Since the Zeitgeist movie websites have been brought to light some remarkable similarities between the pre-Christian religions and cults and Christianity, on the internet has unleashed a violeta reactionary protest with the objective of ridiculing and popularize the claims of the film. Many of these critics
/ ridiculed were based on information from the film, they tried their encyclopedias, and are not reflected, happily concluded that it is a farce. Then we go have not bothered to check the sources - strange, since they are well documented - to see if the new "findings" and theories have a foundation. Many of them have not read "The Christ Conspiracy," "Suns of God" and "Who Was Jesus?" Acharya S. If they had, they would have noticed that most of the parallels between religions highlighted by Zeitgeist have a foundation and are supported by archaeological evidence and even statements of the early church fathers.
The main argument of these improvised apolegeti seems to be: "Because I do not find these things in encyclopedias and as these things go against the one in which mankind has always believed and above all go against what I believe I then have to be wrong regardless. " History has shown that such assumptions are mostly wrong. It was believed that the Sun revolved intor the Earth, and it was believed for many centuries and most of the scholars agreed. When Galileo expounded his thesis, he was ridiculed, vileggiato dismantled with dishonest arguments, and finally forced to recant. However, we know, was absolutely right.
And it's always like this: every time you call into question the assumptions considered for a long time inevitably incur the criticism from conservatives and fundamentalists who want people to turn off your brain, stop thinking and believe in doctrines mummified, old, worn out and totally anachronistic. Fortunately, knowledge is never in this kind of people but by the free spirits.
In my next post, I will carefully examine in detail the criticisms of the first part of the Zeitgeist to demonstrate how, beyond a few errors, fundamental assertions remain valid.
Until next time,
Antaryoga D
0 comments:
Post a Comment