Baha’i Rants

The last line of the clip sums up what I think of it: "The religious myth is the most powerful device ever created, and serves as the psychological soil upon which other myths can flourish."

That's what this is. It's a myth justifying the rejection of organized religion. Almost everything in the clip is a fabrication.

The sheer elegance of the argument should cause a warning bell to go off in your head. Real history is never this neat and tidy.

There is so much misinformation and distortion in the clip, I really don't know where to begin. I guess I'll offer a few preliminary points in no particular order.

Anyone who says the Bible is based on astrology has evidently never read the Bible. Don't believe me? Read the thing and see for yourself. To say that a mention of two fish and two fisherman is code for the beginning of the Age of Pisces is really weak.

Speaking of that, there is no specific moment in which we move from one age to another, because the constellations don't have clear boundaries. That is, they didn't until the International Astronomical Union defined the 88 constellations with their boundaries in the twentieth century. But according to that definition, the Age of Pisces began and will end much later than the video clip claims. Various astrologers probably have their own boundaries that lead them to different dates. It's easy enough to draw the boundary in such a way that the Age of Pisces begins in 1 AD. But then, that's defining the Age of Pisces in such a way as to support the conclusion that Jesus was born at beginning of the Age of Pisces.

Moses is typically dated to something like 1250 BC, not 2150 BC as the video claims. But since there's so little historical evidence to go on, maybe one could try to argue a much earlier date. But to do so in order to fit Moses into this Taurus/Pisces moment is, again, to manipulate the evidence to support the conclusion.

Who decided that Sirius is the Star of Bethlehem? There are lots of ideas about what it is: a supernova, a comet, you name it. I read a Church Father named John Chrysostom say that it wasn't an astronomical event at all, but a supernatural phenomonen. I'm inclined to agree with him, since the behavior of the "star" in the Matthew account is not like anything we find in the sky. So why is it suddenly Sirius? The answer is obvious: the producers of the video decided it because it supported their argument.

The likewise say that Orion's belt is called the "Three Kings", and this is the origin of the idea that three magi came to adore the Christ child. The causation is backwards. The stars are named after the three magi, not the other way around.

At about 17:30 in the video, where the narrator mentions the "staggering" similarities between the Egyptian religion and Christianity, a long list of supposed similarities quickly scrolls up the screen. Pause the video and read some of them. They're pretty lame.

And am I the only one who thought it strange that "the rebirth of the sun" on December 25 becomes "the resurrection of the son"? In what other language besides English is this pun possible? I can't believe the producers would make such an astonishingly stupid point.

And anyway, if the lengthening of days after the winter solstice is supposed to be the basis for the resurrection of Christ, then shouldn't December 25 be the date of Easter?

The narrator claims that the "it was the political establishment that sought to historize [sic] the Jesus figure for social control." This is a tired old atheist myth. The belief in a historical Jesus (and a belief that he was God) predates the legalization of Christianity in 313, so it couldn't have been invented in order to impose social control. And anyway, how does believing that Jesus existed facilitate social control? Can anyone explain that connection?

The video says Constantine convened the Council of Nicea in Rome. It was actually in Nicea, in what is now Turkey. It says that it was at this meeting that the "politically motivated Christian doctrines were established, and thus began a long history of Christian bloodshed and spiritual fraud."

For some reason Nicea gets the credit for everything. Anyone who has any beef with the Church points his finger at the Council of Nicea. The truth is that only one doctrine was discussed at the Council: whether the Son of God had existed from eternity (the Catholic position), or whether he was created before the creation of the world (the Arian position). The doctrine wasn't established at this council, only defended. And anyway, how does the Catholic position make it easier for Constantine to impose control over his subjects? What difference would it make?

In fact, Constantine couldn't have cared less what they decided, as long as there was peace in the empire. It is often claimed that Constantine enforced the Catholic position after the council. On the contrary, a few years after the council he switched to the Arian side and persecuted the Catholics, and his son Constantius continued the persecution after him. It was not uncommon for "Christian" Roman emperors to persecute defenders of Catholic orthodoxy. I mentioned John Chrysostom above. He was persecuted by the Byzantine empress and died in exile.

The video continues: "And for the next 1600 years the Vatican maintained a political stranglehold over all of Europe." From 325 to 1925? Really? The truth is that the "Vatican" (which is an anachronistic term for most of this period) never had a monopoly of power in Europe. In the early Middle Ages the Church was just trying to hold its own in the face of barbarian invasions. Later on in the Middle Ages the popes were frequently at loggerheads with the secular powers, and many medieval popes were persecuted and harassed by the Holy Roman Emperor, the French king, and even the Roman mob. It was not uncommon in the 12th and 13th centuries for the legitimate pope to be in exile and a pretender, installed as a German puppet, reigning in Rome.

In short, the video does exactly what it accuses organized religion, and especially Christianity, of doing. It distorts the truth in order to manipulate people.

I find the piece quite interesting, but regarding "All Myth and Holy Books ARE Astronomy" these people are coming to the party a little late. The famous tour de force book on this theory "Hamlet's Mill" was published in 1969!

Most of the Baha'is I knew back in those days certainly knew about the Hindu Cosmology of World Ages and the Kali Yuga. That was a standard mindset back then.

Regarding the Council of Nicaea as a kind of "Illuminati conspiracy" is I think pushing it a bit much! It appears to me that most of the problems on this planet are not because people are illumined and bright enough to put major plots into motion over centuries but because the people on this planet are dumber than s**t! Especially people from the Middle East who keep telling people they know all about "God" for the last 3,000 years! The PR is starting to wear out pretty fast these days on that claim!

As to to "Big Time Conspiracy" Gentleman C student dunces from Yale from Skull and Bones just don't seem to be doing very well these days do they?

The rest of the film parts are on 9/11 and The Federal Reserve. Although interesting, if their guys are indeed running the show, they have just now pretty much put 230 years of American progress as a society into complete jeopardy. Not very bright people really! That printed money could soon all be worthless if we keep on this road! These guys had better go back to the drawing board and re-think the plot!

But, yes, war definitely IS where the money is these days. They did get that right. THAT is true! But as Jesus said "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword." And THAT statement is about military-industrial complexes at the End of the World Age when they have invented the flying nails to carry out the Crucifixion of Man tipped by the light and heat of 20,000 suns.

Yep. DUH. We are in big trouble, folks. But no one needs a slick DVD production to tell them that.

But I did think it was interesting to watch.

The Movie is interesting, and I think it is cool to see some of the zodiac symbology in the Abrahamic prophets. However in the prophets similar to Christ, the author makes up similarities for many of them. excepth Horus. He also claims that Josephus is known to be a forgery, since when? And he trys to claim that The Buddha's mother's name started with and M because of a Greek Zodiac sign having a similarity to the Roman/Greek M?

Truthiness and lies ruin the video for me. Most of it was factual, and interesting, but then he gets to stretching the truth and lieing, and I didn't bother to watch the next part. The next part is abotu 9/11, and the the federal reserve. I think the Nicene Council did it, and the masons helped!

:p

Baquia,

Intriguing -- it does hook one as you said.

What is the source of this movie? Who produced it?

Thanks,
Frank

Alrighty then . . .
Whew!

Nice piece Baquia.

Will certainly travel with me as I read, pray, intone, meditate, read some more, question, wonder, etc.

Am not quite sure what the "Point" of the piece is - but then again - I don't believe much in "points" (they tend to be a bit "poky" and simly blow up things).

For what its worth - READ "Biology of Transcendence" by Joseph Chilton Pearce. I think this piece dovetails nicely. Okay - its all about our myths tied into the motions of planets and stars -but how does this connect to our flesh and blood and "tomorrows"?

What if the "sun" is made flesh in you and I?
What if "Baha'i Faith, Inc." is the physical, earthly expression of the ancient cosmos?

After all - in the Aqdas it says to elect up to the "number of Baha" but "if it exceeds this number it does not matter".

What if the House and all assemblies had twelve members?
Then the heavens would come down to earth and we could reflect here what is there.

Peace,
Brian