Strange one...Zeitgeist: The movie

r3nu4l

Okay, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I swear. I was recently watching the boring long-winded rant that is zeitgeist the movie and amazingly I found that part of the movie (concerning religion) may actually be useful. I'm posting in Christianity because the movie essentially attacks the Christian churches (being the majority churches of the world).

So have a look at Part 1 on Religion and let me know what you think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeZB2EsPqGE

I'm no theologian or expert on ancient Egypt and I suspect (know) that this movie probably stretches fact, mingles it with fiction and paints over the cracks but I'd like people who know a bit more than me to address the following issues raised by the movie.

The story of Bethlehem issue and repetition throughout the ages, particularly the references to the stellar constellations and the use of the letter M for the mother of the 'sun-god' in these various incarnations of the story.

The numerous "sun-gods" throughout history and the repetition of 25th December, 12 followers, etc.

We can discuss the other parts of the movie later. I KNOW it's full of rubbish but as I say I'd like people more educated than me in these things to help me deconstruct the myths portrayed in the movie.

Mods, if this is too much for this forum feel free to bung it over to CT...but I feel that the discussion has place here.

Fanny Cradock

r3nu4l wrote: »

The story of Bethlehem issue and repetition throughout the ages, particularly the references to the stellar constellations and the use of the letter M for the mother of the 'sun-god' in these various incarnations of the story.

The numerous "sun-gods" throughout history and the repetition of 25th December, 12 followers, etc.

We can discuss the other parts of the movie later. I KNOW it's full of rubbish but as I say I'd like people more educated than me in these things to help me deconstruct the myths portrayed in the movie.

Mods, if this is too much for this forum feel free to bung it over to CT...but I feel that the discussion has place here.

Arghhhhhhh! I just lost a very long post. Here's the abridged version.

Not once in the bible is the 25th of December mentioned. In fact, the birth date of Jesus is unknown and is not specifically part of biblical Christianity. The 25th Dec probably dates back to Constantine who is believed to have adopted a pre-existing festival from Sol Invictus.

In similar manner, the is absolutely no mention of how many wise men attended Jesus' birth. There could have been 2 or 20. The 3 wise men found in nativity sets etc. is, like the 25th Dec, merely convention.

The fact that there are other 'sun gods' does nothing to invalidate Christianity. The sun has never been an object of worship in Christianity, the 'Son' is.

*Horus was not born of a virgin. The date of his birth was never specified. Nor did he have 12 disciples. (I've dealt with the supposed Horus/ Jesus parallels in more depth in these two posts: Here and Here)

*Krishna was actually the 8th son of Devaki. So you can probably rule out the notion that she was a virgin.

Somebody linked an almost identical clip a few days back. Near the end (I assume it's the same with your clip) a long list of religions zips by (too quickly to read, I may add) and the narrator claims that parallel exist between all of these and Christianity. It's a cheap trick because it never goes into any details. For instance, it doesn't discuss if Christianity actually pre-dates some of these religions, which I suspect is the case. It doesn't touch on the possibility that these religions actually borrowed from Christianity - even if they pre-dated it. Nor does it mention that some of these religions were separated from Christianity by such distances that any parallels are coincidental.

r3nu4l, you say yourself that the film probably 'stretches fact, mingles it with fiction and paints over the cracks'. I believe that the film makers do exactly this when they attack Christianity. They provide no evidence. Instead, they rapid-fire unsubstantiated bullet point claims at the viewer, I'm sure, in attempts to distract them from noticing the lack of anything approaching solid fact. Research these matters yourself and see if their claims are true, half-true, spun or barefaced lies.

r3nu4l

Cheers Fanny Craddock. To be honest with you I'm fully aware that there is no substance in this video but I did want it debunked pretty fully by someone who knows more than I do about the details.

I honestly feel it would be a waste of time to do the research myself when other people already have the answers...reinventing the wheel and all of that.

The biggest thing I've noticed about this Conspiracy video and others of the same ilk is that wherever they see a 'hole' they ask a leading question, couple it with some loose statements and dramatic music and supply their questions rather than any answers as 'evidence'.

What about the claim about Joseph in the old testament? Disregarding the 25th of December claim (I found that amusing, knowing even as little as I do about ancient versus modern calendars), what about the claim regarding this Joseph and his miraculous birth, followers, performance of miracles, beginning his mission at 30 etc? I ask because I'd like to be able to adequately address this if it is ever put to me. Thanks for your links to the other threads btw.

I do think it is worth addressing this properly, simply because Christianity is under so many attacks these days and something like this, masquerading as fact can easily take some people in or at least be enough to cause doubt. I don't mind people doubting their belief but to base your doubt on a belief in what this video tells you would be quite silly imo!*


*I'm aware that athiests and agnostics would say that the reverse is quite silly too

Fanny Cradock

Where was the part about Joseph located on the clip? I don't fancy watching it again.

studiorat

Usual internet documentary fare. That movie just gets worse as it develops.

Zeitgeist De-bunked

These are quite good films though...
The Trap

The Story of God

Century of Self

robindch

...I think Adam Curtis' The Power of Nightmares is his best documentary. The others can be a bit trippy at times.

Part one of three is here.

studiorat

robindch wrote: »

The others can be a bit trippy at times.

And the problem with that is?

I wasn't too tickled by the "P of N's". I do agree that there seems to be a lack of idelology in western politics right now. I did find the Leo Strauss part quite interesting but I don't think the UK was quite as hysterical as Curtis did suggest at the time, or their politicians anyway. As for the US? anything could happen there and it be quite normal IMO.

Of course since the economy has taken a dive the war on terror has taken a back seat.

'tis true though there's a big difference between Adam Cutris' work and the Zeitgeist movie.

Tzetze

The part about the Southern Cross being visible in the middle east 2000 years ago is spot on. It was in the same position in the sky where the Sun appeared to 'die' during the winter solstice. After 3 days, the Sun began to move higher in the sky (died and after 3 days, was resurrected).

You can use software like 'Stellarium' to verify this.

r3nu4l

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Where was the part about Joseph located on the clip? I don't fancy watching it again.

To be honest, I'm not really that bothered myself, I'll try to look again later. Sorry, I was afk since last Thursday. Studiorat, thanks for that, interesting reading.

C\m\C

i can't stand this type of film..its not complete crud, but alot is and you have to figure out whats real and not..who cares? so boring..

r3nu4l

C\m\C wrote: »

i can't stand this type of film..its not complete crud, but alot is and you have to figure out whats real and not..who cares? so boring..

Oops, looks like you were a returning banned user.
Anyway, to answer the point, that's the problem I have with these movies. Many people will latch onto a couple of the facts stated in the movie and think 'well, I know that bit is true and so was the other bit, so the rest of it must be true too.'

The internet really is an excellent tool for spreading misinformation

Fanny Cradock

r3nu4l wrote: »

The internet really is an excellent tool for spreading misinformation

Rubbish. The lizard people really do rule the world.

DeVore

The religious stuff is debateable, the 9/11 stuff is a bit mad but by and large the banking part (the middle part as I recall), well.... watch it and turn on the news...

:eek:

DeV.

r3nu4l

DeVore wrote: »

The religious stuff is debateable, the 9/11 stuff is a bit mad but by and large the banking part (the middle part as I recall), well.... watch it and turn on the news...

:eek:

DeV.

Ha ha, yeah, the banking bit is actually quite uncanny, given the current situation. Some of it is off the wall but some of it is bang on However, this being a religious forum, I thought I'd stay on topic...unlike the naughty Admin! :pac:

Fanny Cradock

Site Ban for DeVore!

Galvasean

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Rubbish. The lizard people really do rule the world.

DeVore

r3nu4l wrote: »

Ha ha, yeah, the banking bit is actually quite uncanny, given the current situation. Some of it is off the wall but some of it is bang on However, this being a religious forum, I thought I'd stay on topic...unlike the naughty Admin! :pac:

Oops, sorry I didnt see the first part of the OP.

I worked for years in the banking system, writing software for them mostly. I've working in about 15 different financial institutions over about 8 years (as a consultant! I dont get fired that often ).
The reason I posted on this was that I am not qualified to answer the historical issues nor am I capable of discerning the truth of the 9/11 incident. I dont believe it was a conspiracy because no one has proved it to me. I do believe that parts of the american "government" have the capacity to act alone in what they view as "the best interests of America" and that that view is sometimes quite extreme....

However, I *am* reasonably informed on the banking side of things where if you look past the breathless rhetoric of the piece, he puts accross very telling and accurate points... points that are beginning to become clearer to the people of various nations in recent times, particularly about the unelectedness of the Fed and "Central" banks (didnt anyone wonder why Greenspan seemed to be on our tv's for decades?) or the rather ridiculous system of loaning governments money at interest.

Sorry if I derailed anything, if you want to talk about this element of the film, start another thread and PM me the link


As for the bible parts, as I said, I cant comment on the historical accuracy but I never understood why people too the book literally either. Unfortunately some DO and while moderate (and yes, I'm doggedly going to stick to dividing religious people into moderate and fanatical groupings) christians take the bible as allogorical, fanatical christians have used it as a reason to persecute all manner of people for a variety of reasons.

The problem is that its not acceptible for Moderates to argue "ah sure its only a book" when the officers of their religion (and Ratzinger doesnt fall into the Moderate group for me), don't speak out against that.

I want to respect your religion. I want you to respect my beliefs.


DeV

r3nu4l

DeVore wrote: »

Oops, sorry I didnt see the first part of the OP.

Sorry if I derailed anything, if you want to talk about this element of the film, start another thread and PM me the link

That's cool, the thread is mostly dead anyway and Fanny Craddock has given some excellent replies that cleared some aspects up for me. Might see if I can start a thread in the Banking forums...mods may not like that, we'll see.

As for the bible parts, as I said, I cant comment on the historical accuracy but I never understood why people too the book literally either. Unfortunately some DO and while moderate (and yes, I'm doggedly going to stick to dividing religious people into moderate and fanatical groupings) christians take the bible as allogorical, fanatical christians have used it as a reason to persecute all manner of people for a variety of reasons.

Indeed, I'd happily agree that there are moderate and fanatical Christians.

The problem is that its not acceptible for Moderates to argue "ah sure its only a book" when the officers of their religion (and Ratzinger doesnt fall into the Moderate group for me), don't speak out against that.

This to me is part of the problem with Zeitgeist, the Movie. It exploits the fact that Christian leaders get quite hazy around a lot of the Bible in terms of what they claim as factual and the miracles and what they claim as allegorical.

I want to respect your religion. I want you to respect my beliefs.

I don't think that was aimed particularly at me but just in case...I respect all Faiths and those who have no Faith or even belief in a God. I respect Pagans too. I've no time for divisiveness when it comes to belief. At the end of the day, how we behave as decent and compassionate human beings matters most during our time on this Earth!


DeV[/QUOTE]

PDN

DeVore wrote: »

I want to respect your religion. I want you to respect my beliefs.

I respect your right to hold your beliefs, and I will defend that right, but that doesn't mean that we respect each others beliefs.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I respect your right to hold your beliefs, and I will defend that right, but that doesn't mean that we respect each others beliefs.

Spoken like a true secularist