.