Ad

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Zeitgeist Movie...What's Your Opinion?


There's an online move called Zeitgeist. Have you heard about its controversy yet? If not, here is the run-down.

During this article, I portray my own opinion. Please be sure to realize that your opinion may differ.

While I began my viewing, I was distraught by the absolute invasion of image after image of violence and grotesque bloodshed. I probably should have ended my viewing except that I knew that there was something to be revealed behind that curtain of disgust.

As the movie progressed, symbolic images of the bible given to someone with the American flag being draped over the top emerged. Images of evolution. Images of control.

Following these exhaustively disturbing images came dialog.

First came a comedian's condescending comments about religious people believing in God and questioning (in comedic context) why they would actually believe in a loving God, even if there was a place called "Hell", beginning the slap-in-the-face for Christianity, along with every other organized religion.

The continuing dialog remained set on conversion of the viewers to Atheism, or at least a push to disregard organized religion.

Someone with knowledge on the astrology and history then told a sorted tale about how all of the world's beliefs in Saviors were, in fact, plagiarism. That they all belong to the same tales that Egyptians wrote about the rise and fall of the actual sun.

The obvious God-mockers claim that the bible is a great astrological reference, but that Christianity and organized religion, as a whole, was put together as a means of control by government.

Once again, dialog follows that mocks believers of religion, along with reinforcement that the religious believers are being controlled by the government.

Freedom of religion is a constitutional right. Here is a definition Wikipedia Link - Click Here
"Freedom of religion is a guarantee by a government of freedom of belief for individuals and freedom of worship for individuals and groups. It is generally recognized to also include the freedom not to follow any religion. Freedom of religion is considered by many in many nations and people to be a fundamental human right."

"In a country with a state religion freedom of religion is generally considered to mean that the government permits religious practices of other sects besides the state religion, and does not persecute believers in other faiths."

Following the religion bashing, The Zeitgeist Movie attempts to prove that the government managed to produce 9/11.

I believe that there are events that may never completely make sense to those of us who were not present in one of the planes (obviously no survivors to tell the tale), or in one of the buildings. However, through manipulation of a barrage of images, text, and spliced interviews, they attempt to prove...

...That the government orchestrated all of 9/11 for profit and control.

...That there could not have been a plane that hit the Pentagon, because there were no remnants of the plane.

...That there could not have been a plane that went down in a field because there wasn't anything left.

...That the Twin Towers could not have fallen without help from demolition.

...That building 7 was a controlled demolition.

...That there were war games going on and NORAD couldn't separate the war games from the real hijacked planes.

Following that poorly orchestrated facade comes an absurd collage of events looped together in attempt to prove government issued terrorism has been produced to create a means to new legislation...

...They compare the American government to the Nazi government.

...That the whole society is being held together by the controlled use of fear of TERRORISM.

Of course, through the production, they add their own words, highlight certain documentation, hide other documentation, add only certain spliced news footage, etc.

I admit the population has obviously been frightened of terrorism. However, there has been a numbing effect on the population. People are use to the terminology being overused. The majority of the population has gone on with their lives, following the initial shock of 9/11, and don't pay particular attention to the word "terrorism". I believe that The Zeitgeist Movie attempts to use "terrorism" as a means to frighten their viewers into submission, rather than the way they portray its use.

Additionally, they use inappropriate shock value, which includes a call made by a man from his office while in one of the towers as it was collapsing on 9/11 ...

...followed by a speech on secrets not being the correct way of life along with footage of the JFK assassination, somehow linking the two together...yet another inappropriate shock value insert...capitalizing on death, violence, and emotional events in human history.

Their methods are certainly to utilize fear and violence to strike emotional tension in their viewers so that they submit to the viewpoints of the creator of the film and question the very core of their reality.

They follow this section with a poor attempt at trying to prove...

...That banks are bad.

...That banks equal debt and debt equals slavery...therefore, we are all slaves.

...They claim that the Founding Fathers were very aware of this "debt=slavery" concept.

There definitely may be worldwide controlling factors within the banking and media outlets that you may want to be aware of...here is a link to a post regarding a recent acquisition... Click Here For Link

While I may agree that debt may equal a form of slavery, this movie completely sensationalizes the system and may cause panic for those who live in these times if they are not aware of the nature of this film...conspiracy theory!

What is the definition of a conspiracy theory? As stated in Wikipedia...

"A conspiracy theory usually attributes the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social, pop cultural or historical events), or the concealment of such causes from public knowledge, to a secret, and often deceptive plot by a cabal of powerful or influential people or organizations. Many conspiracy theories imply that major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes."

General arguments against conspiracism, also quoted from Wikipedia...

"Many people tend to respond to events or situations which have had an emotional impact upon them by trying to make sense of those events, typically in spiritual, moral, political, or scientific terms."

"Events which seem to resist such interpretation—for example, because they are, in fact, unexplainable—may provoke the inquirer to look harder for a meaning, until one is reached that is capable of offering the inquirer the required emotional satisfaction."

"At other times, the unfolding of complex sequences of events such as political phenomena are explainable, but not in simple terms. Conspiracy theories are often preferred by individuals as a way to understand what is happening around them without having to grasp the complexities of history and political interaction."

The above seems to describe this movie quite eloquently.

Here are some additional reality questions that they try to tag on to the film...

...They claim that we don't have to pay income tax and that it's nothing less than slavery.

...They claim that America funded both sides of WWII...purposely.

...They claim that all wars are for profit...that they are all staged by planned war pretexts.

This movie compares what is happening in the American government directly with what happened in Nazi Germany and Hitler. They compare Hitler with Bush. They compare Nazi documents with U.S. documents.

I find it interesting that they put that information in their movie. There is a documented factor between the Bush family and Hitler. You can read more about it at this link... Prescott Bush.

Here is just a blurb...
"Investigator John Loftus has said, "As a former federal prosecutor, I would make a case for Prescott Bush, his father-in-law (George Walker) and Averell Harriman [to be prosecuted] for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They remained on the boards of these companies knowing that they were of financial benefit to the nation of Germany." Two former slave laborers from Poland have filed suit in London against the government of the United States and the heirs of Prescott Bush in the amount of $40 billion. A class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. in 2001 was dismissed based on the principle of state sovereignty."

Next, The Zeitgeist Movie begins opposition of the organized educational system and portrays it as another government control mechanism. They portray that the government promotes drinking, watching movies, extensive TV viewing, and endless mind-numbing entertainment.

Again, they repeat that organized religion is part of government control.

One factual piece of data that they throw in is the NAU (North American Union), which I have yet to find information to debunk. However, they present it with much more information regarding governmental control of society than is currently on the front lines. A post with information and links is located at Click Here For Link

The Real ID card is supposed to lead to an RFID module, which will be implanted. Do you think that "they", the government, could actually have that power?...According to this movie, it's supposed to be located in all new passports.

Here are some links to RFID that you may want to read to educate yourself.
NPR - California Law Outlaws RFID Implant Mandate
What is RFID?

A controlled population? You may want to read my post at Click Here For Link, where you may find that there are people that are willing to control the population so that they don't leave behind as much of a carbon footprint.

Again, The Zeitgeist Movie includes some fact with fiction mixed in, highly sensationalized, so that those who watch become angry, upset and enraged.

Here is a definition of the word zeitgeist from Wikipedia...

"Zeitgeist" refers to the ethos of a select group of people, that express a particular (predominantly post-modern) world view, which is prevalent at a particular period of socio-cultural progression."

"Zeitgeist is the experience of a dominant cultural climate that defines, particularly in Hegelian thinking, an era in the dialectical progression of a people or the world at large. Hegel's main contribution to the formulation of the concept of Volksgeist is the attribution of a historical character to the concept. The spirit of a nation is one of the manifestations of "World Spirit" (Weltgeist). That Spirit is essentially alive and active throughout mankind's history. Now, the spirit of a nation is an intermediate stage of world history as the history of the World Spirit. The World Spirit gives impetus to the realization of the historical spirits of various nations (Volksgeister')."

"The spirits of individual nations are both the articulations (Gliederungen) of an organization and its realization. The spirits of individual nations represent a segment of the World Spirit out of which emerges the unlimited universal spirit. A comparison is introduced here between the status of an individual and that of a nation's spirit. In the process of his formation the individual undergoes various changes without, however, losing his identity. As a part of world history, a nation—exhibiting a certain trend expressed in its Volksgeist— plays its part in the total process of world history. But once it contributes its share to world history it can no longer play a role in the process of world history. The submersion in the total process prevents a people's cultural rebirth, because it has exhausted its creativity in the historical growth of its guiding spirit. It is for this reason that one of Hegel's disciples, Michelet, considered the idea of a renaissance of the Jewish people as philosophically impossible."

I applaud the use of the Internet as a media platform for entertainment and creativity. It's an innovative and future-forward venture. Additionally, the freedom of speech and freedom of press are, most arguably, some of our most treasured constitutional freedoms. However, The Zeitgeist Movie seems to provoke feelings of hatred toward religion, government, education, and society in general. Concluding a film so that your viewers want to move to into bomb shelters, take their children out of school, pull all of their money out of the economy, or assault their government, isn't a platform advisable for bringing any type of positive outcome to any event(s) in history.

Sources:
www.zeitgeistmovie.com
en.wikipedia.org
www.npr.org
www.aimglobal.org
issuesoncall.blogspot.com

29 comments:

thepyrite said...

Clearly, you critique the material in Zeitgeist from your own particular point of view... in doing so, you miss the entire point of the material. The filmmaker is not attempting to convince you of anything... he's simply pointing to relevant facts. Sure, a picture is painted that nobody would want to look at... but I would rather be careful and preventative, than wait until it's too late. I'd say that's the point of the Nazi references... everyone just turned a blind eye, until it was too late. I view this material as I do with care for the environment... there is no good reason NOT to take preventative measures to ensure our future safety. If you recycle, use alternative energy sources... or decide resolutely that you will not allow microchips to be fused to your being... they are all measures that SHOULD have no negative impact. If any of those things do, then there is a problem... and the material in Zeitgeist has been substantiated automatically.

Anonymous said...

hey girl, you're critique of this movie is laughable. Not only did you miss the entire point of the film, but your opinions and critical analysis only perpetuate the idea of indoctrinated beliefs by the elite through manipulation that the film points out. You are part of this system... your little life is not outside of it... you have been manipulated, and you should care and resist.

jakjonsun said...

You are out of your mind for dismissing this movie. After I watched it I found like 9 computer chips in my arm. Now I don't have to worry about all those times George W. Bush kidnaps me at night and tortures me and makes me believe in Jesus and has me invest my money in inflated US Steel stock.

Anonymous said...

It is clear that this is your point of view. It is also clear that the movie is another point of view, the director's or whoever wrote it produced it.

Of those 2 points of views I find yours to me much more balanced and reliable. Off course there is no point of view that reflects the truth, ipsis literis.

Having watched the movie and read diferent points about it, a few questions came to mind:

- the movie clearly "slaps cristianity" in the face, and compares it to a form o dominace. But what about other religions ? why are the movie doesn't mention Budism, Taoism, Hinduism or even Muslim ?

- the movie mentions actual facts that took place and then, right after, mentions ou sugests something else. this is a very well known technique to get someone conviced of something. for example: mentioning the bliblical astrological relation is nice and in fact it somehow makes sense. comparing egypcian religion and miths with cristianity also can have some degree of truth (read Joseph Campbel and Carl Jung who have understood that mitology repeates itself over and over). But just because there can be those relations, and the fact that I might be willing to agree with that doesn't make religion an exclusive form of dominace. religion is not slavery. just to point out to every one out there, the French Revolution killed in a year more people than the Inquisition in 400 years. religion is great, it is necessary, it is part of humanity. and off course, there are always bad people who try to use as a means of power - there always will be.

- the movie clearly states that bankers want war, because war brings profits. at the end, the movie points out that the world is heading to a unique government, a master power. well, if that is so, either there will be no more wars (which I doubt) because there will be noone to make war to or we shall make war to some sort of alien species... anyway, if there will be no more wars, how can there be any profit ?

- the list of points can go on and on... but I just would like to point to everyone reading this that this film is very much convincing. but before you buy in to that, try to think and re-think and you will see that a lot of times the film maker is trying to induce you to think what he wants you to think.

- acusing someone of doing exaclty what you are doing is one of the oldest tricks in game. and that is exacly what this film does.

people, don't take quick conclusions: think and re-think.

Anonymous said...

I hear we are heading to a totalitarian government as well with super powers Eastasia and Oceania in perpetual war... It was informing to hear the history of pagan religions and how they effected the rise of christianity, but an intelligent person must be a skeptic until proven otherwise. Therefore I will entertain the notions suggested in this movie as possibilities. I suggest everyone keep an open mind and listen for the truth.

Anonymous said...

You stated that you have yet to find information debunking the North American Union. Interesting to me is that it seems you didn't debunk anything else either. All you did was was rationalize your own point of view to discredit the makers of the film. At least the makers of the film referenced documentation and media in each segment that way the viewer, if so inclined, can do their own research. Where are your references? Wikipedia, which you link to quite a bit, is known for its falliability as a community encyclopedia, whose only form of oversight is that of loose checks and balances of opposed Wikipedia editors (i.e. anyone alive). So are you just one who likes to pontificate or can you pony up as well because this review of the Zeitgeist movie, however eloquent, isn't very objective. If you care so much then I'd like to see you make a counter documentary with appropriate references.

Anonymous said...

I, like most people, am sceptical about the last two sections of the movie and have heard most of the theories before, but I think the first section relating to religion is pretty damning. I think it shows how easily man can fabricate belief systems. It's no co-incidence that the people on here and elsewhere posting the most fervent disapproving messages are from religious groups. It just goes to show that when the truth is pointed out, then do not like it one bit. Serves you right for being incapable of individual thinking.

To quote the film, open your eyes...

james said...

You have no excuse in the world not to know the truth, for in knowing the truth it will ultimately awaken you to the magnificence of our reality, and at the same time protect you from the dangers of ignorance

Anonymous said...

There is lack of documentation in this review to debunk anything in the movie. This is curious as you are telling others to be wary of the points of view that are backed up by fact.

As for Parts II and III not being reliable - anyone who takes a few college American History courses can learn that the history of the United States and money, mentioned in the movie is truth. This is why even at least two of the recent presidential candidates stated they wanted to eliminate the Central Bank and the Federal Reserve. The facts in the movie are not opinions - they are facts which are well documented. (What do you think the Central Bank is?)

Also, it seems to me the author of this "review" refuses to look at any historical facts about religion. How can you look at the similarities between the "religions" and history and claim there is no similarity or that they are coincidence?

Spirituality is necessary. Most of us know we are part of something greater than ourselves. It has even been scientifically proven that prayer works. (Read "The Isaiah Effect.")

Organized religion is not necessary and has been used to control populations throughout history. This is a fact - not an opinion. There are far more facts to back this up than there are facts to prove the religion of Christianity. Also, the religion of Islam was started by a "man with a vision" then used to control the masses (cover the women so the men don't get horny, castrate women so they don't get horny, etc.). BTW, Buddism and Taoism are NOT religions - they are philosophies. And why does the Bible state "thou shalt not kill" and our government can kill people (capital punishment)? The Bible does not state "thou shalt not kill.... except when God says it's okay." If it was then you may as well say "thou shalt not kill... unless they are the devil." This sounds a lot like a terrorist rant to me.

If you think this type of statement is an opinion, it is clear you need to research the subject yourself with references other than the bible or your local church.

Licht2202 said...

1st off, the 1st part of the zeitgeist movie is completely fictional and made up. It all stems from Ms Murdock, who calls herself Acharya S, which means guru or teacher. There are 100s of references you can search out that discredit her work, but for starters you can check out answeringinfidels.com.

I only need to point out a few facts , which basically make the whole first part of the movie fall apart:

* Jesus was not born on December 25th! This date was assigned by the Roman Catholic Church and is widely known to NOT be the actual date that he was born, and by the way neither were any of the gods that were mentioned in zeitgeist, part 1. So, just from this point, you would have to be a complete dumb-ass to think that anything else that was presented is even true.

* Not one of the gods presented in the zeitgeist movie was ever born of a virgin or crucified. Crucification wasn't even invented, first of all, until the Roman Empire came into place. Hmm... I guess someone forgot to learn about history... I guess Ms. Murdock likes to dream up her own history in her mind.

* As far as astrology goes, the borders between the constellations are a completely 100% modern convention of the International Astronomical Union for the purpose of mapping, and therefore never had any astrological significance in ancient times

* The Bible absolutely condones the worship of stars, moon, or sun and states that people were to put to death for such an act in the Old Testament.

* There are plenty of sources outside the bible that point to Jesus actually living and being crucified... There is more physical evidence for Jesus living than any other person in history

* On a final note, all the verses Ms. Murdock quotes in the bible as reference to her claims actually discredit her. One verse she speaks of in the Bible isn't even there. All other verses she quotes either condone the act of worshiping anything other than God or plainly have nothing to do with what Ms. Murdock states!

I could write more, but what's the point. If you actually want to learn something, you need to research it yourself to learn something factual and come to your own conclusions based on reality and not someone’s imagination.

Anonymous said...

Just want to follow up on the previous post and play devils advocate. By the way I have faith too, but faith does not mean that you must follow blindly. If we did the earth would still be the center of the universe, and we would still be hunting witches.

"Jesus was not born on December 25th! This date was assigned by the Roman Catholic Church and is widely known to NOT be the actual date that he was born,"

-That is the whole point the director is trying to make. The Christian church (at the time the Holy Roman Church) has taken elements of a "Christ figure" from various other religions and intertwined them with the emerging Christian faith. This is not a radical concept. A simple example is the Irish/Celtic cross which Saint Patrick is reported to have made. In order to help facilitate the islanders from worshiping pagan gods (like the sun) the cross was intertwined with the sun making the cross we now know of that has an circle outlining the four points, representing the sun, and thus making it easier for pagans to accept the Christian faith. The director is not trying to assert Jesus was born on this day, he is trying to show you the same conclusion that you yourself came to, the whole thing is made up.

*"Not one of the gods presented in the zeitgeist movie was ever born of a virgin"

I am assuming you mean one of the sons of god presented in the film. I don't remember all the onces the director presented but here is one I know off of the top of my head. Although there are likely many others, and perhaps some even further back the the Greeks the myth of Danae and Zeus comes to mind. In simplicity the story is about an oracle who foresees a fathers daughter giving birth to a son who will grow to kill his grandfather. In order to prevent this from happening the father locks his daughter in an underground prison to prevent her with ever coming into contact with a man and thus having an opportunity to become pregnant. Of course Zeus, the adulteress that he was finds a way into the prison and "with a shower of gold" impregnates her. In short a virgin was now pregnant with the son of god...

"Crucification wasn't even invented, first of all, until the Roman Empire came into place. Hmm... I guess someone forgot to learn about history... I guess Ms. Murdock likes to dream up her own history in her mind."

While I am no expert at when crucifixions started taking place, I fail to see any point that would validate the existence of Jesus. As you yourself had come to the conclusion of earlier, the church likes to make up its own history, like the date Jesus was born on, and in this case how he was killed. But even so, I fail to see any connection that proves he existed because of how he was killed. For instance if Jesus were to be killed in our time, I might write that he was given a lethal injection. Now obviously I just took a "christ figure" from 2000 years ago and implanted my own modern variation into the story. In the same way it is certainly possible someone living 2000 years ago took a christ figure from another story that perhaps died of a thunderbolt, changed a thunderbolt to something more common to their time (like a crucifixion) and tudah! But like I said, the manner in which he died doesn't prove he existed.

* "As far as astrology goes, the borders between the constellations are a completely 100% modern convention of the International Astronomical Union for the purpose of mapping, and therefore never had any astrological significance in ancient times"

While I certainly agree that our modern constellation charts could be way different than constellations our ancestors pointed to, the main constellations used for astrology have remained pretty much the same at least since the Greeks. Saint Benedict and Saint Johns University (yes, I am actually using a religious school that will prove my point) has an online article that reads quote" Our modern constellation system comes to us from the ancient Greeks. The oldest description of the constellations as we know them comes from a poem, called Phaenomena, written about 270 B.C. by the Greek poet Aratus. However, it is clear from the poem that the constellations mentioned originated long before Aratus' time. No one is sure exactly where, when, or by whom they were invented. And yet a little detective work reveals a plausible origin...150 A.D., the Greek scientist Ptolemy published a book, known by its Arabic name, The Almagest, which contained a summary of Greek astronomical knowledge, including a catalog of 1022 stars, with estimates of their brightness, arranged into 48 constellations. These 48 formed the basis for our modern constellation system." The article can be found here http://www.physics.csbsju.edu/
astro/asp/constellation.faq.html
In the same article it also mentions what you refer to saying the union "officially adopted the list of 88 constellations that we use today. Definitive boundaries between constellations, which extend out beyond the star figures, were set in 1930, so that every star, nebula, or galaxy, no matter how faint, now lies within the limits of one constellation. For today's astronomer, constellations refer not so much to the patterns of stars, but to precisely defined areas of the sky." However I think you missed the point that the film refers to the zodiac, which is a collection of 12 constellations that is indeed very old, at least as far back as the Greeks. The film is not referring to the "modern 88 constellations" set by the Astronomy convention.

* The Bible absolutely condones the worship of stars, moon, or sun and states that people were to put to death for such an act in the Old Testament.

-It is hard to make such a claim. While I think most modern Christian sects would agree with you about worshiping such things, the bible does provide a few gray areas that are hard to ignore. While I could start with the "star of Bethlehem" being a sign from god that something extraordinary was happening (I don't know how much closer we could get to a perfect example of astrology in th bible) we could also point to the 3 wise men who were magi, likely astrologers, who were heading toward the star precisely for the very reason of worshiping it. I dont want to stretch this argument out too long because no one will ever change their mind if astrology is condoned or practiced in the bible, for some reason it seems the bible gets to ride the fence on this one while having cake and eating it too. But I will offer 2 more versus of this practice and the bible not putting people to death for this belief. Gen. 1:14-15 states "And God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as SIGNS to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the Earth." And it was so. Also Luke 21:25 says "There shall be SIGNS in the sun, the moon, and the stars. But here again we are missing the point. The point the film was trying to make was not whether the bible was condoning astrology and the use of the zodiac, but rather trying to create connections between the two to show how many similar events and ideas the different faiths have. The fact is whether you want to believe the 2 are related at all, the director does provide some intriguing evidence into similarities between the 2 ideas and faiths. Once again the director is simply trying to poke holes in the traditional christian faith in this case by simply showing how easy it would have been for the Christian faith to have been adopted by ideas that came first from other religions like the pagan worship of the sun and stars.

* There are plenty of sources outside the bible that point to Jesus actually living and being crucified...

The problem here is the same one presented in the film. While I agree there are certainly more historians available than the ones the director presented in the film, he does have a point that for such a major historical figure there are relatively few sources of firsthand information on Jesus. Again the distinction here are historians who actually lived and wrote during the time that Jesus lived. There are some good books on the issue. The most known authors about it are G. A. Wells and R.T. France. Both point out pretty much what the movie does that historians who write about Jesus that actually lived in his time are few and far between. I will agree it is much easier to try and denounce Jesus based on the lack of evidence than it is to support his existence considering 2000 years have passed since his time, and that much evidence could have been lost during those years. However, like all arguments from a scientific standpoint, the burden of proof falls to the believer to provide evidence to the skeptic not the other way around.

There is more physical evidence for Jesus living than any other person in history

Wow, I really don't know where to even begin with this one. If you have ever traveled to Europe then you will already know that every church apparently has a piece of the cross, a nail from the cross, the shroud Jesus was wrapped in, blood stains, the spear, etc, etc. The amount of relics that are available from the crucifixion are immense. The point here being that if you added up all the pieces off wood from the cross that churches claim to have, you would have enough to make 10 crosses. If you added up all the nails they possess you would have enough to build a house. And of course, if there are even 2 supposed shrouds thats one too many. It is sad too, because perhaps there might actually be a genuine relic out there. The simple problem really is that there was money to be made in selling relics and now it is simply hard to distinguish between what might actually be a true relic and a hoax. Here again, the burden falls on the believer. There is simply no physical piece of evidence that proves he existed. The problem is that we don't have any evidence we know is true and not tainted, so as such there is nothing to compare it to. For example we may have blood on a nail, but that does not prove it is Jesus blood on the nail. It simply proves someone got blood on a nail. Relics are a touchy issue and you are simply not going to prove Jesus existence one way or the other based off of them.

-Like I said folks, I think we all agree the film has is problems. But I think at the same time it really can be an eye opener to the accepted conservative Christian faith. While you still certainly claim the Jesus is a unique figure, you must admit the similarities portrayed between him and other religious figures are astounding. The connections the director makes between astrology and the story of Jesus can be a bit unnerving. I agree with the previous poster - don't rely on the movie to make your own convictions. However, if even to affirm your own faith, follow the road to some of the controversies presented in the movie. Perhaps it will make your faith stronger than ever, perhaps it will test your faith, perhaps it will make you lose your faith. Regardless, you are at least no longer following blindly.

-Kazbob

Licht2202 said...

I'm glad to see someone replied, however, I see you misinterpreted my intentions. I was arguing against the ridiculous information in Zeitgeist, and not trying to make a case for Jesus, but rather a case for the truth which cannot be found anywhere in the first part of zeitgeist. And by the way, Jesus was a real character in history. Zeitgeist claims there are no historians that record of Jesus outside the Bible and then go on to contradict themselves while mocking 4 valid scholarly accounts in history. Zeitgeist also left off mentioning what Flavius Josephus, which they accounted as a valid scholar, stated when they were mocking Jesus earlier in the movie and distorted a small line of text from one of his writings. And by the way, Josephus not only records of Jesus being put to death under Pilate, but also records His resurrection and people following him because of this.

The Roman Catholic Church is responsible for a lot of things in history, but making up the story of Jesus is not one of them. The Roman Catholic Church was only founded as a form of pseudo-Christianity, not real Christianity. This church was formed because the Roman Empire agreed that killing the Christians was only making them stronger and greater in number, so instead of continuing the act of killing them, they made up their own Christianity and started converting everyone to their newly created religion based on acts. Real Christianity is based on Faith in Jesus and following his teachings, and not how many good things you can do in this life.

And by the way, I wouldn’t even call myself a Christian until about 3 months ago, but more like an atheist not really knowing what to believe in. I've done a lot of research that brought me to my decision to accept Christ as my savior through questioning everything set before me and only seeking to find the truth and the real answers to this life. I hope that you would do the same. Anyway, I don’t have time to delve into the massive amounts of information involved in arguing the point on Jesus, so I would rather encourage you to really do some research and find out for yourself.

Licht2202 said...

Check out this link for starters if you want:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Licht2202 said...

I just went back and watched the first part of the zeitgeist movie again and found my previous statement to refer to the wrong reference. I previously thought that they were referencing Josephus, and found otherwise when I watched the film again. In fact, zeitgeist talks about Justin Martyr as a credible reference, and yet at the same time changes what he stated in his works. I’ve listed what Martyr really stated below and you can research it to find out for yourself that the quote given in the zeitgeist movie is completely made up and you won’t find it accompanying any writing other than this itself, thereby making it completely fictional.
“And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth(1) of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; AEsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Caesar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre? And what kind of deeds are recorded of each of these reputed sons of Jupiter, it is needless to tell to those who already know. This only shall be said, that they are written for the advantage and encouragement(2) of youthful scholars; for all reckon it an honourable thing to imitate the gods. But far be such a thought concerning the gods from every well-conditioned soul, as to believe that Jupiter himself, the governor and creator of all things, was both a parricide and the son of a parricide, and that being overcome by the love of base and shameful pleasures, he came in to Ganymede and those many women whom he had violated and that his sons did like actions. But, as we said above, wicked devils perpetrated these things. And we have learned that those only are deified who have lived near to God in holiness and virtue; and we believe that those who live wickedly and do not repent are punished in everlasting fire.”

On a second note, there are plenty of sources outside the bible that point to Jesus being a real person. Five of these sources are actually given in the zeitgeist movie, and one of them is taken out of context and not even mentioned as a source, while the other four mentioned are simply mocked. The thing zeitgeist intentionally leaves out and doesn’t want you to know is that the references they give are known to be very highly esteemed scholars of their day, making their written information highly credible. The following names are of non-biblical scholars that wrote about Jesus and were from the time surrounding the period spoken of in the zeitgeist film: 1. Clemente of Rome, 2. Ignatius of Antioch, 3. Justin Martyr, 4. Papias, 5. Quandratus, 6. Eusebius, 7. Quadratus, 8. Flavius Josephus, 9. Tacitus, 10. Suetonius, 11. Pliny the Younger, 12. Thallus, 13. Lucian, 14. Celsus, 15. Tertullian, and 16. Talmud. That’s 16 different accounts outside the bible, 5 of which are in the zeitgeist film, but with twisted and distorted information. So what about the other 11 scholars, and why mock the perfectly good scholars and twist around what Joseph Martyr really wrote?

I’m currently in the process of addressing every error in the first part of the zeitgeist movie one by one, but of course this will take awhile since pretty much everything stated in the first part of the movie is in error. I’ve created a blog which I am doing this and adding to it little by little as time permits.

zeitgeistmoviepart1.blogspot.com

Kazbob48 said...

For those of you who have followed Licht2202 new thread he posted his supposed refutations to zeitgeist on his thread. I took the time to debunk many of his claims, and wanted to post it here for those of you who dont look at his thread. I have put his actual quotes in parenthesees, and you can view his entire thread by following the link zeitgeistmoviepart1.blogspot.com. I have also posted my response on his thread, but it requires approval by licht to be published on his page, which I dont know if he is going to do. So, Ill post it here too. Happy reading - and like I said in the thread Ill try to finish up debunking all his claims over a few days.

~Just a heads up I am the same poster as the previous anonymous comment (at the time I didn't have a blogspot account) You are wrong on so many points here, I dont know where to start, so I will simply go play by play of your own statements debunking each and every one of them in an intelligent debate. It may take me a few days to do this, because so far I can't find any of your claims that are true, and that means a lot of writing for me. If only I could respond to every blog that makes these exact same claims as you, I could perhaps put some logic and truth back into the zeitgeist forums. I want to point out that you claim that the person responsible for the Jesus myth theory is DM Murdock, when in reality there are a variety of other qualified academics who have written about this hypothesis such as Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, as well as others long before her. I don't want to try to sway your faith, but only to test your logic. It is hard to be impartial when you already stand on the other side of the line (for example try to have a Yankee fan predict the outcome of a baseball game when the Yankees are the ones playing, it will always be biased), so it is hard for both christians and Jesus myth believers to try to be impartial when looking over evidence but I think that both sides of this argument deserve a chance to be fairly represented. I am not going to defend Zeitgeist as a whole, because I agree with you there are problems with your movie. However, I disagree with you in many of your points here.

"]esus was not born on December 25th! This date was assigned by the Roman Catholic Church and is widely known to NOT be the actual date that he was born, and by the way neither were most of the gods that were mentioned in zeitgeist, part 1, not that it would matter anyways since that’s not even when Jesus was born."

~On the contrary this date is extremely important. The movie argues this point in satire because the intent is to provide the impression that Jesus was given this day of birth because he lacked his own day, not to try to convince you that he was actually born on the 25'th (the entire point is that he wasn't born ever) As the movie argues Jesus is a collection of other myths, pagan in origin. Church leaders did indeed choose the 25'th very specifically because they were borrowing from a rival godman legend of Mithras who was born on December 25'th. In fact Mithras birth and the nativity of Jesus are almost synonymous. Early christians had a schism about whether to celebrate on the 25'th or the 6'th, because another godman, Aion essentially the same as Mithras, was celebrated in Egypt at this time. My point here is that church leaders, down even to the day Jesus was born, lied. If you want to start out a story by lying, the rest of it is unlikely to be the truth. For instance if I open a story by saying Sam rolled out of bed to look at the purple sky, you would likely think the story to be fiction. However, if you change to purple to blue, the story still has merit, and could potentially be nonfiction. As you said yourself, Jesus true date of birth is unknown. Is it not possible that nobody recorded the date simply because there was no birth? I agree with you, the only dates for his birth are Dec. 25'th (modern celebration) and January 6'th (which was celebrated by early chirstians in accordance with the mangod Aion (essentially the same pagan god as mithras as well as Jesus, and from its origin we get the word eon dealing with time) In fact the Armenian church still celebrates Jesus birth on January 6th. The big point here is that you cannot discredit the movie for stating Jesus was born on this date when the movie is trying to say Jesus was never born - ever - on any day. The movie simply gives December 25th to show you, the viewer, the reason why that particular day was chosen, which is because the church stole that particular day from rival man-gods that were coexisting with early Christians like Mithras and Aion. Shippenburg University has a pretty good article explaining this located at http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/
romanempire.html

"December 25th is not the winter solstice, never was, and never will be. The winter solstice falls on either the 21st or the 22nd of December!"

~Turns out quite a few days in the earth's past have been the Winter Solstice. This is due to the fact that earths "tilt" changes ever so slightly over time. However, over a few thousand years, a single degree or 2 can make a big difference. This phenomenon is known as precession of the equinoxes. In ancient Egypt their godman celebration was on January 6'th, because a few thousand years ago, due to the earths wobbly tilt, this is when the winter solstice occurred. There is a pretty good article that spells it out at http://www.crystalinks.com/
precession.html Notice that the winter solstice is the day when the sun starts to return back for longer periods - symbolic for the pagans as the "rebirth of the earth," and in turn given to Jesus as providing spiritual rebirth, everlasting life for the soul.

"This 21st and 22nd day of the month also correlates to the summer solstice in June. The Sun never once stops anywhere in the sky for 3 days; and to do this would mean that the earth would somehow need to stop in its orbit around the sun once a year. Obviously this is impossible and would be cataclysmic!"

~I agree it would be a disaster! Luckily it turns out the precession of the equinoxes is the reason why the dates are different today than in the past. But lets delve into your point about the summer solstice because the summer solstice actually does relate to another christian figure, John the baptist, born on the summer solstice. This solstice important for pagans as the sun hours begin to decrease as winter approaches and earth "dies." In fact in John chapter 3 verse 30 he even states "He must grow greater I must grow less" - a direct allegory to the dates of birth between John and Jesus in reference to the periods between the 2 solstices. This is of course simply another motif that the church stole from pagans and transplanted into Christianity.

"The Southern Cross is a constellation that can only be seen from the southern hemisphere of our earth, making it impossible to view this constellation from any location in the northern hemisphere such as in the Middle East or Europe. The line that divides the hemispheres is the equator, and each hemisphere has its own set of constellations that cannot be seen by the other hemisphere. Zeitgeist mentions the Southern Cross constellation at the same time they mention that the sun stops in the sky for three days of the year, which yet again shows you how stupid and offline this film is. Not only does the sun not stop in the sky, but those in the northern hemisphere would never even know what the Southern Cross is because they are not able to see it."

~Turns out that due to that precession of the equinoxes phonominon that we talked about earlier, that indeed the Southern cross or "crux" was able to be seen in the sky. In fact it was the southernmost constellation in the sky and thus the name. I don't generally like to cite wikipedia but their article explains it pretty well, "Ancient Greeks originally considered Crux to be part of Centaurus; however, the precession of the equinoxes gradually lowered these stars below the European horizon (At the latitude of Athens in 1000 B.C., Crux was clearly visible, though low in the sky; [1] by 400 A.D., most of the constellation never rose above the horizon for Athenians. [2]). This article is located here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Southern_Cross#cite_note-0 There is a star chart available here for you to confirm yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Image:Crux_in_greece.gif
and you can of course use some free astronomy software available here http://freeware.intrastar.net/
astronmy.htm
if you want to use a different source, of course make sure you arrange the date to be about the time of Greeks 1000bc-200ad to account for the precession of the equinoxes. I agree with you that now that it has retreated into the southern hemisphere is is impossible for folks in the north to see, however it was once in the northern hemisphere's sky and during the duration it was, it was a very important constellation, as zeitgeist points out. Zeitgeist does not say the sun "stops moving for 3 days" as you stated, it says as stated from the online transcript "the Sun stops moving south, at least perceivably, for 3 days." If you actually look into it, this is due to the fact that the sun has reached as far south as it is going to go - or the winter solstice. The author states it stops perceivably moving south, and this is because it takes a day or 2 for the eye to notice that the sun is once again on its northward journey - however as the movie states during these 3 days the sun resided in the southern cross or "crux," exactly as zeitgeist stated. Once again the movie is not claiming the sun stops moving in the sky, it is claiming that to the human naked eye it appears that it stops moving south for 3 days in which the sun stops going further south and restarts its northern journey.

"Easter does not fall on the spring equinox. The spring equinox is on March 21 and the day of Easter varies from year to year in order to correlate with the Jewish holiday of Passover. This ranges from the end of March all the way to May, leaving the date to fall anywhere within the time frame of about 1 month, most often falling in the month of April, and very seldom at the end of March or beginning of May."

~Turns out that the day of easter has actually been changed a few times throughout history, both by natural causes due to the precession of the equinox, but also deliberately and arbitrarily by man. But the early christians celebrated it on no other than thats right, you guessed it, the spring equinox (or vernal equinox if you please). The movable date set according to the civil calender was a church invention due to a dispute on if the resurrection of christ should continue to be celebrated on a blatant and obvious pagan holiday, for spring was long noted for the pagans as the resurrection of earth after a long dead winter. Again, due to the procession of the equinoxes the vernal equinox at the time of christ has changed, and early christians used to celebrate jesus resurrection on the 22'nd which coincided with the spring equinox about 2 thousand years ago. It was not until the council of nicaea that a "floating date" was put into place (done in 325 AD - so christians had been celebrating Jesus resurrection on a pagan holiday for about 300 years). Religious tolerance has a pretty good article explaining the connections with Jesus resurrection to pagan vernal equinox celebration at http://www.religioustolerance.org/
spequi1.htm
To make a bold statement that there is absolutely no connection between easter and the pagan celebration of the equinox is ridiculous. Even wikipedia disagrees with you on this, see their article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter
#Easter_controversy
In fact, one of the conditions set by the council of niceae was "that the moon was to be accounted the paschal moon whose fourteenth day followed the vernal equinox" - in other words even though the church changed the celebration to not be held on the equinox, they made sure it still was celebrated in the general time frame. Here are some more sources that disagree with you and point out the blatant fact that easter and the spring equinox were celebrated in the past on the same day, for the same reason.
-www.holidays.net/easter/story.htm
-www.timeanddate.com/news/holidays/
early-easter-2008.html
-http://straitwaytruth.com/artman/
publish/article_123.shtml
I really sincerily doubt even the most devout Christian, even a priest, would deny there is a connection between easter and the spring equinox. As for all the other stuff you said about passover, is essence it is correct but was only established by the church some 300 years after the fact that christians had been celebrating easter on a pagan holiday.

"Not one of the gods presented in the zeitgeist movie was ever born of a virgin or crucified. Crucification wasn’t even invented, first of all, until the Roman Empire came into place."

~woe bud! Let me separate this into 2 chunks. Ill try to correct you on the falsehood of the first part of your statement to begin with. First of all, there is little argument in the academic community that Jesus miracle virgin birth was an original idea, rather that there were MANY other gods who shared this in common with Jesus and those gods were worshipped long before Jesus was. In fact your cited historian Justin Martyr even acknowleges both that a miracle virgin birth preceded christianity in other gods, as well as the very crucifixion you so staunchly stated wasnt around before the romans (which ill also prove to you indeed did, after I deal with this) quote "In saying that the Word (note the capitalization of Word - done intentionally by Justin to show it is the holy "word" IE god..) who is the first offspring of god was born for us without sexual union as Jesus Christ our teacher, and was crucified and died, and after rising again ascended into heaven we introduce nothing beyond what is said of those called the Sons of Zeus (again note the capitalization). Basically Justin, a historian you dont dispute, just refuted both of you errors in your statement for me. His work is published all over the internet for free, but if you want to check out this passage go to http://books.google.com/books?id=
Kc7ZhopsbOsC&pg=PA99&lpg=PA99&dq on
page 99.In fact the idea was so common that cultures throughout the world each had a godman from a virgin birth. Let me quoteout of the book Jesus mysteries by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy "Like Jesus, in many of his myths the pagan godman is born of a mortal virgin mother. In Asia Minor Attis' mother is the virgin Cybele. In Syria Adonis' virgin mother is called Myrrh. In alexandria, Aion in born of the Virgin Kore. In Greece, Dionysis os born of a mortal virgin Semele, who wishes to see Zeus in all his glory and is mysteriously impregnated by one of his bolts of lightning" (Page 29). Ill stop here with the quote from the book because although more are listed in the text, Dionysus is listed in the movie as being born of a virgin, and thereby refutes your point that no mangods listed were born of a virgin. Now as for the crucification. Your scholarly source of Justin was just listed above as saying other pre-roman gods were crucified but I guess I'll take the time to give you even more examples of pre-christians being crucified. Dr. Richard P. Bucher has a pretty good article proving you wrong stating "he Romans did not invent crucifixion as a method of execution, though it seems that they perfected it. On the basis of the writings of the Greek author Herodotus, it seems that the Persians were the first to use crucifixion (Herodotus 1:128.2; 3:125.3; 3:132.2; 3:159.1). For example, Herodotus tells us that King Darius (mentioned in the Bible) had 3000 Babylonians crucified in about 519 B.C. (4:43.2,7; 6:30.1; 7:194.1). The sources reveal that, two centuries later, Alexander the Great also used crucifixion in his conquests. For example in his History of Alexander, Curtius Rufus tells us that Alexander had 2000 citizens of Tyre crucified after he had conquered that city (4:4.17)." There are more examples to be found and cited in his article at http://www.orlutheran.com/html/
crucify.html
Also availible at another source is a story of Alexander crucifying enemies at www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/
alexander07.html
which pretty much says the same thing " 6,000 Tyrians were killed during the fighting in the streets (many of which were so narrow that it was easy to step from roof to roof across the street). 4,000 Macedonians were wounded, perhaps 500 were killed. Alexander's indulged in his anger: he ordered 2,000 Tyrians to be crucified on the beach" Alexander of course lived about 350 bc - so in other words this single story proves that crucifixion was around at least a few hundred years before the romans. Wikipedia (which again I hate to cite, but in this case it has citations on the page) states it was used even firther back in the 6th century bc "It was in use particularly among the Persians, Seleucids, Carthaginians, and Romans from about the 6th century BC to the 4th century AD, when in the year 337 Emperor Constantine I abolished it in his empire, out of veneration for Jesus Christ, the most famous victim of crucifixion" the article is availible here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Crucifixion#Pre-Roman_States
So again, your claims are outlandish, lack citations, and are untrue.

~I think Ill stop here for today, and pick up again debunking your other claims either tonight or tomorrow. Once again, I'm not doing this to try to attack your faith, but rather trying to show you that you attacks on zeitgeist are unfounded, lack citations, and logic. Feel free to post back and Ill try to have an intelligent debate with you.

Licht2202 said...

Thanks for the comment Kazbob48! I believe you had some good points in your rebuttal. I have taken up every point you made and looked into it thoroughly! In doing so, it has only made my blog even stronger. I don't want to present anything fictitious in my blog and therefore appreciate constructive criticism such as yours. Also note that I just started the blog and it will take some more time until everything in it is complete, i.e. when I have pointed out every false claim in the first part of the zeitgeist movie, which is pretty much every statement they made.

To let you in on a couple points, I know that Acharya S is not the only contributor the 1st part of the zeitgeist film, however she is the main contributor, and the only one that has written a companion guide to the first part of the movie. She is also the author of “The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold” which has pretty much the same title as part one of the zeitgeist film which is “The Greatest Story Ever Told”. Also note that the references for the first part of zeitgeist are also Acharya’s references for her books, so it only stands to reason that I pin-point her out above everyone else.

I’ve added quite a bit of information to by blog in the last couple days since you first checked in there, so if you have any more inputs, please don’t hesitate to post. I do look into everything that is brought to my attention, though I am limited on time so it doesn’t always happen right away. I’m not out to make stuff up and have even stated on my blog to research everything that I have posted there. I don’t know everything and don’t claim to, and therefore try to present only facts the best I can. If you find something you believe is off or wrong, then please let me know. Also note that I didn’t put up my blog to have a debate, so won’t be cluttering it with hastily stated comments stating that everything in is easily debunked, when in fact this is not the case at all.

I remind you the purpose of my blog is to expose the Zeitgeist film for its fraudulent information, not to get into a debate about Jesus, who zeitgeist idiotically tried to make out to be a fictitious character.

zeitgeistmoviepart1.blogspot.com

Anonymous said...

everyone should know that these sources are known to be false and have bad reviews for example acharya s and cumont. clearly the founder of this "Zeitgeistmovie" doesn't have a clear depiction of what Christianity is.Everyone who reads this... (Especially the strong minded atheists that what to justify living for themselves) go to this website and read the entire paper on mithra. http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html

Anonymous said...

about the 9/11 conspiracy, I find it amazing that the WTC's fell at free fall speed, how does this happen because of a few stories? Beats me. And also how do random people flying planes, i mean guys from the Middle East, how do they find the WTC? Is there a certain route they KNEW to take, i Mean theres no way the plane took them there, unless it was an inside job. How could anyone fly a plane to the world trade centers without having some sort of directional help....

Anonymous said...

If you honestly believe zeitgeist is an uncredible fictional movie then would'nt you call that ignorant? Already the elites stupification of the people is taking affect and all of those ignoring reality are living proof. But then again its YOUR opinion, just know that when all of what is said on zeitgeist explodes in your face and your stuck in the position in which you regret being ignorant and arrogantknow that you could have exploided these institutions and guarrantied a REAL free world for the coming generations....

avidpaintballers said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
avidpaintballers said...

great article.
jacob watches"

Geo said...

Well it's now may 2009 and it's the time of the start of the manditory British ID cards with biometric data, if you refuse you are banned the right to a passport, ownership of a home and subject to a repeat £2500, untill forced to pay for one. We are also at the start of a 'new world order' a quote being thrown around it governments recently, did I mention the global ression. There's your proof

Anonymous said...

Ever heard of the game telephone....greatest story ever told!!! whatever was said 2000 years ago is not what is being said today....whats wrong with just being a good person and not believing everything you hear. The parts about Bush and 9/11....the general public will never know the whole truth and to state otherwise is speculation...

Anonymous said...

you miss the entire point of the material [10.000]
I cant believe people continue beliving in these kind of things.
"God, Jesus"
And also Liberty on USA.

Anonymous said...

I really liked your point of view. Thanks for sharing. This helped.

man with desire said...

This article refutes and disproves claims of Zeitgeist movie, from the part of Christianity:

http://koti.phnet.fi/petripaavola/zeitgeist_movie.html

I suggest to read the article!

Anonymous said...

You mentioned how the Zeitgeist movie portayed 9/11 as a form for the government to take more control over the people and thats fine, im open to opionions and always listen to 2 sides of a story.. However, 2 things:

1. How would you know how deep the Bush administration goes into the towel head community/organisaion.. as proved on the movie, and

2. All you did was bitch about it and didnt prove if they were wrong about what was said in the movie. Back up your evidence, as they did, then maybe I would be more open minded. And finally,

3. There was scientific proof. Proving that 2 planes could not have caused that much damage, and once again magicly making Tower 7 to collapse.

Natasha Call said...

You need to pay more attention to the other posts in my blog. Over the years, more information has come to the forefront, allowing me to physically document, not just based on opinions alone. There is a point at which an article I wrote a few years ago becomes irrelevant today. Thank you for reading.

Anonymous said...

I believe this movie is brainwashing society and making fun of Christianity therefore I don't like it one bit and this is just my opinion :)