0
   

The New World Order

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 09:46 am
You are you done with the name-calling yet, Rex? Here's some substantive criticism for you, Rex:

Two reviews of The Two Babylons in the Christian Book Reviews from November, 2005 describe it as a "tribute to historical inaccuracy and know-nothing religious bigotry" as well as "shoddy scholarship, blatant dishonesty" and a "nonsensical thesis".

Hislop's loony thesis depends almost entirely on the legendary "Queen," Semiramis. There is absolutely no historical evidence that she ever existed. She has been identified, by those desperate to claim that she really lived, with Shammuramat, who was the wife of the Akkadian "King" of Babylon, Shamshi-Adad. This in itself contradicts Hislop's bullshit, because he claims she was the wife of the founder of Babylon. Shamshi-Adad reigned in the late ninth century BCE, and Babylon was founded, at the latest, in the 18th century BCE, almost a thousand years earlier. According to the dating for the foundation of Babylon by many respected scholars of the ancient middle east, it was more than a thoudand years before the reign of Shamshi-Adad. It is, in fact, the majority opinion that Babylon, known as Babylon, became the "holy city" of the Akkadians by about 2300 BCE--1500 years before Shammuramat lived.

Furthermore, in a typical spate of Protestant Presbyterian misogyny, Hislop identifies Semiramis with nearly every goddess of the ancient middle east and Egypt, and the source of virtually all evil in the world. In fact, he identifies her with Isis, and the first written records of the cult of Isis in Egypt date to 2500 BCE, two centuries before Babylon became the "holy city" of the Akkadians, and more than 1500 years before Shammuramat/Semiramis lived.

This guy is a nut bag. Ralph Woodrow, a respected Christian Evangelical minister and writer, once considered Hislop's work authoritative, because of all the phony citations which Hislop presents. He even wrote Babylon Mystery Religion based on Hislop's work. (Those fundamentalists just love to jump on the Catholic-bashing bandwagon.) However, as his book became very popular, he learned that scholars generally laughed at Hislop's book, and he began to research it himself. Having done so, he withdrew his book Babylon Mystery Religion from circulation, and wrote The Babylon Connection, in which he detailed his new point of view.

Ralph Woodrow wrote:
Many preferred my book over The Two Babylons because it was easier to read and understand. Sometimes the two books were confused with each other, and once I even had the experience of being greeted as "Reverend Hislop"! As time went on, however, I began to hear rumblings that Hislop was not a reliable historian, I heard this from a history teacher and in letters from people who heard this perspective expressed on the Bible Answer Man radio program. Even the Worldwide Church of God began to take a second look at the subject. As a result, I realized I needed to go back through Hislop’s work, my basic source, and prayerfully check it out.

As I did this, it became clear: Hislop’s "history" was often only an arbitrary piecing together of ancient myths. He claimed Nimrod was a big, ugly, deformed black man. His wife, Semiramis, was a beautiful white woman with blond hair and blue eyes. But she was a backslider known for her immoral lifestyle, the inventor of soprano singing and the originator of priestly celibacy. He said that the Babylonians baptized in water, believing it had virtue because Nimrod and Semiramis suffered for them in water; that Noah’s son Shem killed Nimrod; that Semiramis was killed when one of her sons cut off her head, and so on. I realized that no recognized history book substantiated these and many other claims.


The New Protestants-dot-com has the work which i have just quoted at its web site. You can read Woodrow's "The Two Babylons: A Case Study in Poor Research Methodology" by clicking here.

No wonder you believe such bullshit, Rex. If you continue to claim that you have a "classical education," i'm going to call you a liar every time. Someone with even a shallow knowledge of the ancient history of the middle east is going to laugh their ass off at Hislop. Shame on you, Rex. It's all because you hate Catholics, right, Rex?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 09:57 am
@RexRed,
Rex cites, Hislop, who wrote:
From the historian Castor (in Armenian translation of EUSEBIUS) we learn . . .


I know of no, and can find no reference to such an historian as Castor, whether from Armenia, or writing about Armenia, nor writing about anything else for that matter. Eusebius is known as "the Father of Church History" and was the author of the Nicene creed which was adopted by the council of Nicaea in the early 4th century. The Nicene creed is foundational to the Orthodox and Catholic churches, and is recognized by the Orthodox churches, the Catholic churches (yes, there is more than one Orthodox and more than one Catholic church), the Anglican church and the overwhelming majority of Protestant churches.

Eusebius is the most well attested of the early church writers. Every book, every paper that he wrote mentioned by any of his contemporaries and by Christian scholars in the centuries succeeding his death survives to this day, in the original Koine Greek. At the time that this lunatic Hislop wrote, every work of Eusebius was available, in England and Scotland, in Greek, Latin and English. Why would Hislop need to come up with some bullshit story about an "Armenian" translation of Eusebius? So perhaps Rex can explain why this joker Castor was using an "Armenian" translation of Eusebius, when all educated people in the middle east spoke and wrote Greek, and when Armenian was not yet even a written language.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  0  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 10:44 am
Finally an intelligent reply Set. There is a brain in there after all... I will agree that Hislop was errant in some cases. But if you look at the work as a whole, a picture emerges that is undeniably true. For instance the word "Easter". Christians use that word and relate it to the resurrection of Christ Jesus. But where in the Bible does that word Easter appear? Is it a take off of the name Ester? Of course not! It is from the Babylonian egg goddess Ishtar. Why in the hell did the, "serious middle eastern scholars" name a "holy" day representing the "sacred" resurrection of Christ Jesus with a pagan egg goddess' name? Well it is a secret... We are not supposed to ask such questions are we? We are to be dumb sheep and if they want to name a monotheistic God's son's resurrection after a pagan goddess well so be it right? WRONG..

I do not agree with all that Hislop has said but when it comes to his transliteration of words I must agree with Hislop's take on words and how they are changed from place to place leaving clues as to their origin. I have never in my life ever come across a book that has such depth of language and word connectedness as The Two Babylons. I bought the book over 20 years ago and I still have the hard cover copy I bought. It is one of my most prized books. Hislop was not a lunatic, neither is err, Dan Brown... but some of Hislop's connections to historical figures of the past are not necessarily accurate but may actually be relating to other people of antiquities instead. This does not weaken though the underlying premise of the book. It just means that today with the archeological evidence that the names may better connect to other people of the past instead. Yet the substance of the book and the correlation drawn still holds water today.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  0  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 10:53 am
That is the historian Castor of Rhodes first century BC. He wrote in two books a chronology of Babylon and those who ruled the sea. Joseph Scaliger mentions him in his book, "a study in the history of classical scholarship vol 2"
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 11:06 am
Sorry, Rex, you're still delusional. There is almost no truth at all in Hislop's book, and he butchers language as much as he butchers history. As for your snotty remark about an intelligent reply from me, i have yet to see any intelligent contribution of any kind from you in this thread.

I mentioned earlier the Rev. Ralph Woodrow. Click here to read a review of Woodrow's book The Babylon Connection at Christian Book Reviews. Here is the pertinent excerpt:

Quote:
When Ralph Woodrow published Babylon Mystery Religion in 1966, it instantly became a mainstay within the fundamentalist subculture in America. Based upon the Alexander Hislop’s 19th century polemical treatise The Two Babylons, the book updated Hislop’s nonsensical thesis that the historic beliefs and practices of the Church were inherited from pagan Babylonian worship under Nimrod. Although both books had the Catholic Church as their primary target, many of their assertions applied to other churches as well. It seemed to matter little to either Webber [sic] or his audience that Hislop’s work had no basis in fact and was never taken seriously by any student of Church history.

As is commonly the case with fundamentalists, the truth did not get in the way of a good conspiracy theory. Weaving an absurd tale reminiscent of other types of conspiratorial drivel, Woodrow (like Hislop before him) combined incredibly bad scholarship, paranoid delusions, and pure bigotry in an unseemly concoction lacking even a rudimentary understanding of historical developments within the Church. This is where one would expect it to end - another entry in the “antichrist of the month” sweepstakes spoon fed to those who do have neither the knowledge nor the discernment to see past the smokescreen of their insulated belief system.

What few on either side of the debate counted on was the personal integrity of Ralph Woodrow. It turns out Woodrow simply trusted Hislop’s account without checking the sources himself. This is often a problem with crackpot ideas - while those who know better don’t waste their time answering such nonsense, others without the proper background to judge the claims are fooled and often write new books based on these erroneous secondary sources. Such was the case with Woodrow until, in a dialogue with a critic of his original book, he unexpectedly agreed to investigate the veracity of Hislop’s sources. When he did, he was shocked by what he found - Woodrow’s worldview evaporated before his eyes as he discovered Hislop had fabricated his evidence. Woodrow quickly withdrew his book from publication and subsequently released this book as a refutation of Hislop’s (and his own) work.

The Babylon Connection? is a devastating critique of Hislop and his many imitators. Almost from the first page, the shoddy scholarship, blatant dishonesty, and personal prejudices of Alexander Hislop become quite evident. By the end of the first chapter, none except those suffering from the “black helicopters over America” paranoia could possibly view Hislop as anything but a crackpot and a fraud. Woodrow presses on, however, and in painstaking detail demonstrates the complete lack of scholarly integrity exhibited by Hislop in his book. As one who was formerly believed Hislop to be a credible source, Woodrow understands the mindset of this subculture and he systematically destroys their delusions. When it is over, there is nothing of Hislop’s rhetorical edifice left standing.


Note the portion i have bold-faced, Rex. Here, i'll repeat it for you: "This is often a problem with crackpot ideas - while those who know better don’t waste their time answering such nonsense, others without the proper background to judge the claims are fooled . . ."

This describes you to a tee, Rex. You have no background in the history of the ancient middle east, or you would never have swallowed Hislop's bullshit and his bigotry. You are one of those "others without the proper background to judge the claims." I have been a student of history nearly all of my life, since i was seven years old when my grandfather gave me The Outline of History by H. G. Wells to read. I have read a great deal of the history of the ancient world, but mostly my focus was on the Greeks and the Romans. But even though i didn't make a particular study of the ancient middle east, i know enough to laugh my ass off at Hislop's bullshit. I also know a good deal about the early history of the Christian religion, and now begin to suspect that you don't.

There is a wonderful resource on the web, Rex, and it could allow you to educate yourself, rather than simply wallowing in your benighted prejudices. Click here to visit Early Christian Writings. If you really knew anything about the early Christian writers, you would never have swallowed that bullshit about an "Armenian translation" of Eusebius. As far as Christian writings go, Eusebius is the all time best seller, right after the Bible.
RexRed
 
  0  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 11:28 am
As in the new world order, and if anyone posts in this thread they will automatically be audited by the IRS.. (just kidding)

As in the federal reserve why it is called the federal reserve when it is privately owned is a mystery. Like FedEx? What do you people think? Do you prefer the treasury of the United States in the hands of a few private individuals? Somehow I feel better with the treasury being in private hands rather than the government controlling both the money and the military. I think the federal reserve is better in private hands rather than in the hands of our government. I may be foolish for thinking this and I may not always think this.

I think we are safer with the money in private hands and the military in the hands of the commander and chief. I just wish this wealth that is owned by a few individuals might be more evenly distributed so others have a say in the, err, "new world order". I won't mind having an ID chip placed under my skin. I won't mind if the US, Canada and Mexico become one country with one currency and tentative borders.

Perhaps I am naive but I welcome the new world order as long as they don't start killing of people in mass because the world is, err, overpopulated. Perhaps if the world had a few more "out" homosexuals (particularly in Iran) there would not be such a population, umm, problem. Perhaps if "the religious zealots" were not still teaching to their kids "be fruitful and multiply" to an already overpopulated earth we would not be polluting and draining the earth dry of every natural resource known to humans.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  0  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 11:36 am
@Setanta,
I have also owned Rev. Ralph Woodrow's book years ago but I gave it away it was a wimpy book on the subject mostly plagiarized from Hislop...

Go ahead Set, call it "Easter" and who is the foolish clown and dumb sheep? YOU... You just don't get it and you probably never will until your read Hislop's book several times from cover to cover... Which you have not done even once... So judge a book by its cover and judge the new world order by err, Wikipedia... It is no skin off my back but it is typical of your own lunacy and complete lack of intelligence.

0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  0  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 11:45 am
Set wrote: I have been a student of history nearly all of my life, since i was seven years old when my grandfather gave me The Outline of History by H. G. Wells to read.

Comment: Fart fart fart fart fart.. Is that you tooting you own sour horn? Allot of good it did you you turned into an arrogant son of a bitch.

If i have not love I am nothing.. did you come across that line in your studies of the err, middle east?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 01:25 pm
Since i'm not one of the god squad, i don't call "easter" anything since it doesn't have any meaning for me. Yeah, i've run across the scriptural absurdities to which you refer--i've read the Bible in its entirety more than once. Just because it's written down in a book doesn't mean it's right. And just because you have a hateful attitude doesn't mean that i have no love. I sure have no reason to show you any love, and you sure don't show any love for me.

And speaking of a complete lack of intelligence, why do you keep puking up that Wikipedia ****? I've not cited or mentioned Wikipedia.

I see clearly that you've got your head buried in the sand, and don't intend to give up your bible of bigotry and hatred towards the Catholics. And then you try to quote scripture to me about who does or does not have love . . . you don't do irony, do you?
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 08:11 am
A mysterious, reportedly unregistered and almost entirely unknown private security firm by the name "American Police Force" is causing a stir in a small Montana town for apparently impersonating local police.

According to a local media report, APF representatives were recently seen in the tiny town of Hardin, Montana, driving black SUV's with a peculiar logo and, inexplicably, "City of Hardin Police Department" stamped on the door.

However, Hardin does not have a police force.

The town instead contracts with the Big Horn County Sheriff's Department for patrols, according to KULR 8 in Billings, Montana.

According to the news agency, APF was never given permission to assume policing duties. Instead, the firm -- which the Associated Press reported to be unregistered in government databases -- gained its contract with the town on the promise of bringing inmates to an unpopulated prison complex.

An image on KULR's Web site shows the insignia on the APF vehicles, which has caused some concern on the Internet as being of conspiratorial origin.

APF's coat of arms, a clearer version of which appeared on the group's Web site (which had been taken down at time of this writing but is viewable here), shows a double-headed eagle with a red shield and white cross borne on its breast.

The coat appears very similar to the insignia attributed to one Prince Aleksandar Karageorgevich, based on RAW STORY's analysis of images hosted by Burke's Peerage & Gentry International Register of Arms. The site notes the coat as hailing from the Royal crown of Serbia.

However, the significance or implied nationality of the insignia's crown could not immediately be identified.

The double-headed eagle itself has been used repeatedly throughout history by many cultures as a symbol of empire, dominance and power.

Hardin, home to about 3,400 people, is in the state’s poorest county. Its unoccupied, 460-bed prison cost $27 million to construct. The town made national headlines earlier this year when local officials pleaded to have Guantanamo Bay inmates sent to the jail.

Montana Democratic Senator Max Baucus and other Republican lawmakers have stood in the way of moving Guantanamo inmates stateside, claiming they would present an increased security risk. The political calculation has led the White House to caution that its promise to close the controversial facility in January may not materialize on schedule.

An Associated Press report on American Police Force, published Sept. 12, 2009, follows.

-- Stephen C. Webster
http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/09/mysterious-unregistered-security-firm-policing-montana-town/
RexRed
 
  0  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 12:17 pm
Setanta wrote:

Since i'm not one of the god squad, i don't call "easter" anything since it doesn't have any meaning for me. Yeah, i've run across the scriptural absurdities to which you refer--i've read the Bible in its entirety more than once. Just because it's written down in a book doesn't mean it's right. And just because you have a hateful attitude doesn't mean that i have no love. I sure have no reason to show you any love, and you sure don't show any love for me.

And speaking of a complete lack of intelligence, why do you keep puking up that Wikipedia ****? I've not cited or mentioned Wikipedia.

I see clearly that you've got your head buried in the sand, and don't intend to give up your bible of bigotry and hatred towards the Catholics. And then you try to quote scripture to me about who does or does not have love . . . you don't do irony, do you?
Set, Don't point your guilty finger at me you say I have hatred though you have consistently come into MY threads and been quite brass and insulting, hateful and let’s not forget, arrogant. If you call that love well you can keep it NO THANKS... If all of your err middle eastern studies have brought you to this high and dry summit of indignation then I suggest you find another path to walk.

As for Hislop’s book, because you are too much of an idiot to read it let alone comprehend what he is trying to teach I might try to explain. If anyone else here has read the book and even studied it please add in.

First off Hislop’s book is written in such a critical manner that it is more like a dictionary… If you have a certain or pagan god or goddess you can search the book and see what Hislop has to say about that deity.

First off Hislop does not fabricate anything (or much) he simply observes and writes in his book what he observes.

At times he does draw erroneous conclusions. That is because he comes up to an place in his research where he does not really know the answer so he just takes a guess at it to fill in the gaps.

The book is woven together with several types of literature

One is mythology where Hislop simply tells of certain mythological stories. He shows how they fit together like puzzle pieces even though they come from different pagan tribes or civilizations. He shows how these myths when connected tell the whole story of paganism as relating to Babylon. Thus any scholar who follows in Hislop’s footsteps they will on their own find even more puzzle pieces when they apply the same approach and study principles to the mystery religion.

Another is language where Hislop seems to have this incredible knack with interpreting mythological names. So he knows mythological names and he also knows myths from nearly every pagan religion on earth. Hislop even relates to myths indigenous to Easter isle. That is how far reaching his breath of mythology is in the book.

All to show that every pagan religion was not born in a vacuum but they are all undeniably one big system that began in Babylon with a pantheon, a trinity and a mythology that is only partially preserved. I say that because MANY of the myths of Babylon are lost to time. But Hislop asserts that these lost myths are not lost but preserved yet fragmented and contained in all of the other pagan religions.

Hislop tells of several allegories that explain how Babylon was started and being the very first pagan religion spawned all other pagan religions. Babylon is mother of historic paganism and mythology. Hislop reveals in pristine clarity how Noah’s disobedient sons started Babylon in their quest to divide the known world.

Hislop shows how at the top of nearly every single pagan religion there is the exact same architecture. They have a father, mother and son., virgin birth, sacrificial orders, two headed deities, sun worship, veneration of creatures from the sea and land and many more. He sites many thousands of countless cases in at least 15 to 20 major and minor pagan religions.

Then he does something remarkable almost freakish. But he takes the names of all of the deities and he shows that they not only are from the same root words (usually Chaldee) that can moved easily from language to language. But these root words coming from completely different languages also have the exact same meanings. Then one realizes this cannot be a coincidence if there are so many numerous examples.

Thus Hislop PROVES his thesis by repetitively taking us and showing the mass of connections in this manner. Actually his book is very hard to describe unless it had a very large impact on a person.

It is such a blur of information and it is probably difficult for some to grasp the real substance from this complex book. When I came into first reading the book I believed that paganism was a bunch of tribes that autonomously sprung up independently out of various places on the earth. What Hislop proves is that they are related and totally interconnected in very secretive ways. It should be very evident when one simply compares the Greek pantheon with the Roman pantheon and they nearly superimpose upon one another perfectly.

This very same superimposition Hislop reveals can be overlaid upon nearly every pagan religion (even the Norse religions are identical to the pagan system of Babylon!) and as the other religions fill in missing pieces they are not revealing a story specific say to early Mexican, Norse, Chinese, Hindu mythology or a myth about a Greek explorer but they are revealing the missing pieces of the Babylonian religion. That though it was lost in Babylon it was preserved in the satellite religions that sprung directly out of ancient Babylon. Hislop points out that when the satellite religions began, Babylon was a thriving metropolis and thus these religions were privy to the Babylonian myths now lost by time… These satellite religions traveled from their Babylonian epicenter and have occupied every conceivable part of the planet.

Hislop’s other thesis is that the Roman Catholic church simply took this precisely same pagan system and attached Christian names to the story. Well Hislop is absolutely right! Anyone who argues this point certainly does not know the middle eastern Babylonian “religion” nor do they know modern Catholicism. It is interesting to note that constituents of Islam see clearly and do not doubt one bit the Babylonian systems exist within the Roman Catholic church.

Modern Catholicism is similar in nearly every conceivable way to the ancient Babylonian mystery religion. Hislop spares no wasted words in proving conclusively that the exact same papal system that is openly practiced in the roman catholic church is none other than the very same “religion” that came out of Babylon.
Thus if you are confused and don’t know which religion to choose when you shut the book you go from someone who though that every religion was different to the realization that 99.9 percent of all religions are actually the exact same Babylonian system of belief right down to a tee.

They all have priests, nuns, initiation ceremonies, supreme pontiffs they all have nearly the exact same holy days they all have their dead martyrs that they either venerator or despise, relics, the trinity, a virgin impregnated with light and of course parallel mythologies.. and the list goes on .

One of Hislop’s many points was that when Columbus came to the new world that he walked into the natives churches and saw the veneration a mother an child and they had candles burning to the gods, sacrifices, the same holy days and even then names of their gods sounded similar. Just as the name “Jesus” has a strikingly similar sound to the name Zeus… There were identical myths of dragons and fiery serpents in seemingly isolated cults many thousands of miles apart from each other. Identical flood stories and pantheons that mimicked each other in nearly every detail.

By the time you finish reading the book Hislop has taught the reader to think a certain way.
The reader begins to lump all of these pagan religions into a purposefully united and completely interlinked system of Babylonian religion. Hislop by sighting such a plethora of correlations the reader begins to see there are not MANY religions but they are all part of one hidden mystery religion.

I am not sure why people want to argue with the man who has written the ONLY book that has attempted to REVEAL this Mystery Religion . The only other man who dared to reveal this forbidden information finally recanted. I sincerely believe in many/most but not all of Hislop’s conclusions. It is the mass of conclusions that all point to the very same truth that makes one begin to see things differently. Yes many scholars have poked huge gaping holes in a number of Hislop’s conclusions but the book still stands on its other laurels.

In all honesty even the Roman catholic church does not try to deny the strikingly similar character the Roman catholic church has to that of the Babylonian mysteries. But people are not supposed to speak of such things and if you do you get called a lunatic by, err “serious middle eastern scholars” and your book gets ridiculed but plagiarists.

In Hislop’s book Hislop sights at least 5000 references and if he is wrong on 10% of his connections he still proves his point… Also one does not have to be anti Catholic to note the clear pagan connection to the church. Why are Babylonian theorists so unpopular? Well in spite of the blaring correlations between Catholicism and paganism its followers still remain unlearned about the Mystery system so aptly proved by Hislop. Religious wars have been fought over one single doctrinal schism rather than the myriad of doctrinal issues that Hislop raises.

As for Hislop being a bigot. Hislop resurrects some old myths common to many ancient “Babylonian” religions and notes that there is a common theme throughout. It seems Nimrod or some venerated king/pope like figure of Nimrod’s time was black and his wife a white woman. Now for Hislop to point this out and be called a racist is just as silly as calling Shakespeare a racist for writing Othello. And Hislop did not write these myths he is just reiterating them as they are written in antiquities and certainly relate to the mysteries. These myths in part were justified to help the masses cope with racist issues in their culture but to the initiated they had a much more sinister perhaps evil meaning that those learned in the mysteries derived from the tales.

I am not here to judge paganism or Catholicism, I find both systems of interest in my studies. Though they have sinister doctrines hidden within (such as child sacrifice and cannibalism) and I just don’t want to be the last dumb sheep to know when the donkey poop hits the fan. Hislop opened my eyes and I will never be able to return (in good conscience) to the place I was before opening reading and studying his book. I have believed in this book over 20 years, nothing I have heard in my travels (and I have actively searched) has degraded the core message of this book… Not Setana, not recanting plagiarists… not anything. The Babylon mystery religion is alive and well on the corners and byways of our towns and neighborhoods. Wake up! Make an informed choice rather than a blind choice.

Proverbs 16:25 KJV
There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 12:21 pm
I am pointing a finger at you, because you are peddling hate, which is exactly what Hislop was doing. You are peddling hatred of Catholics, just because of what they believe.

You can dance and sing all you want, but that must makes you all the more apparent as a mealy-mouthed hypocrite. You are peddling hatred, and Hislop's bullshit, hysterical and completely fictional screed is the text for the hatred you are peddling.

In addition to being virulently anti-catholic, Hislop's screed is also misogynistic--which i suspect doesn't bother you, either.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 12:23 pm
Quote:
Hislop resurrects some old myths common to many ancient “Babylonian” religions and notes that there is a common theme throughout.


This is bullshit. Hislop is lying outright. He has made up well over 90% of what he claims, and he's completely confused about the remainder of it. As for your 5,000 references bullshit (which i seriously doubt), go read Woodrow's The Babylon Connection, which clearly shows that Hislop is confused, ignorant or lying throughout the entire book.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 12:53 pm
I posted a link to and quoted an article by Woodrow, which it is apparent you didn't read. You said earlier that you had Woodrow's book (which one, Rex, he's written more than a dozen) but that you considered it "a wimpy book and mostly plagiarized from Hislop." It's not plagiarism if you cite your sources (the word is "cite" Rex, not "sight"), and Woodrow did cite Hislop as his source. So it's clear that what you read was Woodrow's earlier book, Babylon Mystery Religion. When Woodrow realized that Hislop was full of ****, he had the honesty to publicly admit that he was wrong, he withdrew that book from circulation, and wrote a different book, The Babylon Connection, which was published in 1997, so that can't be the book you read. You read the book he wrote when he still believed that Hislop knew what he was talking about--The Babylon Connection is the book he wrote when he found out that Hislop is full of poop.

This is from the article by Woodrow which i linked earlier, and which you failed to read:

Quote:
The subtitle for Hislop’s book is "The Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife." Yet when I went to reference works such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, The Americana, The Jewish Encyclopedia, The Catholic Encyclopedia, The Worldbook Encyclopedia " carefully reading their articles on "Nimrod" and "Semiramis" " not one said anything about Nimrod and Semiramis being husband and wife. They did not even live in the same century. Nor is there any basis for Semiramis being the mother of Tammuz. I realized these ideas were all Hislop’s inventions.


Quote:
Because Hislop wrote in the mid-1800’s the books he refers to or quotes are now quite old. I made considerable effort to find these old books and to check Hislop’s references; books such as Layard’s Nineveh and Its Remains, Kitto’s Cyclopeidia of Biblical Literature, Wilkinson’s Ancient Egyptians, as well as old editions of Pausanias, Pliny, Tacitus, Herodotus and many more. When I checked his footnote references, in numerous cases I discovered they do not support his claims. (emphasis added)


Quote:
Hislop taught that Tammuz (whom he says was Nimrod) was born on December 25, and this is the origin of the date on which Christmas is observed. Yet his supposed proof for this is taken out of context. Having taught that Isis and her infant son Horus were the Egyptian version of Semiramis and her son Tammuz he cites a reference that the son of Isis was born "about the time of the winter solstice." When we actually look up the reference he gives for this (Wilkinson’s Ancient Egyptians, vol. 4, 405), the son of Isis who was born "about the time of the winter solstice was not Horus, her older son, but Harpocrates. The reference also explains this was a premature birth, causing him to be lame, and that the Egyptians celebrated the feast of his mother’s delivery in spring. Taken in context, this has nothing to do with a December celebration or with Christmas as it is known today.


The following is from Woodrow's web site:

Quote:
Here is a list of the some of the unsubstantiated claims that are made about the religion of ancient Babylon:

• The Babylonians went to a confessional and confessed sins to priests who wore black clergy garments.

• Their king, Nimrod, was born on December 25. Round decorations on Christmas trees and round communion wafers honored him as the Sun-god.

• Sun-worshippers went to their temples weekly, on Sunday, to worship the Sun-god.

• Nimrod’s wife was Semiramis, who claimed to be the Virgin Queen of Heaven, and was the mother of Tammuz.

• Tammuz was killed by a wild boar when he was age 40; so 40 days of Lent were set aside to honor his death.

• The Babylonians wept for him on “Good Friday.” They worshipped a cross-the initial letter of his name.

It is amazing how unsubstantiated teachings like these circulate"and are believed. One can go to any library, check any history book about ancient Babylon, none of these things will be found. They are not historically accurate, but are based on an arbitrary piecing together of bits and pieces of mythology.


Also, at that page, he writes:

Quote:
My original book had some valuable information in it. But it also contained certain teachings that were made popular in a book many years ago, THE TWO BABYLONS, by Alexander Hislop. This book claims that the very religion of ancient Babylon, under the leadership of Nimrod and his wife, was later disguised with Christian-sounding names, becoming the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, two “Babylons""one ancient and one modern. Proof for this is sought by citing numerous similarities in paganism. The problem with this method is this: in many cases there is no connection.


You're wrong, Rex, very, very wrong. And it would choke you to death to admit it.
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 02:22 pm
@Setanta,
Set I read what Woodrow wrote many years ago. And I also read them again when you posted them.. Infact I had already revisited his page and read his pages before you even posted them... I don't know what you think I should write about things I am already aware of... It does not change Hislop's basic thesis. The Babylon mystery religion does exist today and just because people as your (delusional) self want everyone to sweep it under the rug I prefer to entertain the notion because I, and MANY others, believe it to be true.

I believe Hislop does go too far in many of his conclusions but that does not change the fact that his basic principle is still as true today, even more-so, than it was 100 years ago. That then reveals the underlying workings of the secret societies and reveals also the cult of the Illuminati that these anomalies are just another layer of this "hidden" Babylonian mystery system.
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 03:14 pm
@blueflame1,
One phone call from Obama to Janet Reno might send these wacky cultists scrambling. Smile
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 03:25 pm
Set this feeble statement is supposed to disprove Hislop?

Set quoted: Sun-worshippers went to their temples weekly, on Sunday, to worship the Sun-god.


Comment: Oh I forgot, they went to the temple of the sun on Monday to worship the sun-god... (cynical) How ridiculous...
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 05:38 pm
@RexRed,
You don't have very good reading comprehension skills, Rex. The line you quoted is from Hislop, and Woodrow was using it as an example of just how idiotic Hislop's tripe is. It was one of several examples of the idiocy of Hislop's thesis--i provided you with several examples which Woodrow provided of just how unreliable Hislop's screed is, but you just selected one.

Yes, when referring to the crap that Hislop wrote, "How ridiculous" is a completely appropriate comment.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 05:44 pm
@RexRed,
Once again, Rex, be cause you seem not to understand, Woodrow withdrew publication of Babylon Mystery Religion, and repudiated it. It doesn't matter that copies still exist, or that you read it again recently. What matters is that Woodrow came to realize that Hislop was just making **** up, and was an unreliable source, which is why he published The Babylon Connection?, to show that there was no such connection, because Hislop's "scholarship" was completely unreliable, except, of course, the for the cases in which Hislop just lied outright--which isn't scholarship at all.

The Babylon mystery religion doesn't exist, and never has existed, and the fact that you and many other hateful religious nutbags want to believe is no evidence that it does. Nothing about Hislop's tripe is true, none of it, which is why Woodrow went to the trouble to write a book to demonstrate the fact. Once again, the you and the religious tin-foil hat brigade want to believe in one of the saddest (though really hilarious) conspiracy theories to come down the pike is no evidence that there's a shred of truth in it.

Why do you put your money where your mouth is, and post a list of the "truths" about the "Babylon mystery religion?"
RexRed
 
  0  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 06:27 pm
@Setanta,
Once again Set shows just how completely ignorant he is regarding this subject.

Set wrote: The Babylon mystery religion doesn't exist, and never has existed, and the fact that you and many other hateful religious nutbags want to believe is no evidence that it does.

Comment: Apparently Set hasn’t read this middle eastern document.

Revelation 17:5 KJV
And upon her forehead was a name written , MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

Comment: These words appear in capitals in the actual King James Bible... (Just so you don't forget them Set) I don't necessarily agree or disagree with this statement in the Bible, I just don’t know.. But apparently Set is wrong in that this mystery Babylon EXISTED at the time of the first century or this would never have been written... Also this book where this is written is sacred to most all who call themselves "Christian" so to state that this Mystery Babylon never existed is to contradict this scripture. Where is your historical evidence to back up your statements Set? Were are your bibliographies demonstrating there is no mystery Babylon? Set, you are going against the words written in the Christian Bible which the "Roman Catholics" profess to believe in as sacred truth. You are contradicting not only Hislop, but the supposed Roman Catholic faith so who is the religious nutbag hater? In your defense of your worldly scholastic arrogant position you have come full circle and contradicted your own main arguments.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/18/2024 at 03:43:21