We are one

[Aesa]

So watching a movie is going to open my eyes to the whole gambit of human emotions, and make me an expert on the history of economics, religion, politics, and human nature?

No but it'll give you a starting point. You cant expect to discuss this movement logically if you have a very limited idea of what it's about.

Aesa, you live in a box built by the Zeitgest Movement. Anything outside the box is completely 'bad' or 'fallacious' to you.

Completely wrong. The reason why this argument has gone off on so many pointless tangents is because you're coming from a perspective of essentially discussing the movement through knowing very little about it (and the idea that I've come to the conclusions I have is just ludicrous - I think the majority of people want to see, for example, world unification - they're just very scared of where that's going right now because it's so abusive)

the decision that you won't interact with me until I meet your personal demands and watch the movie- undoubtedly the thing that convinced you so strongly to join the Zeitgeist Movement. It also gets you out of actually providing solid evidence for anything you say- something I keep asking for and never get.

Ofcourse it did, but it's not the root or the base of my reasons for joining it - I align with anything that wants to unconditionally advance Science and Technology. I would align with any direction that would want to provide for humanity's needs in abundance without the need for unnecessary servitude. Even if it was religious, so long as it didn't think it would be the 'religion' that would do it.

The problem is that from the outset you have a complete agenda... and as I said to you via private message:

If I were to behave as you have in regards to the Book of Mormon and quote scriptures against it and call it evil because it 'adds to the Bible' and all that other BS you'd call me closed minded and pursuing an agenda based on lack of understanding.

This is exactly what you're doing. It's not that I am totally refusing to discuss with you until you've watched those films and chose to educate yourself, but rather it's just that you can't expect to discuss the incredibly relevant and well sourced information in those films which are also relevant to our discussion if you haven't watched them.

It goes along the same lines of if someone asked me "[X] about Nephi?" and I just reply "He's an evil, gay, fat man." See how illogical and uninformed that'd be?

if they possess a logical mind (I use 'logical mind' like Joseph Smith did- that is, a mind that has been uncorrupted by the false doctrines of man)

Coming from your perspective there - the same guy who carried around pagan charms, the same guy who had a lot of young wives, the same guy who started up a bank and did a runner when it collapsed? Woah.

Agenda highlighted: That, however, is impossible to live in and sustain until Christ, the perfect King, will come and reign again (or until right beforehand).

why didn't everyone turn to crime?

No where near everyone who commits crimes is caught.

[Maxel]

No but it'll give you a starting point. You cant expect to discuss this movement logically if you have a very limited idea of what it's about.

I thought we were discussing the philosophies the movement supports, not the movement itself. I can understand philosophy and human nature perfectly fine without watching your video.

Ofcourse it did, but it's not the root or the base of my reasons for joining it - I align with anything that wants to unconditionally advance Science and Technology. I would align with any direction that would want to provide for humanity's needs in abundance without the need for unnecessary servitude. Even if it was religious, so long as it didn't think it would be the 'religion' that would do it.

The problem is that from the outset you have a complete agenda... and as I said to you via private message:

If I were to behave as you have in regards to the Book of Mormon and quote scriptures against it and call it evil because it 'adds to the Bible' and all that other BS you'd call me closed minded and pursuing an agenda based on lack of understanding.

This is exactly what you're doing. It's not that I am totally refusing to discuss with you until you've watched those films and chose to educate yourself, but rather it's just that you can't expect to discuss the incredibly relevant and well sourced information in those films which are also relevant to our discussion if you haven't watched them.

It goes along the same lines of if someone asked me "[X] about Nephi?" and I just reply "He's an evil, gay, fat man." See how illogical and uninformed that'd be?

Funny... In your PM, what you actually said was:

Well, if you're not interested in watching them then you seriously have no basis in discussing the movement at all. So you may as well not bother, because you're essentially approaching from an uninformed perspective.

If I was to attack Mormonism without ever having read the BoM (which I have read) you would tell me "You don't have the right to take that stance/say that because you have a closed mind and haven't even read it."

And if you wanted to talk about the philosophy behind Mormonism, you could do so without being well versed in it. The only way you could give your current argument substance is to turn this movement into a sort of new religion- something you seem to be doing (capitalizing Science and Technology?).

Coming from your perspective there - the same guy who carried around pagan charms, the same guy who had a lot of young wives, the same guy who started up a bank and did a runner when it collapsed? Woah.

Yep, that guy. Crazy, isn't it?

Agenda highlighted: That, however, is impossible to live in and sustain until Christ, the perfect King, will come and reign again (or until right beforehand).

You caught me: my agenda is to put forth the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Oh, I'm glad you offered concrete and believable evidence for why there wasn't more crime committed during the economic downturn in the studies. One problem: the study was based off of crimes committed, not the amount of people caught for crimes. Even then, it still doesn't explain the 'phenomenon'.

Edited April 15, 2009 by Maxel

[Aesa]

Funny... In your PM, what you actually said was:

I know, it was just appropriate to confound it.

And if you wanted to talk about the philosophy behind Mormonism, you could do so without being well versed in it. The only way you could give your current argument substance is to turn this movement into a sort of new religion- something you seem to be doing (capitalizing Science and Technology?).

Well, that's kind of what's happening anyway. Just that it's ultimately going to destroy Monetaryism, you can't sustain a mode of scarce exchange with systems that create abundance.

Yep, that guy. Crazy, isn't it?

I'm not attacking him. Just don't pretend like he wasn't 'perverted by the ways of man' (at least from your perspective that there is such a thing).

my agenda is to put forth the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I don't want to activate your hilarity unit, but just hypothetically, what happens if/when your Church decides to support us?

Taking into consideration that this movement has no relation to politics, it wouldn't be impossible.

I thought we were discussing the philosophies the movement supports, not the movement itself.

Unfortunately if we do that (bold) we end up with this sort of argumentative problem. There really is no philosophy we support, just near-empirical science. Anything else is personal.

I am dodging your points because they are of a materialistic nature. Answering them just creates another counter-argument that is relevant to nothing, et al,

It's unproductive from both ends

Edited April 15, 2009 by Aesa

[rameumptom]

Aesa has claimed the USA to be the most corrupt nation on earth. That's quite a claim. America donates more money to assist other nations and the poor than any other nation. When the tsunami hit south east asia, European nations donated less than half of what American individuals did. And the individual people in Europe donated even less than their governments did, because they feel the government should pay for everything.

Our nation has sought to promote freedom and better quality of life around the world. Under Soviet Russia, Stalin slaughtered over 20 million people. Since installing democracy, while there are still problems, the democratic Russian government has not come anywhere near that number.

Robert Mugabe took a nation that exported food to the rest of Africa, and turned it into the poorest nation on earth, with hundreds of thousands of refugees and tens of thousands being killed annually. Where would you prefer to live: corrupt America or corrupt Zimbabwe?

Somalia is a nation of war lords. They support and endorse high seas piracy as a legitimate form of income. These war lords grab kids as young as 10 to "join" their armies, knowing these kids will grow up fearless and doing anything the warlords want.

Sudan is involved in the slave trade, especially of Christians.

Chairman Mao's youth revolution led to the deaths of millions of people. He tried to export his communist revolution elsewhere, such as Cambodia, where Pol Pot murdered 1.5 million people. Among those he killed was anyone guilty of being a doctor, scientist or teacher.

Many Arab nations live by Sharia law, an archaic Muslim law not based on the Quran, but later writings attributed to Mohammed. A decade ago, a girl's school in Saudi Arabia caught on fire. The girls tried to escape, but were not dressed properly, and so the Sharia police beat them with sticks until they went back into the raging inferno. Elsewhere, women are not allowed to attend school, drive cars, hold a job or political office. When the tsunami struck in 2004, some of the affected Muslim nations did not want the Christian west to assist, and actually delayed anyone going in to assist. This has occurred with other disasters, as well.

Even "evil" George W. Bush increased spending in Africa to fight AIDS. Because of his governmental intervention, millions have survived and received the medicines they need to survive. Bill Gates, the evil billionaire, has spent millions to provide malaria medications throughout Africa and South America, saving millions of lives everywhere. Warren Buffet, the other richest billionaire in the world, donated almost all his great fortune to the Gates Foundation, which is saving those malaria victims and putting computers into schools, etc. Jon Huntsman Sr, another evil billionaire, donated $100 million to the University of Utah for cancer and heart research. Hmmmm. Am I seeing a pattern, here?

While I'm not fool enough to think America is not without flaws, including an occasional major one, I'm also not fool enough to think it is the most corrupt country on earth.

[rameumptom]

Aesa wrote: Perhaps the earliest gospels? You know, the Gnostics?

I HAVE read the Gnostic writings. Several times. For one thing, they are NOT the "earliest" gospels. Second, they were not considered orthodox, and most Christians today would reject some of their main concepts: The Creator of earth and man was an evil God. Jesus and Christ were two separate beings (Jesus mortal, Christ God). Christ entered into Jesus' body at his baptism and left on the cross.

The first person considered a Gnostic was Simon Magus. Peter condemned him as an apostate who tried to purchase the priesthood power to give the Holy Ghost. Paul and John also wrote against anti-Christs, who claimed Jesus did not resurrect nor actually come in the flesh - both Gnostic ideas.

So, your example just doesn't fly. Try another one, and we'll see how aerodynamic it really is.

[Vort]

Aesa has claimed the USA to be the most corrupt nation on earth.

Asea is a troll.

[Islander]

Asea is a troll.

told ya'....

PS: Mooooood!!! can we be done done with this one as well? :)

[Madriglace]

Like prospectmom I am a simple person and tend to bring everything down to a managable level. After reading the entire thread (I am nearly cross eyed now) I have a question .... well first a statement and then a question.

I know what I am doing to make the world a better place and I know what my Ward, Stake, Church and Country (you know ... the corrupt one) are doing .... my question is to Aesa what are you DOING to make the world a better place? All the words in the world will get absolutely nothing done with out action behind it. Are you out digging wells, teaching farming, building homes, sewing clothes, teaching, caring , loving your brothers and sisters across the world? You can go on and on about what you feel a perfect society would be but if you are not DOING ... your words are just so much noise.

Edited April 15, 2009 by Madriglace

[Connie]

Whenever i see the title of this thread, it makes me think of the Borg.

"We are Borg. Resistance is futile."

For all i know, that might even be right on topic. :)

[Vort]

Whenever i see the title of this thread, it makes me think of the Borg.

"We are Borg. Resistance is futile."

For all i know, that might even be right on topic. :)

What did the superconductor say?

"Resistance is futile."

[Aesa]

I HAVE read the Gnostic writings. Several times. For one thing, they are NOT the "earliest" gospels. Second, they were not considered orthodox, and most Christians today would reject some of their main concepts: The Creator of earth and man was an evil God. Jesus and Christ were two separate beings (Jesus mortal, Christ God). Christ entered into Jesus' body at his baptism and left on the cross.

The first person considered a Gnostic was Simon Magus. Peter condemned him as an apostate who tried to purchase the priesthood power to give the Holy Ghost. Paul and John also wrote against anti-Christs, who claimed Jesus did not resurrect nor actually come in the flesh - both Gnostic ideas.

So, your example just doesn't fly. Try another one, and we'll see how aerodynamic it really is.

Actually, yes the earliest available gospel is a gnostic gospel - so, you may want to question that because a lot of scholars are really starting to. It does in-fact appear to be, many scholars say (and many more are coming out to say) that the Gnostics were the first and were suppressed by the Literalists who outgrew them in size due to their nature and as the story goes the winners get to write history.

A good place to start might be here, and I can give you a considerable list of scholarly works if you'd like. Here is but one of the scholars I'm talking about discussing this subject:

most Christians today would reject some of their main concept

Ofcourse they would, because it humanises Christianity and brings it back down to Earth. However, this is a whole separate topic and if you want to discuss this then we'd better have a new thread.

Aesa has claimed the USA to be the most corrupt nation on earth.

I said "one of.." the most corrupt. All others are basically the same because they use the same institutions, and they are what make them corrupt.

And by the way, the amount of money a person donates to something doesn't make them a good nation. There are plenty of people who donate to good causes yet on the other hand aren't 'good' in action.