zeitgeistmovie

layke

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

Dunno if this has been posted before but WOW. Talk about a damper on ye olde religion. Funny how I found this actually I was looking at that hilarious 'Leave Britney alone video' from our newest internet celeb Chris Croker and I noticed he had a few more vids so I had a goosey. One of which was about religion he mentioned the above movie so I had a look.

Now i'm not resourceful enough to factually check the sources listed on the website but if anything i'm sure you will find it interesting if nothing else.

Sorry if it's been posted up before I haven't seen it here though.

layke

After finishing the movie it goes into a lot of 911 consipracy stuff and American tax systems etc. So after the first bit you can switch off unless your into it.

Ciaran500

Remember reading about this a while ago. IIRC most of the film was based on a book which was based on paper which doesn't have too good a reputation. It was a while ago since I read it so can't be more specific

bonkey

Zeitgeist summed up:

Take our word for it - the world is run by people who want you to believe what they tell you.

stevejazzx

I thought it was good 'movie'. It was intersting particulalry the egyptian references of the 'sun' correlating to the sun of god in christianity. I'd love if someone who has studied this well, an egyptologist is probably out of the question, could clarify if this is valid. As far as i have studied the similarities between religons is evidence enough that were mostly plagarised from one another but this movie is very specific in certain areas and I'd like to know if their claims have weight. It is slightly conspicuous though when they say that a 'quick goolge' probably won't back them up.
As for the 911 part, well no comment on that but i did enjoy the rant about the american tax system and the federal reserve and to their credit most the information they presented in that part of the movie I know to be correct.

radiospan

Where do they get the bit at the start about all the different 'gods' being born on December 25th? Seems to be nothing on line to back any of that up?

Fanny Cradock

There are a couple of threads regarding the apparent similarities between religions - specifically Horus and Mithras in relation to Christianity. A little objective research will see that most of the claims are bogus.

PDN

stevejazzx wrote:

It is slightly conspicuous though when they say that a 'quick goolge' probably won't back them up.

A chat with an Egyptologist, a theologian, or a historian wouldn't back them up either.

The problem is that most of the supposed parallels with Christianity in pre-Christian religions have little or no archeological or manuscript support. What we have, for the most part, are manuscripts dating after the rise of Christianity that purport to describe the beliefs and practices of people who lived centuries earlier. There is no way of knowing if these accounts are correct or whether they have attributed elements of Christian traditions to their various deities in an attempt to impress potential converts.

One thing that never ceases to amaze me is how some atheists will make a big song and dance about the length of time between the life of Jesus and the writing of the Gospels (between 35 and 75 years) arguing that such a long time means that the accounts must have been greatly corrupted and embellished. However, when it suits them they will gladly accept unquestioningly accounts of what Egyptians believed about Horus, or what Persians believed about Mithras, even where these accounts are written 200 or even 300 years after the period they are supposed to describe.

I guess we all find it hard to be objective.

robindch

PDN wrote:

arguing that such a long time means that the accounts must have been greatly corrupted and embellished

If you can't be objective about this, at least be accurate -- your endless subtle and not-so-subtle twisting of what people say is one of your less lovable facets.

People, by and large, are not asserting the completely unsupportable claim that "accounts must have been greatly corrupted", but instead, pointing out the equally unsupportable claim that many, if not most, religious people have, that the accounts we have are perfect, or near-perfect, copies of what was originally written.

And that's completely different from the more fundamental question of whether the original accounts actually describe what happened, and that the participants were actually being truthful when they said what they were quoted as having said.

Sapien

PDN wrote:

However, when it suits them they will gladly accept unquestioningly accounts of what Egyptians believed about Horus, or what Persians believed about Mithras, even where these accounts are written 200 or even 300 years after the period they are supposed to describe.

I'm not sure what you're referring to, especially regarding Egyptian religion. If, by "accounts", you mean academic treatise and research, then you're either being disingenuous or not making an effort to understand.

Imagine a distant future where Christianity has ceased to exist, and all record and memory of its doctrines are lost (oh me!). Anyone investigating Christianity would study the remains of its churches and monuments, its statuary and recurring symbolism. They might then write a book about what they suppose the symbolism means. Is that what you're talking about? If so, I would dispute that anyone who is seriously interested takes such "accounts" unquestioningly.

Quite aside from all that, Christian scriptures purport to describe the life and times of a particular man in a particular time. Egyptian myths describe the impossible adventures of impossible beings occurring in some timeless space. With regard to historicity, the two are incommensurable.

condra

Has anyone here watched it yet?

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com

I watched it last night. I found the first part especially interesting, about the many supposed spiritual leaders born on December 25th of virgin mothers, the ancients worshipping the sun, the age of aquarius etc..

The second part about the central bank system, and about the elite in America was also thought provoking, though the 911 conspiracy theory part was best served with a pinch of salt.

Still, interesting, entertaining, and worth watching in my opinion.

Ciaran500

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055150358&highlight=zeitgeist


Once I heard about the 911 Conspiracy part I lost all interest in watching it.

condra

Argh, didnt see that thread. Mods please feel free to delete or lock this one!

Cheers Ciaran.


MOD EDIT: Merged womoma's thread with old one!

condra

I really enjoyed the first part of the film.

pclancy

Sorry if im dragging up old discussions here but I didnt find much in my searches...

I presume many of ye have seen the zeitgeist movie (http://zeitgeistmovie.com if ye havnt) Of the three parts Id love to hear what people thought of the religous part, was it complete bollocks or based on a lot of fact?

I found it overall good but several easy to see errors struck me and there may be a lot more found with research eg the Lusitania was sunk in open waters not German as described in the film and the world government thing which keeps popping up in those kind of films is to me bollocks (I cannot ever imagine China, Cuba and the US sharing government power for example)

The Sun being the son of God though? Its resurrection after the winter solstice? The zodiac's 12 signs being the 12 disciples and the similarities between Jesus, Krishna and all the others being exactly the same in terms of virgin birth etc? Was it muck or based on a lot of fact?

Dades

^^ pclancy - have moved your new thread post to this older one. ^^

pclancy

You must be sick of doing that by now. Merci Sir Mod!

Fanny Cradock

It has been mentioned a good few times on the Christianity forum. You might want to check there.