750,000,0000,0000$ are you f*cking serious

[6satan6archist6]

Originally Posted by Degausser

Yeah, internet bull**** with half truths and outright lies told in a forceful manner and presented as fact. GREAT source.

Have you even seen the movie, or are you just automatically discrediting it? Im going to assume the latter, judging before understanding is something you seem to do quite a bit.

[Degausser]

Originally Posted by 6satan6archist6

Have you even seen the movie, or are you just automatically discrediting it? Im going to assume the latter, judging before understanding is something you seem to do quite a bit.

Yes, i actually did watch it, and you'll soon realize that the greater intellectual community also discredits it for being incredibly poorly researched, not just us 'crazy' creationists. Yes, in fact i am a creationist, but you'll soon find out that not all of us Christians can be placed into your little 'Zeitgeist' based view of Christianity. (DarthSlyGuy and I probably being two of the prime examples of this on BWHacks.)

[JLTucker]

DSG is an agnostic.

Edit: In fact, I think he told me to watch the film.

[Degausser]

Originally Posted by JLTucker

DSG is an agnostic.

Edit: In fact, I think he told me to watch the film.

Not according to what we've talked about. His beliefs are similar to mine. (I never said he doesn't like the movie either, simply that his beliefs don't fit the "norm")

[Mookster]

I fairly certain DSG lays under the agnostic tree. Alot of the beliefs of Christianity are great guidelines, whilst the bargaining chip of a Human-like God that shares all of our survival instinct-driven emotions who'll send us to a fiery Hell where we'll burn to dust for eternity if we don't believe in him and do as he says, and whatnot, is a tad more questionable.

It's not possible for people to believe in something they don't believe in. It's not a choice. In fact, I believe it's much more reasonable to humble yourself and admit that you don't know, and there's absolutely nothing you can do with your 5 senses, genes, and fleshy calculator to change that.

[6satan6archist6]

Originally Posted by Degausser

Yes, i actually did watch it, and you'll soon realize that the greater intellectual community also discredits it for being incredibly poorly researched, not just us 'crazy' creationists. Yes, in fact i am a creationist, but you'll soon find out that not all of us Christians can be placed into your little 'Zeitgeist' based view of Christianity. (DarthSlyGuy and I probably being two of the prime examples of this on BWHacks.)

I would like to know what "greater intellectual community" you speak of. I would also like to know why you think this movie is poorly researched. There are several cited sources that are more credible than you have shown yourself to be. Yes all true Christians do fit into that category because you all believe in the idea that Jesus was born on December 25th to the "virgin" Mary blah blah blah. I think it's because your entire system of beliefs restson a foundation of sand, and has been sinking ever since it was built. So when you are faced with something that obliterates what you have been raised to believe is truth, you try to destroy it. Hoping maybe, just maybe, someone will think your opinion is worth the paper your life is printed on and side with you before looking at the other side.

To: everyone else, don't let my opinion sway you, don't let this guy's opinion sway you, just watch the movie and draw your own conclusions. The director even stats on the web-site he doesnt expect everyone to take everything in the movie as truth, but to find it yourself as the real truths are not told, but realized.

[Degausser]

Originally Posted by 6satan6archist6

Yes all true Christians do fit into that category because you all believe in the idea that Jesus was born on December 25th to the "virgin" Mary blah blah blah.

Nope, not all of us. Also; your movie cites the Egyptian sun god Horus as being "born of a virgin" and such, but that is simply not even close to truth. Horus' mother was Isis, and father was Osiris.

The date December 25, also is never mentioned in the Bible. In fact, the roman catholic church proclaimed it nearly 500 years later, as a vestige of the Roman holiday of Saturnalia, observed near the winter solstice. Anyone with half a brain can tell you that nowhere in the Bible does it name December 25 as 'Jesus' Birthday'. Extending from that, i bring up the three wisemen (not kings, Zoroastrian priests.) who visited upon the birth of Jesus; this is also a misconception. The three wisemen most likely did not show up until roughly two months later, once again falling short of the Astronomical anomalies presented as truth in 'Zeitgeist'.

Similarly, simply because things are written in the Bible does not make them true. The Bible, being written by humans, is subject to human fallacies. Some may claim that the 'devil is in the details', to an extent, this is true. Details in the Bible seem to parallel pagan religions, but i would argue that in order to grab attention of pagan readers, the story of Jesus is purposefully worded to sound like an earthly fulfillment of the 'sun god' story so prevalent in pagan culture, yet when you look at the ministry of Jesus, the message is vastly different. Christianity focuses on a personal god who takes interest in human affairs; not necessarily a person, mind you, but a personal being not subject to time or space, but separate.

Your precious little peice of fiction is based only on anecdotal evidence, and claims the oft-debunked Jesus myth hypothesis to be canonical fact.

[6satan6archist6]

Originally Posted by Degausser

Nope, not all of us. Also; your movie cites the Egyptian sun god Horus as being "born of a virgin" and such, but that is simply not even close to truth. Horus' mother was Isis, and father was Osiris.

The date December 25, also is never mentioned in the Bible. In fact, the roman catholic church proclaimed it nearly 500 years later, as a vestige of the Roman holiday of Saturnalia, observed near the winter solstice. Anyone with half a brain can tell you that nowhere in the Bible does it name December 25 as 'Jesus' Birthday'. Extending from that, i bring up the three wisemen (not kings, Zoroastrian priests.) who visited upon the birth of Jesus; this is also a misconception. The three wisemen most likely did not show up until roughly two months later, once again falling short of the Astronomical anomalies presented as truth in 'Zeitgeist'.

Similarly, simply because things are written in the Bible does not make them true. The Bible, being written by humans, is subject to human fallacies. Some may claim that the 'devil is in the details', to an extent, this is true. Details in the Bible seem to parallel pagan religions, but i would argue that in order to grab attention of pagan readers, the story of Jesus is purposefully worded to sound like an earthly fulfillment of the 'sun god' story so prevalent in pagan culture, yet when you look at the ministry of Jesus, the message is vastly different. Christianity focuses on a personal god who takes interest in human affairs; not necessarily a person, mind you, but a personal being not subject to time or space, but separate.

Your precious little peice of fiction is based only on anecdotal evidence, and claims the oft-debunked Jesus myth hypothesis to be canonical fact.

None of that changes the fact that to believe in such a fairy tale is incredibly stupid. Nothing you can ever say will ever change the fact that I look down upon you and all Christians for the weak, self-serving, hipocritical, brainwashed idiots that you are. Even if the concept of heaven and hell were real, id prefer to go to hell, at least then I can be with some like minded individuals rather than spend eternity with the likes of you.

[el-camino-ss]

Originally Posted by 6satan6archist6

None of that changes the fact that to believe in such a fairy tale is incredibly stupid. Nothing you can ever say will ever change the fact that I look down upon you and all Christians for the weak, self-serving, hipocritical, brainwashed idiots that you are. Even if the concept of heaven and hell were real, id prefer to go to hell, at least then I can be with some like minded individuals rather than spend eternity with the likes of you.

And you don't think people feel the exact same way about you? No matter how much you argue there's always people with different views, so just stop talking.

[6satan6archist6]

Originally Posted by el-camino-ss

And you don't think people feel the exact same way about you? No matter how much you argue there's always people with different views, so just stop talking.

Im sure people do feel that way, but as long as people keep bringing up the subject, I will keep talking about it. If you want me to shut up about it, tell deguasser to shut up about it.

[unimailer1972]

Whew, where to begin?

Let's start with a game called, "who benefits the most?" I have heard many people ask for facts to back up any claims made. The fact is: the banks that are going to ride this out stand to benefit the most. It doesn't mean that they created the problem, for all of you who are going to jump to that being my conclusion. The Fed will get more control and oversight, according to Barney Frank:

Originally Posted by http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/22/real_estate/barney_frank.moneymag/

Then came this great innovation called securitization. Securitization means that I lend you money and quickly sell the right to be paid back by you to other people. Well, when the lender ceased to have an ongoing relationship with the borrower, a tremendous amount of banking discipline was lost. And it was much harder to replace than we thought.

Q. Where were the regulators during all of this? Why didn't they step in?

A. Back in 1994, Congress gave the Federal Reserve the authority to ban irresponsible mortgages. Alan Greenspan, as a very committed anti-regulation conservative, refused - literally refused - to use that authority. Congress can give people authority; we can't compel them to use it.

Ben Bernanke, to his credit, realized that it was time to use that authority. So he promulgated a set of rules on July 14 of this year to prohibit a lot of the mortgages of the type that got us in trouble. If Alan Greenspan had done 10 years ago what Ben Bernanke did this past July, we would have much less of a problem in subprime mortgages.

Again, I would like to say that I am not implying any judgement about this fact: The Fed will exercise more control, if Barney's plan is passed.

The Federal Reserve should be given the authority to exercise regulatory authority over investment banks.

The rest of the world is not oblivious to this peril, as shown in the following article:

Originally Posted by http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7622318.stm

* Central banks from the UK, US, Europe, Canada, Switzerland and Japan are releasing $180bn into their money markets. The move is the fourth such concerted effort since the onset of the credit crisis last year.
* The news helped to reduce the interest rate at which banks lend to each other - a key factor behind the problems in credit markets.
* Cautious investors are looking for safer places to put their money. The price of gold, regarded as a haven in troubled times, rose to $871.2 an ounce after recording its biggest one-day gain in history on Wednesday.
* Lloyds TSB released details of its £12.2bn takeover of HBOS. The deal values HBOS shares at 232p each and is expected to lead to cost savings of £1bn a year and could also result in significant job losses.
* Russia's main stock exchange suspended trading for a second consecutive day as the government tried to halt a sharp fall in share prices and restore confidence in the economy.
* The UK's Financial Services Authority has announced steps to restrict short-selling of shares while New York's attorney general has launched a probe into short-selling.

And that was Sept 19th. Here's the latest:

Originally Posted by http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/30/business/30centbanks.php

FRANKFURT: The Bank of England and the European Central Bank on Tuesday offered up more cash to the market in a move to provide liquidity to the financial system.

The Bank of England said on its Web site it was offering up $10 billion to a maximum of 10 bidders. The number of bidders and rate are usually announced later in the day.

The European Central Bank offered $30 billion to banks in an overnight operation with a minimum bid amount of $5 million, and a maximum of $3 billion. Bidders for the ECB's offer and rates are usually announced later in the day.

Meanwhile, the Swiss National Bank said it was continuing to provide the markets "with generous and flexible liquidity" without providing details - its standard communication.

On Monday, the ECB joined with the U.S. Federal Reserve in doubling the credit swap line that makes dollars made available to cash-hungry banks from $120 billion to $240 billion. The Bank of England doubled dollar availability to $80 billion, while other central banks offered smaller amounts.

Ok, so you may be asking, "Unimailer, why bore us with articles that we could have looked up on our own?" I'm not attempting to bore you to death, I'm only presenting the facts as they stand, and drawing a conclusion of my own. It's not a new thought. It's just that this topic has gone so far OFF TOPIC, discussing religion now, come on. Have we learned nothing in this forum over the years. You cannot debate religion, as it is a matter of belief, not based on facts but on faith. You can discuss it all you want, but it usually ends up in name-calling, which is what we have right here.

My conclusion is this. The ones who benefit most from this are the banks that will be able to survive this global credit crunch. I do not know what their motives are, but I can certainly guess. My guess would be that their motivation is money and power, what else? When you research what multi-nationals these banks control, you can begin to see their spheres of influence, or how they can control people. This is not conspiracy theory folks. This is right in our face, non-stop; in the media. I do not have the time to research who controls ABC, CBS, etc... but I can say that whenever I watch news, I cannot sit there and take it for more than a couple of seconds. The news covers another school shooting, ask the question, " How can this happen?" And the next segment is about the newest military aircraft. You can call this a stretch if you want, you can call it whatever you want, but the fact remains that the military-industrial-congressional complex is out of the people's control. And that is my scary conclusion. It's not a crazy, crack-pot conclusion based on false facts or research. It is just what I've come to see after pouring over research for the last couple of years. I've only been reading about policitcs for a couple of years. I, like many Americans, was blissfully happy to continue to be ignorant of the world around me. Now, with my daughter almost one year old, I refuse to remain ignorant, passive, and subject her to a future of corruption and violence. If I have to move to a different country, so be it. But, I think that there is a lot of good to be thankful for in this country. We couldn't even have this discussion as openly and frank as we are in China. My daughter would be married off to someone as mere property if I lived in India. I think that the USA is the greatest goddamn country ever, and I also think it is worth fighting to back under the people's control.

You may draw a different conclusion, based on the facts, and that is the beauty of debate. And if you resort to name-calling, instead of refuting my conclusion, then I don't see the point in even posting. We are seeing a global tightening of control, concentrated in the hands of a very few. When you have that much control, power, and almost unlimited access to money; you can understand how even the most moral person can become corrupt. I respect a great deal of politicians, and I do not expect you all to believe a word of my conclusion. I do, however, think that you may agree with at least one of the people below, and that you may respect their character, morals, conviction, and position of expertise with respect to their positions.

As I've said before, if you are enjoying the show, just sitting back...waiting, enjoy. Ignorance can truly be bliss. I was once much happier and ignorant. Now, I take much more responsibility for the future of our children. And if we are not concerned with the future of the children in the US, if we do not believe the principles that this country was founded on, then we damn well better accept that this country no longer stands for the Bill of Rights, which are supposed to be our "Magna Carta."

Originally Posted by JFK

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.

President of the United States (and former General of the Army) Dwight D. Eisenhower used the term in his Farewell Address to the Nation on January 17, 1961:
“ A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
- Woodrow Wilson in reference to signing the Federal Reserve Act in 1913.

This is my conclusion, based on the facts.