- Dragon Ball Z Forum
- →
- The Lounge
- →
- Deep Discussion
- →
- You Won't Believe in Christianity After Seeing This
| We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum. If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away. Click here to Register! If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk If you're already a member please log in to your account: |
| You Won't Believe in Christianity After Seeing This | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 9 2016, 06:18 AM (4,196 Views) | |
| Rockman | Dec 10 2016, 02:41 AM Post #16 |
hoighty-toighty
|
That's the thing about belief. You're actually a better follower/believer if your belief is unshakable. Otherwise you weren't a true follower in the first place. Where simply dismissing evidence on the basis that your belief is more important, is held to the highest regard. Zeitgeist is hard to watch because there is a lot of crappy graphics and silly music to back it with a lot of dead air time and no talking. As if that's making a point or something. If you want a good film to watch, watch Jesus Camp. Your interpretation to Jesus Camp is left to your own perspective. No intervening or bias required or pushed. Zeitgeist feels like i'm unable to believe half the s*** that is said. There is a reason i'm secular, and it's not because I listened to nonsense films like this. |
 JAke is a copyright of Spazo and Pickle Flavored Fudge Pops inc. | |
 |
 
|
| lazerbem | Dec 10 2016, 02:59 AM Post #17 |
 
|
Forms are fluid in Egyptian mythology. One god is separate and yet the same as another, this is a common thing that happens where a god is multiple things at the same time. It is hard for us to understand because it is nothing like more western structures of mythology. And yet, the one consistent issue is a lack of truth when Zeitgeist says what it says
It was a staple for Greek heroes but not for the Jews of the time. For the Jews of the time, having the Messiah killed pretty much invalidated them as being one, not to mention the opinion of the Roman public as a whole who would have seen this supposed Messiah humiliated and crucified like a common criminal. The trip to Hades is glorious and heroic, being beaten and slowly suffocated next to petty thieves is not.
I feel like it's worth noting that bringing up the latter people isn't a good example for a lack of realism given that we've actually found the real life Troy, which proves that at least some part of that story is real. Just being pedantic on that
Maybe so, but I feel like the existence isn't that important to the greater picture at hand. Socrates's existence is also greatly debated, but even if he didn't exist, it wouldn't change things very much. .
That's a bit of a different category of film though. I don't think that's what they're searching for. Edited by lazerbem, Dec 10 2016, 03:23 AM.
|
 Crazy cat cults in the woods | |
|
|
|
| + Sandy Shore | Dec 10 2016, 05:09 AM Post #18 |
|
Well, they were a fringe group for quite some time, though there was clearly something profoundly captivating in the story. Real or not, it made them seem bizarre, but it also proved to be a wonderfully compelling narrative. So saying it would be a terrible idea isn't all that convincing. And you're forgetting or ignoring that it is seemingly the scripture that revealed the death and resurrection of Christ, and perhaps started such a belief. It's not necessarily about what is and isn't a good idea, but what they believed, and Paul says it was revealed to him through scripture and vision. Isolating his views from the later gospels, we suppose it must have been the same for the Christians he was previously persecuting. He never says his views or understanding of Christ is any way radically different from Peter, the twelve, or other Christians he was initially against, only that Christ eventually revealed himself to the late to be born Paul, too, and details about him are revealed through scripture. This implies quite seriously that the idea of his death and resurrection was not founded in a real, and certainly not a recent, event, so a Jesus of Nazareth need not apply to the earliest Christians. Why ought he apply to later ones? To further, the earliest Christians, like Paul, never talk about the second coming or return of Jesus, but rather his appearance. His revealing himself to them proper. Whether it is the work of Cephas himself or not, just have a ganders through Peter 1, and other early epistles if you want, and see how often someone mentions a second coming or return. If you find some, I'd be interested to see them. While this Christ obviously has died and been resurrected at some point in the past—some might suggest it happened at the beginning of creation—there's no reason to suppose any of them have ever been in the physical presence of this figure before. They very seriously appear to be in line with "Paul's Christianity", which appears to be one not rooted in an Earthly Christ. There might have been a natural mixing of this Christ with a somewhat popular preacher that had been executed, or someone may have fabricated the more Earthly Christ for some reason. Like Mark, bringing him down to Earth in his seemingly conscious effort to write a Homer-like epic, thus needing to root the death and resurrection on Earth, too. Or maybe it was an attempt to round up the followers of such apocalyptic figures that unquestionably did exist, meaning the life and ministry of the Earthly Christ is not based on a historical Jesus, but an archetype that existed around that time - meaning he still never existed. Or it could have started with a single man, whose followers were so profoundly devoted to him even after his obvious failing, that they go and found a religion and create a huge myth in his name, trying to convince everyone he was in every way the promised messiah. It's certainly convincing, but the other routed aren't unconvincing, nor less founded. But he was supposed to have suffered for them. It's a major part of him being their messiah - humiliation could be seen as a part of his necessary suffering, as it is now anyway. Then he just conquers death. The point of his suffering is glorious and heroic, in it's own, far more profound due to its understatement, way. It might have been a stroke of (unintentional?) genius on the part of someone contributing to the Christ mythos. Yes, but they're still fictional. Rome is real, and that doesn't make Romulus and Remis historical. England and Britain are real, and that doesn't make Hengist and Horsa, or Brutus historical. That Troy was a real city doesn't lend any credence to Achilles or Odysseus, nor Mycenae to Perseus. We're not talking about a potential war having taken place at any number of places on the globe, Troy among them, but characters that fought and interacted with mythical creatures and deities; many of themselves part deity. There's no reason whatever that they must have been based on a specific someone in any meaningful sense, except for an utter lack of faith on the part of human imagination and their ability create stories. A lack of faith that would be incredibly unreasonable to have, I should think. It would just mean that Plato is profoundly modest in his expression of genius. No, it doesn't change anything whether a historical Jesus actually did or didn't exist, but, why are you so insistent on the position that he almost unquestionably did, when, even if did, he's not the same magical Jesus you believe in anyway? Personally, I would want him to have been real. It's my preferred narrative, for what it's worth, but it has its own problems, and there are other genuinely convincing routes Christianity might have taken. I can see perfectly well why it appears that he was the primary inspiration for a somewhat peculiar religious movement, but I can also see perfectly well why that wasn't necessarily what happened. |
|
|
| lazerbem | Dec 10 2016, 04:22 PM Post #19 |
|
Because historically speaking, there's enough proof to make a reasonable assumption that he did. Nothing is certain in history, as I'm sure you know, especially that long ago. We don't even have records for many far more important people than Jesus at the time. It's not enough proof for a legal trial but it's enough for a historical idea to be drawn up. I argue for Jesus's existence on this note because it's simply the position that fits in better with the current method that historians use to draw up what is real and what is false history. It's not definitive, but then neither is anything definitive for anyone that long ago but we tend to take it for granted that many historical figures exist despite the modest amount of contemporary evidence. There's nothing specifically wrong with saying Jesus didn't exist, but it's applying a higher burden of proof to the historical method than what is currently used. As for Paul and his earthly Christ, he spoke of Jesus in an earthly way a few times. He says Jesus was born as a human, of a human mother, and born a Jew (Galatians 4:4). He repeats that he had a "human nature" and that he was a human descendant of King David (Romans 1:3). He refers to teachings Jesus made during his earthly ministry on divorce (1 Cor. 7:10), on preachers (1 Cor. 9:14) and on the coming apocalypse (1 Thess. 4:15). He mentions how he was executed by earthly rulers (1 Cor. 2:8) and that he died and was buried (1 Cor 15:3-4). And he says he had an earthly, physical brother called James who Paul himself had met (Galatians 1:19). Of course, Paul could just be lying for some reason, but it seems bizarre to make up that a real life person existed within living memory and then make that person a Messiah rather than anyone else. He'd be choosing the most risky route if he just made up some random name and person and then tried to preach that to people who would have had access to Roman records and been able to say "lol, Paul, no guy called Jesus got executed around that time"
Right but according to early Jews, this wasn't the case. There was a reason they found crucifixion particularly terrible and that's the fact that in their early tradition, Jews thought anyone hung on a tree(and crucifixion fell under that) was a blasphemer and cursed by God. That's not the death of a Messiah, that's the death of someone forsaken by God. The symbol of the cross wasn't even used in Christianity until the 4th century because of how utterly shameful and disgraceful it was. Even Paul says that the crucifixion "is a stumbling block to the Jews and an absurdity to the gentiles." Sure, crucifixion helped to make him a martyr, but it can't be understated just how horrible of a death that was to the people of the time period(it was banned for Roman citizens). The earliest depiction of the crucifixion was Roman graffiti mocking the very idea by having a man with a horse's head being put on a cross and then a sarcastic inscription below saying "Alexamenos worships his God" 
Romulus and Remus actually also have debate on whether they were real or not. Of course, their exploits likely weren't real, but it doesn't seem impossible that some folk heroes called something similar did something really big and important enough for people to remember. Also, for the Britain example, it's possible Arthur existed and was conflated with myth of sorcerers. I don't think it impossible that parts of these stories could be true. I'm not claiming that Achilles was invincible, but perhaps there was a great warrior named Achilles who died by getting shot in the leg. We don't know. But this is all just playinf devil's advocate, their existence doesn't have much bearing on the subject at hand. |
|
Crazy cat cults in the woods | |
|
|
|
| + Sandy Shore | Dec 11 2016, 02:01 AM Post #20 |
|
He makes no mention of these as being something a historical Jesus preached, and you infer that all on your own. He says "the Lord says/commands" these things, just like how others have said God commands or says certain things. It looks like run of the mill (supposed) instruction from a deity. He mentions he was crucified by the "rulers of [their] age": That would seem to line up perfectly well with what's said of the historical Jesus, and given what we know of him from the gospels we would just assume it was the Romans or Jews he's talking about. But who does Paul seem to think of the rulers of their age are? Paul seems to think the rulers and authorities are powers of this dark world; spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Is that taking it out of context? Perhaps, but the same could be said of anyone linking the authorities to what they suppose they are due to their knowledge of the later gospels. If we only use Paul's writings to define who Paul thinks are the supposed rulers that crucified their Lord are, then he would seem to place them also not on Earth, and not being flesh and blood. Again, no mention of a historical Jesus. Just according to the Lord's word, which if we know anything for sure about Paul's Jesus, is that the details of it seem to come to him from scripture and visions, not any human witness. It reads like secret knowledge that a few (the apostles) have been made aware of, and Paul seems to make note of a "mystery that has been kept hidden for the ages", and similar things in various place. Also note that he once again talks of "the coming of the Lord" - not, as you'd expect if Jesus had already been, gone, and promised to come back, a "second coming", or "return". There's virtually no mention them having previously been in his company, and any that might seem to are very vague. They talk of revelation, revealing, coming, and even the apocalypse; apocalypse itself in Greek meant a revelation. Christ has not been previously known to them, but they know of him, who he is and what he promises, his death and resurrection (at the hands of "the rulers of their day"), and these are revealed through scripture and vision. This is the picture he and other epistles paint. If Paul does deem Jesus to have been previously on Earth, he definitely doesn't appear to be talking about the historical Jesus circa 30CE, because his knowledge of any such figure is not received through word of mouth or any eye witnesses, or even relatives of him, but the from the "good news promised beforehand through [God's] prophets in the Holy Scriptures". Here is some Earthly information about him, certainly. Had a human mother; was born under The Law; was a decendant of King David in his Earthly life; and had a brother called James. This doesn't negate all the other aspects of Paul where he seems to overwhelmingly be talking in completely mystical terms, of a figure yet to be revealed, but made known through scripture and promises and such, but it certainly muddies it up and prevents us from conclusively stating that Paul's Jesus had no basis on Earth. Having a human mother is nothing new for a fictional deity with no historical precedent; being born under The Law and being a descendant of King David would seem to go a ways to making him fit the messiah role, but that Paul met someone he called the brother of the Lord does itself speak for Christ's crucifixion having been recent enough to leave behind a living sibling, indicating he was indeed a human in Paul's time. I've heard some say that he possibly refers to him as the Lord's brother because James was baptised, and once baptised one becomes a child/son of God. Adopted in a sense, and Jesus was himself a son of God. This is of course merely a means to try and explain it, with the credibility being dubious, but the need to explain it isn't a vested interest in disproving a historical Jesus—historical Jesus poses no threat to the position of whether mythical Jesus or God are real—but because it doesn't seem to line up with the rest of Paul's writings, which taken by themselves speak far more to a different kind of Jesus than the gospel accounts. If Paul had met Jesus' flesh and blood sibling, then why no clear picture of him as a man living in recent memory? Why no details of Jesus ministry, deeds, or his crucifixion by relevantly named people? Why no mention of an insightful, or even just appealing, conversation with the blood relative of the man he and his own followers live their life for, as anyone would expect? Instead he just completely writes him off in passing to cover his arse should anyone find out he met any one other than Cephas while in Jerusalem. Of course you can take Gospel details and say "ah, this lines up with what Paul says here, here, and here", but taken on their own, it's a profoundly strange account to the supposed life of a historical Jesus, and the gospels are wholly unreliable as unbiased, non-fictional testimonies, or free from any influence of previous writings. Paul's can be taken independently, and they make almost no sense in regards to a historical Christ, and certainly not one that had only just died. But, again, that it was such a distasteful idea to many, and mocked by others—Christianity is still mocked by a great many for its beliefs to this day, so it's hardly telling that someone ridiculed it and a follower in its early days—doesn't mean it wasn't profound or appealing to anyone. Even I think it's a profoundly appealing thing to have a deity do. To further what I've been saying with an example, here is a snippet from someone's rebuttle of this very thinking: Must Attis have therefore actually existed because he had such a seemingly undesireable defining characteristic? Certainly not. A handful of people can have thoughts and beliefs that deviate from the norm of what is a desireable deity. There's no reason to believe such an idea didn't arise and take hold based on the prevailing attitudes. It certainly had a charm of its own. Christ himself has plenty of soft parallels to various other local deities, even if none are an exact model. Innana (mentioned in that same post) was meant to have been stripped in Hell, killed, and then put up on a meat hook before resurrecting. Some like to say that she was crucified after death to really hammer in the comparison, but as far as I can tell she was hung on a meat hook. It's still a very similar idea. Dionysus before him was definitely believed to have been killed and then resurrected. Being the son (or daughter) of a deity and a mortal is also nothing new to Christ, and plenty of other basic facts about his deity self. The infamous first apology by Justin Martyr speaks for Christianity's views not being especially deviant in Hellenistic culture: In-fact, I've often seen his base comparison to Hellenistic deities—let's not forget that the early Christians were a Jewish people conquered and thus heavily influenced by a Hellenistic empire, language, and thus thinking—for why it took root in Greece so quickly. What does all this say about the historicity of Jesus? It's says that it's not all that unlikely that Christ took root in the mind—like virtually all deities before—before later stories place the events on Earth, and in a historical context. Given even soft parallels, it's not hard to see how this might have come about, nor, does it seem to me in any way, outlandish. That makes two of us. Again, I'm not saying a historical Jesus didn't exist. But, there is a difference between pointing out the seeming disparity between the early Christian texts and the gospels, and how taken on their own seem to paint a different picture, and saying "perhaps a man name Achilles really was shot in heel because 'perhaps'". Especially when those earliest texts should be the ones giving us the clearest picture (independent of backtracking with the use of the later gospels) of his life and location as a real person. What reason would there be to suppose Romulus (and Remus) existed beyond saying the word "perhaps"? Rome exists? Romulus exists because Rome does, and not the other way round. You can say perhaps about these things, but they, in every way, from every angle, look and read as mythological figures. It's that you're wrong with a very, very exaggerated perhaps, but I question the need for such a baseless, pointless point. I'm pointing out the way in which we might have good reason to believe there simply was no historical precedent for Jesus, in opposition to the idea that he almost certainly did. Edited by Sandy Shore, Dec 11 2016, 02:35 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Zoom | Dec 11 2016, 02:27 AM Post #21 |
 
|
So what is answer, Apostle Paul started Christianity or Jesus Christ (even though he lived like a Jew observing the Sabbath)? Paul's teachings vs Jesus Christ teachings? or is there misunderstanding? |
|
|
|
| lazerbem | Dec 11 2016, 04:08 AM Post #22 |
|
It is new however for someone to claim that within living memory. You'll usually find that the mortal mothers thing is given an undefined and ancient date, even by the time period's standards.
Probably because he isn't exactly trying to write out the Encyclopedia Britannica on the subject.
Mr. Carrier is a bit of a fringe source who has a tendency of misusing many things. Also, what the Roman elite thinks is abhorrent is different from what the population as a whole thinks is abhorrent. Crucifixion was loathed by the populace to the point of Roman citizens having protection from it and Jews viewed it as a curse by God.
Depends on which Attis you mean. There's centuries worth of differences on how he was worshipped, but from what I can tell, the idea of Attis being a human was a newer interpolation and not present in the original worship from the 1200s BC and came about in the 400s BC. The comparison isn't worth pursuing because Jesus, since the beginning, was presented as someone who was crucified.
It's similar in a cursory way, but I don't think it's really a smoking gun. The only similarity is the revival, but the rest of it is quite different. Particularly the part where she dies because magical shouting and not because of being hung on a hook.
He was also dismembered before dying, that's an important detail that should be mentioned that provides a difference. All you're doing here is bringing up the concept of revival, but that's a broad topic. Miraculous returns from death are business as usual for religions but I don't think it means plagiarism(the Native Americans had revival stories too, it doesn't mean that they travelled to Greece to copy them)
The Jews of the time loathed anything pagan, and that's the problem. They hated Hellenic culture and were by all means loathing their status as being conquered. These were people who cut their hair short because long hair was associated with pagan, Hellenistic culture or who shunned gymnasia and theaters because of their association with pagan culture. Do you really think that such a people would just widely rip off a pagan culture?
I'm not an expert on the subject, I'm doing my best with what I have, but from what I understand, when speaking of the field of history, a person either existed or they didn't. There's enough evidence for a guy called Jesus who was baptized by John and then executed by Pontius Pilate for it to be a general historical consensus, and that's good enough for me to say that he almost certainly did exist. Of course, the Pope might have a rock behind his throne saying that it was all a lie, but more than likely, you'd be able to trace the religion back to a guy who caused trouble at the time period and just ended up more successful than the other various prophets of the era. |
|
Crazy cat cults in the woods | |
|
|
|
| + Sandy Shore | Dec 11 2016, 07:11 AM Post #23 |
|
Yes, but who can be sure Paul is talking about someone within living memory. He's fascinatingly vague on where or when his Jesus was meant to have been. Seems a bit like hand-waving to me. If he knew Jesus' actual brother, and met him, it is absolutely staggering to think that he seemingly didn't even care to find out anything about his saviour's actual life, nor indeed share any of that with other people with a profound interest in this supposed man that just died for their sins. He instead completely writes James off in passing. "Oh, yeah, and that guy". It's strange, to say the least. It appears as possibly the single thread in Paul's entire writing that independently point to Jesus having been a man just deceased in living memory of him, and it goes absolutely nowhere. It hardly destroys the impression the rest of his writing gives; that being Jesus is a figure yet to appear but supposedly known to him and other Christians via the prophets within the scripture. I haven't tried to present you a smoking gun, nor build a case for plagiarism. You're missing the point. It says there doesn't need to be a real life loss of a figure for people to start believing in a deity that had died or resurrected. They're story elements that predate Christianity, and Christianity might have subconsciously been influenced, or it might have simply arrived at the same sort of detail. I know nothing of the author, but, supposing the quote he sourced and noted was genuine—can you confirm whether it is or isn't?—his point is absolutely sound. It's not about the Roman elite in particular, but that a certain belief being seen to be pure filth by another group doesn't mean it can't take root and find its following. Just because Jews at large thought it shameful and preposterous that one's saviour should have such a wretched, humiliating characteristic, doesn't mean others didn't see it as profound, or indeed just happened to come to believe it. Again, you're ignoring or forgetting that if we're to believe Paul—pull yourself away as objectively as possible—the details of their deity aren't something anyone has necessarily chosen for the sake, but that have simply come to believe. Why have they come to believe something so seemingly against what they ought to? Because their Christ and details of his death and resurrection were revealed to them through scripture. At least in Paul's case - the main promoter of this figure and movement in its most formative years. If that's the case, then the attitude of the time means absolutely nothing. You're assuming they simply thought it'd be a neat idea, and can't believe anyone in their position could, completely ignoring that it's something they just might have come to believe. The comparison is worth noting, because it says that regardless of the prevailing tastes and opinions of a people, a group can still come to fervently—and with a sizeable following—believe in something others see as completely abhorrent. It doesn't need to follow this reasoning, and the insistence it does seems absurd. Saul himself persecuted early Christians, and then had a vision and became its number one fan. It's illogical to demand it follows this logic. Religious belief is always completely illogical, even if understandable, anyway. Also, Paul, as our earliest source, tells us quite explicitly where he gets his knowledge of his messiah from, and it's not any supposed witnesses of him in the flesh - which would be fine if we were arguing for magical Jesus being real, but we're talking about historical Jesus. Would it not be fair, then, to see if we can see why someone like Paul would come to believe something like this, despite what mainstream views of his time might think - what he himself once thought? Well, where else should we look for the primary inspiration for Paul's messiah other than precisely where he tells us he gets him? Some scripture:
Can we not see Jesus in this Hebrew scripture? Vividly. In the very place Paul himself says he knows of Christ. We know the gospels were doing this exact thing in their stories that paint Christ as closely as they can to being the perfect messiah with constant call back; this seems to be the modus operandi of early Christianity, and we have Paul pretty much directly saying as such... If crucifixion really were as terrible a humiliation for one to suffer as we might suppose, then what better thing their perfect messiah—their saviour who suffers so much for them—must have endured, right? And that others can not stand him as a messiah plays in to him being a shunned, unsung hero, surely reinforcing the beliefs of those that accept him. Whatever you want to say about Jews despising their oppressor culture—and I don't disagree, they absolutely did—you can not deny the effect their presence must have had on the culture and thinking at the time, and of a few individuals at least. Crucifixion being so abound and embedded in their minds as injustice and cruelty makes it perfectly easy to see how one might use that symbol to suppose their messiah suffered as greatly as possible. If it is so stupid a thing for any Jew to believe without having seen it for real—as if plenty of religious people don't come to believe in absurdities without having seen it for real—then no one beyond the handful to witness the supposedly historical Jesus would ever have paid it any mind. But they did. Real or not, they're preaching about something they've come to believe as truth to other people that have to take their word that it's true. Consider that these Jews, too awaiting a messiah, might see him in the pages of their scripture, as easily as you or I can, and surely as Paul had; it's perfectly easy to see how they might believe in it. I'm sure we can be sure that any inspiration for Christ in the Old Testament I've pointed out in this thread isn't even the tip of it, from a people so devoted to reading such words. If there's anything I should like to take in this debate, it's your belief that it simply doesn't make sense for them to have found their messiah in their scripture, or that they should come to believe he suffered such a horrible fate without their being a human precedent. I can not see for the life of me how one thinks it in any way unlikely. You might think Historical Jesus more likely, but you've been arguing how the other way actually doesn't make sense in some way. It may be the consensus, but, having seen all of the notable evidence, and having been over it with you, even, I fail to see how it's more conclusive than following the scripture for how such a figure might rise in people's minds, and how this coincides almost perfectly—not without some hiccup, as the historical Jesus has—with the views of Paul and the epistles, and in the same way Christianity continued to add, unquestionably, to its narrative in the gospels. We can trace the religion perfectly back to the scripture Paul says he gets his Christ from just as well. I think you're supposing that this in someway implies people intentionally lied about the entire religion... and more bizarrely, if true, you seem to suppose they would know and remain to be in on it. All this does is trace the the path of how people would have come to genuinely believe such a thing naturally, as they had done with every virtually every other myth and deity. Lying need not apply, nor, indeed, willfully believing in something woefully unfashionable at the time. |
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 11 2016, 08:03 PM Post #24 |
|
I've seen bits and pieces, and from what I've seen it's a good film to watch if you're wanting evidence that Christianity has survived so long due to brain-washing and indoctrination, but it isn't a film that attempts to explain the origins of Christianity as a world religion. Where did it come from and why was it created, especially during a time period in which dozens of other similar world religions already existed? |
|
|
|
| Sam | Dec 12 2016, 01:32 AM Post #25 |
It takes a mere second for treasure to turn to trash.
|
Yeah, I saw this five years ago. It's definitely interesting. I did do a lot of independent research on some of the claims that were made, many of them factual. |
|
WoW Legion Ending - Thank you Darker for making this into one, big incredible gif! <3 | |
|
|
|
| Meowth | Dec 12 2016, 12:26 PM Post #26 |
=._.=
|
Man pulls nail from finger, you won't believe what happens next! Clickbait titles are bad! |
 
| |
|
|
|
| Goddess Ultimecia | Dec 12 2016, 12:35 PM Post #27 |
 
|
How could you do this to me? I managed to avoid that for awhile, and now I have to reset the clock. Edited by Goddess Ultimecia, Dec 12 2016, 12:36 PM.
|
 NinjaSushi Colouring
| |
|
|
|
| Meowth | Dec 12 2016, 12:56 PM Post #28 |
|
=._.=
|
The classic maymays are the best |
|
| |
|
|
|
| lazerbem | Dec 12 2016, 01:59 PM Post #29 |
|
Zeitgeist orJesus Camp? The former is seeped in about as much fact as a typical History Channel episode but the latter does seem legit(if tragic and not institutional) |
|
Crazy cat cults in the woods | |
|
|
|
| Sam | Dec 12 2016, 09:06 PM Post #30 |
|
It takes a mere second for treasure to turn to trash.
|
I have seen both. Zeitgeist made claims about Jesus, Horus, and other figures IIRC. Those claims on the striking similarities are factual. Jesus Camp is a lot more refined and depressing. I got the impression Zeitgeist was made by a nutjob using Windows Movie Maker lol. Also, surprised I gotta say this but, don't spam deep discussion? |
|
WoW Legion Ending - Thank you Darker for making this into one, big incredible gif! <3 | |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Deep Discussion · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
 4:41 PM Jul 13
|
Theme Designed by McKee91
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy