ZEITGEIST, The Movie

What does anyone think of Part 3 of this movie in relation to the comment released from Alan Greenspan's recently published book?

"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil" (quoted from Wikipedia: Alan Greenspan)

Would you say this covers some ground towards verifying that hidden agendas clearly exist in major government policy?

Nick

Well, I've known the war was about oil since before the war happened. Lots of people did. Anyone with a brain capable of looking at the situation and drawing some simplistic generalizations about it knew that the war was largely about oil.

So how hidden was this agenda, if everybody was talking about it before it happened? It's "politically inconvenient" to acknowledge it - it's not hidden. It's the elephant in the room.

Seriously, check into some competent debunking of Federal Reserve and income tax myths as far as Zeitgeist Part III is concerned (or From Freedom to Fascism by the late Aaron Russo, since that's the movie Merola chopped up and stole to make his Part III).

BTW, governments do have some hidden agendas. It's the nature of the beast. No one here would ever deny that.
 
Just to be clear, could I ask...are you denying there exists any meaningful parity between spiritual symbol systems? Or that the story of Jesus doesn't fit within any such parity that might exist?
Parity? Nope, and no one has ever proven otherwise. Instead, efforts like the Zeitgeist film take superficial similarities and claim those as equivocations. Now, had you asked me if I thought there were similar recurring themes throughout many of the world's religions, especially the longest running ones, I would tell you that I'd agree. I would also point out that correlation does not equal causation. :)

Well, I don't know that I'd regard Qabalah, or Kabbalah, as a religion. Or, necessarily, as recent. Of course, such points can be debated pretty much ad infinitum to, in my experience, little satisfactory conclusion.
Unfortunately, Nick, we are not discussing The World As Nick Sees It. We are discussing what is out there in the world, and for all intents and purposes things like Kabbalah and Wicca, while often claimed to be ancient in origin by many practitioners, have only in recent decades existed in any organized fashion. Most of those who categorize these things don't count "nebulous mysticism based from culture x" as anything but "nebulous mysticism based from culture x" in pretty much every case.


Well, by Messiach, I meant mem, shem, yod, cheth, or, numerically 40, 300, 10, 8.
Admittedly this is going to be more for the casual reader than for you, Nick: what Nick is pointing out here are the Hebrew letters of the name. In case you notice a lack of vowels, Hebrew (and Arabic and Aramaic) consist primarily of consonants and the vowel sounds are determined by placement of the letters in conjunction with one another (in some cases) or by accents within the word to denote the softer sounds in the word. The letters he refers to do indeed make up the word (מָשִׁיחַ), though it is "mem, shin, and chet." Nick got the numbers correct, though, so it's obvious he has done some homework. However, I submit again that if such elementary corrections need to be made regarding the words (even the names of the letters?), the connections weaken greatly.

So, Nick, to clarify what I was saying to you:

I am not saying that Greek and Hebrew are so related. What I am saying is that both languages originally used letters to relate numbers, through assigning different numbers to each letter in the alphabet.
This part is fact,
This allowed subtle patterns of meaning to be conveyed, not present through considering the meaning of the words alone.
This is speculation.

A simple example might be the Hebrew words Achad and Ahebar, both adding to the number 13 and meaning, respectively the words "One" and "Love." Going back to MSYCh, if you prefer not to believe that the scholars of the time crossed over between Greek and Hebrew isopsephia, that's up to you, but the example I quoted is well known in Qabalah circles and certainly books like The True and Invisible Rosicrucian Order or The Apostolic Gnosis will carry it and many more, though you would be right to say that the majority stick within one language.
"Prefer not to believe"? What are you getting at, Nick? Are you truly not aware that both the Hebrew and Arabic languages are offshoots of Aramaic, which was the primary language used among the most people in the ancient Mid-East, including Israel, and lasted in general use at least until the first century CE? Furthermore, do you realize that the words that make up the Torah and what made its way into the rest of the Tanakh didn't even end up written down until some time between 1000 - 600 BCE? This means that the whole of the religious mythology, much like it was for the Greeks, was passed on from one person or group to another through the use of very long and very precise oral histories.

You are correct in thinking that words and phrases are very important to the cultures from which these languages come. Words-- especially names (look up 'Hebrew names' for an example of what I mean)-- but only to various numerology fringe groups does the significance you are explaining get applied in any fashion.

Would you care to speculate on what it might be that causes that rush of positive feeling through the body when one feels there is a pattern? Might it be that the pattern currently in one's conscious perspective matches one existing in the unconscious?
Have you ever heard of Derren Brown? www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Sq-YUdq1OI

Mr. Brown does a good job of giving an exhibition of my thoughts on the matter. Basically, you experience the feeling you do because you want to have the experience. Truly, the things your own mind is capable of convincing you is positively staggering (yes, this also applies to conspiracy theories). Mr. Brown displays the degree to which this is so.

GreNME said:
When some practice of numerology can explain to me the pattern behind Pi, then I will be impressed. Better yet, have them explain it in Base 2 form, as well. Base 10 is passe. :p
Yes, that would be some achievement! Are you saying you can predict values of Pi in base 10?
Ouch. I didn't say I (personally) could do any such thing. I'm just saying it would be cool to actually see some real results instead of the after-the-fact associations given by all numerology. Numerology has never been able to adequately predict anything. Honestly, though, if you know someone who believes otherwise you should be sure to let them know that they can quickly become a millionaire by proving it in the Randi Challenge.

As an aside, and possibly one that might not help so much here (!), could I ask if you're familiar with the work of University of Swansea maths professor Vernon Jenkins? He managed to derive reasonable approximations of the irrational number Pi from and e through putting the words and letters of Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 (the two principle accounts of the creation) through the same simple formula. If you google him you'll no doubt find his method detailed, should you be interested.
Not really interested, but I have heard of it, yes. The methodology he used, however, was picking and choosing his sources by their "numerical" value in such a way that would fit the goal (Pi) when assembled. The intricate part of his work is the equational hoops he had to jump through working backwards to make things fit, I'm sure.

To tie this in with the Zeitgeist film, Nick, all I can say is that what you and I are discussing, as well as what the creators of the film (and indeed most CT 'documentaries') try to cover, are basically the process by which the human mind attempts to come to an understanding of things that are larger than its conventional perception by creating patterns and esoteric connections in order to have something stable from which to base their existence instead of chaos. It is the search for assurance in the face of the unsure. It's meaning out of randomness. People tend to call this their "Truth." So, if what you have found is your truth, Nick, I wish you the best. I still disagree that it holds the significance to the rest of the world that it does for you, but at the end of each of our days, our personal significances of discovery and study will be what fuel our dreams as we sleep. So more power to ya on that. :)
 
Parity? Nope, and no one has ever proven otherwise. Instead, efforts like the Zeitgeist film take superficial similarities and claim those as equivocations. Now, had you asked me if I thought there were similar recurring themes throughout many of the world's religions, especially the longest running ones, I would tell you that I'd agree. I would also point out that correlation does not equal causation. :)

I agree. But I feel it would be a hard thing to prove anyway. Could I ask you what you think of, say, Joseph Campbell's "The Hero With A Thousand Faces?" If no objective proof can be found, does there remain nothing of interest, nothing attractive?

I don't feel particularly attached to spiritual belief systems but something I have learned of those which attract respect is that they appear to rely more on the notion that the "proof of the pudding is in the eating." They are subjective sciences and they ask that you follow them for a period and observe what happens. Please note I'm not suggesting that this should confer on them any special status, merely mentioning what I understand.

Unfortunately, Nick, we are not discussing The World As Nick Sees It. We are discussing what is out there in the world,

Might I ask you, exactly what objective proof would you profer that the world is "out there?"

and for all intents and purposes things like Kabbalah and Wicca, while often claimed to be ancient in origin by many practitioners, have only in recent decades existed in any organized fashion. Most of those who categorize these things don't count "nebulous mysticism based from culture x" as anything but "nebulous mysticism based from culture x" in pretty much every case.

"Prefer not to believe"? What are you getting at, Nick? Are you truly not aware that both the Hebrew and Arabic languages are offshoots of Aramaic, which was the primary language used among the most people in the ancient Mid-East, including Israel, and lasted in general use at least until the first century CE? Furthermore, do you realize that the words that make up the Torah and what made its way into the rest of the Tanakh didn't even end up written down until some time between 1000 - 600 BCE? This means that the whole of the religious mythology, much like it was for the Greeks, was passed on from one person or group to another through the use of very long and very precise oral histories.

I've also heard of a school of thought that asserts that Greek predates Hebrew predates Aramaic. I am, unfortunately, not sufficient motivated to check this out thoroughly.

You are correct in thinking that words and phrases are very important to the cultures from which these languages come. Words-- especially names (look up 'Hebrew names' for an example of what I mean)-- but only to various numerology fringe groups does the significance you are explaining get applied in any fashion.


Have you ever heard of Derren Brown?

I think he's on TV here in the UK sometimes, but I've never seen it. People have told me it's good.

Mr. Brown does a good job of giving an exhibition of my thoughts on the matter. Basically, you experience the feeling you do because you want to have the experience.

Does Derren say what creates the want?

Truly, the things your own mind is capable of convincing you is positively staggering (yes, this also applies to conspiracy theories). Mr. Brown displays the degree to which this is so.

I'm sure he's right.

Ouch. I didn't say I (personally) could do any such thing. I'm just saying it would be cool to actually see some real results instead of the after-the-fact associations given by all numerology. Numerology has never been able to adequately predict anything. Honestly, though, if you know someone who believes otherwise you should be sure to let them know that they can quickly become a millionaire by proving it in the Randi Challenge.

Then I guess you would need to study Gematria for some years, find a pretext for injecting some emotional energy, some fervour into this work and then observe if you appear to be shifting states of consciousness. It is a subjective science, I guess this is how one would go about proving such things. BTW, I'm not sure why you say "ouch." I wasn't being sarcastic before in case it was something to do with my comment about Pi.

To tie this in with the Zeitgeist film, Nick, all I can say is that what you and I are discussing, as well as what the creators of the film (and indeed most CT 'documentaries') try to cover, are basically the process by which the human mind attempts to come to an understanding of things that are larger than its conventional perception by creating patterns and esoteric connections in order to have something stable from which to base their existence instead of chaos. It is the search for assurance in the face of the unsure. It's meaning out of randomness. People tend to call this their "Truth."

I would very largely agree with this statement.

Nick
 
I agree. But I feel it would be a hard thing to prove anyway. Could I ask you what you think of, say, Joseph Campbell's "The Hero With A Thousand Faces?" If no objective proof can be found, does there remain nothing of interest, nothing attractive?

I don't feel particularly attached to spiritual belief systems but something I have learned of those which attract respect is that they appear to rely more on the notion that the "proof of the pudding is in the eating." They are subjective sciences and they ask that you follow them for a period and observe what happens. Please note I'm not suggesting that this should confer on them any special status, merely mentioning what I understand.
Okay, I think we're talking past each other on this mark. What I am stating, with no uncertain terms, is that for one to attempt to perform a comparative study of cultures and religions, then one must be able to actually study those cultures and religions. Without context, there is no understanding. Without understanding, you get presentations like Zeitgeist that are nearly all cherry-picking series of unrelated events that sound similar enough to equivocate without bothering to actually gain contextual understanding in the first place.

Might I ask you, exactly what objective proof would you profer that the world is "out there?"
Great counter! Unfortunately, I'm not going to give you any such proof. For all you know I am an intricately-developed figment of your imagination, and you needn't consider me with any more or less importance. I have no desire to get into a debate over qualia. I will clarify, though, that when I said "out there" I mean "everything that is external to yourself, despite how you may define those things internally."

I've also heard of a school of thought that asserts that Greek predates Hebrew predates Aramaic. I am, unfortunately, not sufficient motivated to check this out thoroughly.
Oh my. Please take my word for it that the vast majority of historical, archaeological, literary, and cultural sources out there completely disagree with that. Aramaic and Early Greek developed separately but within the same general time frame, and Hebrew (and Arabic) grew out of Aramaic.

Please note, by the way, that I'm avoiding using terms like "predate" when placing things in sequences. The reason I do this is because the idea of something "predating" something else has become quite a rhetorical method for claiming higher validity. When dealing with something like the formations of languages in cultures, that is is a trap I feel a responsible study would avoid falling into. I'm not accusing you of doing so (I don't think you have), I simply wish to provide you with that tangental thought to ponder separately.

I think he's on TV here in the UK sometimes, but I've never seen it. People have told me it's good.

...

Does Derren say what creates the want?
I've not seen him attempt to explain why, just how.

GreNME said:
Truly, the things your own mind is capable of convincing you is positively staggering (yes, this also applies to conspiracy theories). Mr. Brown displays the degree to which this is so.
I'm sure he's right.
No, you misunderstand. Brown, in his television show, performs feats that display some of the ways. I am using him as an example, not as a source for the claim.

Then I guess you would need to study Gematria for some years, find a pretext for injecting some emotional energy, some fervour into this work and then observe if you appear to be shifting states of consciousness. It is a subjective science, I guess this is how one would go about proving such things. BTW, I'm not sure why you say "ouch." I wasn't being sarcastic before in case it was something to do with my comment about Pi.
No, I didn't mean to imply you meant anything but what you said. I apologize for it seeming otherwise.

As for the 'try it for a few years' suggestion: what leads you to believe I haven't? As has been pointed out, though, "subjective" and "science" are practically mutually exclusive terms.

You seem a decent fellow, Nick, and honestly I think the only thing we are having a difference of opinion on are the boundaries in the realms of science and mysticism. For that, all I can say is that it is not and has never been within the bounds of science to attempt to explain why, only how and what. Mysticism, on the other hand, describes what and attempts to explain why. I think this is the crux of why I do not seem to find the same value in some of the things you have described that seem to hold some level of value to you.
 
Unfortunately, Nick, we are not discussing The World As Nick Sees It. We are discussing what is out there in the world, and for all intents and purposes things like Kabbalah and Wicca, while often claimed to be ancient in origin by many practitioners, have only in recent decades existed in any organized fashion. Most of those who categorize these things don't count "nebulous mysticism based from culture x" as anything but "nebulous mysticism based from culture x" in pretty much every case.

Tradational Kabballah is a system of Jewish Mysticism that ,although it precise age is unknown,goes back at least a few hundred years.
However the Kabballah that you see celebs like Madonna practice is only about 20 years old and is regarded by most Traditional Kabballahists as a travesty and a total distortion of Traditiional Kabballist beliefs and practices.
I am not crazy about mysticism in general, but felt this distinction had to made.
 
Some people are praising this film because it "exposes" Christianity as being a fraud.
Problem is the evidence used in the first third is as bad as anything a Christian fundy can come up with. Just one kind of woo attacking another,at best.
For example?

What fraudulent claim(s) in part one does the author make that takes away from the overall message of the movie?

No one is perfect, no research is perfect, everything has flaws, no matter how hard any scholar, artist, writer, academic, engineer, etc., tries, everything will have flaws. No one can have anything 100% correct, ever. The point is to incorporate all information and use what is provable and valid and disregard the SPECIFIC points that are not.
 
Last edited:
Tradational Kabballah is a system of Jewish Mysticism that ,although it precise age is unknown,goes back at least a few hundred years.
However the Kabballah that you see celebs like Madonna practice is only about 20 years old and is regarded by most Traditional Kabballahists as a travesty and a total distortion of Traditiional Kabballist beliefs and practices.
I am not crazy about mysticism in general, but felt this distinction had to made.

A few hundred years is relatively new in historical context. I know about the history of Jewish mysticism, in its various forms, dating back to at least late Roman to early Middle Ages time (depending on the source and description). The Kabbalah is fairly new compared even to those, let alone the Jewish faith in general. :)
 
For example?

What fraudulent claim(s) in part one does the author make that takes away from the overall message of the movie?

I'm preparing that PDF for huskerdoo explaining what I think would answer your question as well. Would you like me to forward it to you as well? Perhaps I should simply make a thread containing it for regular forum discourse?
 
I'm preparing that PDF for huskerdoo explaining what I think would answer your question as well. Would you like me to forward it to you as well? Perhaps I should simply make a thread containing it for regular forum discourse?

I would be extremely grateful if you did. I would also be immensely grateful if there was any way you could provide a .html version as well as a .pdf one.
 
They are subjective sciences

Oxymoron.

Really? So if science is so objective, then why is peer review a much needed element for validation of test results etc? Everything is subjective, and science is the only valid means of sorting out scientific claims that are based on a researchers subjective interpretation of the data collected.

In response to the overall tone of the thread so far...hmm...where to begin.

The first part of this movie does ham up some of the better known facts about religious history, however...regardless of the errors, the theme holds true. If you don't think that religious thought has been an endless telephone game dating back to who knows when, then you probably need to read up on history a bit. It's a bit like evolution, and I assume most here are capable of buying into that well founded idea, so grasping how different cultures interacting over thousands of years in the same region of the world might not be such a stretch...

Without understanding, you get presentations like Zeitgeist that are nearly all cherry-picking series of unrelated events that sound similar enough to equivocate without bothering to actually gain contextual understanding in the first place.

This could be true in the case of zeitgeist, the obvious errors regarding horus are enough to establish this...but it's not all cherry picking...these idea's have been studied by many people and similar conclusions have been reached..:

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

particularly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_hypothesis#Parallels_with_Mediterranean_mystery_religions

Here is another wiki summation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_comparative_mythology

The onion is big and has many layers, just because some guy makes some associations that don't fit doesn't mean that we throw the baby out with the bath water.

Regarding the 9/11 section:

Take your pick...you have one elaborate series of improbable catastrophic engineering failures and governmental mishaps in combination with a foreign conspiracy that was known about domestically leading up to the attack, and for some reason no thought to do anything about it.

Or you have any number of alternate interpretations.

The bottom line is that some one screwed up some where, probably inside our government and instead of accepting any responsibility(such as organizing and training radical muslim groups during the cold war and then abandoning them, or not checking up on this Bin Laden character when all signs pointed to a major event) we chose to point a finger which is so much easier.

So in a very real sense, even if there wasn't a "REAL" secret conspiracy related to the events on 9/11 there is a "REAL" public conspiracy that has occured for decades all the way back to WWI if not further involving north american business and political interests in the region in question.

As far as the FED section....A shadowy group of people is in control of the US economy...and you are surprised people shout conspiracy?

Any way.
 
Really? So if science is so objective, then why is peer review a much needed element for validation of test results etc? Everything is subjective, and science is the only valid means of sorting out scientific claims that are based on a researchers subjective interpretation of the data collected.
<Inigo> That word (subjective)... I do not think it means what you think it means... </Inigo>

In response to the overall tone of the thread so far...hmm...where to begin.

The first part of this movie does ham up some of the better known facts about religious history, however...regardless of the errors, the theme holds true.
That is a false claim. The movie gets major things wrong and completely ignores obvious things that better explain the progressions and have been more thoroughly accepted.

If you don't think that religious thought has been an endless telephone game dating back to who knows when, then you probably need to read up on history a bit.
If you think the first section of that movie contains much historical fact, you clearly have very little understanding of history in the first place. I'm about halfway finished reformatting my notes on Part I, and even though I didn't bother with whole chunks of historical inaccuracies, it's pretty clear they didn't bother even the most mundane fact-checking (seriously, their comments about the Southern Cross constellation are hillariously wrong).

It's a bit like evolution, and I assume most here are capable of buying into that well founded idea, so grasping how different cultures interacting over thousands of years in the same region of the world might not be such a stretch...
You might be more correct than you realize, considering how modern evolutionary theory views the progression of species, most notably human beings. For example, it is pretty much accepted that the development of man did not progress in a linear fashion, and that the many branches of species that occurred-- many of which exist as the apes of today-- existed in different forms depending on the period, and some of them may have co-existed with early man as opposed to preceeding him.

This could be true in the case of zeitgeist, the obvious errors regarding horus are enough to establish this...but it's not all cherry picking...these idea's have been studied by many people and similar conclusions have been reached..:

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

particularly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_hypothesis#Parallels_with_Mediterranean_mystery_religions

Here is another wiki summation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_comparative_mythology

The onion is big and has many layers, just because some guy makes some associations that don't fit doesn't mean that we throw the baby out with the bath water.
Your first link is being considered for deletion, due to its lack of scholarly basis and its obvious parrotting of the claims in the film. In your second link, notice that every claim that is similar to the one from the film has a big, fat (citation needed) next to it. The third link is interesting but contains no supporting information to Zeitgeist, and seems to contradict it on a few occasions.

Regarding the 9/11 section:

Take your pick...you have one elaborate series of improbable catastrophic engineering failures and governmental mishaps in combination with a foreign conspiracy that was known about domestically leading up to the attack, and for some reason no thought to do anything about it.

Or you have any number of alternate interpretations.

The bottom line is that some one screwed up some where, probably inside our government and instead of accepting any responsibility(such as organizing and training radical muslim groups during the cold war and then abandoning them, or not checking up on this Bin Laden character when all signs pointed to a major event) we chose to point a finger which is so much easier.

So in a very real sense, even if there wasn't a "REAL" secret conspiracy related to the events on 9/11 there is a "REAL" public conspiracy that has occured for decades all the way back to WWI if not further involving north american business and political interests in the region in question.
That is not what the 9/11 section asserts. It point-blank accuses the US government of being behind the whole thing.

As far as the FED section....A shadowy group of people is in control of the US economy...and you are surprised people shout conspiracy?

Any way.
What "shadowy" group is in charge of the economy? The worst part about conspiracy theories regarding the Fed are that they display just enough knowledge to have an ECON 101 understanding of economics and don't bother taking the intellectually honest step forward and studying why and how things have progressed to how they are, and what benefits it holds for the economies of many first-world nations.
 
If you think the first section of that movie contains much historical fact, you clearly have very little understanding of history in the first place.

I think what I said was "it made a ham of history"...or something to that effect.

I'm about halfway finished reformatting my notes on Part I, and even though I didn't bother with whole chunks of historical inaccuracies, it's pretty clear they didn't bother even the most mundane fact-checking (seriously, their comments about the Southern Cross constellation are hillariously wrong).

In what way? And why do you care about this enough to take notes?

Your first link is being considered for deletion, due to its lack of scholarly basis and its obvious parrotting of the claims in the film. In your second link, notice that every claim that is similar to the one from the film has a big, fat (citation needed) next to it. The third link is interesting but contains no supporting information to Zeitgeist, and seems to contradict it on a few occasions.

So all the information becomes completely invalidated to you then? Well here is a much more lengthy list of citations that all "parrot" the claims in the film..some admittedly more scholarly than others:
http://www.pharmacratic-inquisition.com/Bibliography.htm


That is not what the 9/11 section asserts. It point-blank accuses the US government of being behind the whole thing.

Actually I don't ever remember them making any real commentary, unless you count editing a bunch of footage together in a certain way to be a statement...this is by recollection however, it has been a while since I viewed this movie....clever editing must equal point blank assertion?

What "shadowy" group is in charge of the economy? The worst part about conspiracy theories regarding the Fed are that they display just enough knowledge to have an ECON 101 understanding of economics and don't bother taking the intellectually honest step forward and studying why and how things have progressed to how they are, and what benefits it holds for the economies of many first-world nations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_reserve#Opacity

Who cares about how it benefits the first world nations, given that if your a first world nation you got there by exploiting 2nd and 3rd world nations.

For f-ing sakes it's a internet movie that no one will remember in 5 years or even a year for that matter...why fly into a a tizzy over it?
 
Just a few after thoughts...

That word (subjective)... I do not think it means what you think it means...

What do you think I think it means? Because all things are derived from the mind...ie...you can see and object, but whatever the object is is decided on by the mind...all experience is subjective in nature as a result, hence the need for multiple scientists to agree on findings because we can't take just one person's word at face value.

Your first link is being considered for deletion, due to its lack of scholarly basis and its obvious parrotting of the claims in the film. In your second link, notice that every claim that is similar to the one from the film has a big, fat (citation needed) next to it. The third link is interesting but contains no supporting information to Zeitgeist, and seems to contradict it on a few occasions.

Actually my first link was nominated and it was decided that it should be kept...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus_myth_hypothesis

I don't see how it parrots anything...it's is a legitimate area of debate for some people....zeitgeist just cashed in.

The second link is just from the same article as the first, and there is plenty of citiations...granted there are plenty of "citation/attribution needed" problem area's however perhaps those will be cleared up with further editing of the article...I see this as no emergent reason to assume it's all bunk....maybe just being cautious is all that is required?

The third link does in fact support zeitgeist if you assume that the first part of the film is trying to establish that idea that christianity is a made up religion...for instance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_comparative_mythology#Predecessors_and_parallels

anyway...the film was hardly trying to prove anything in the first place....it was just to make you stop and think...which it obviously succeeded at, because look at us discuss it now so far after the fact.
 
GreNME said:
I'm about halfway finished reformatting my notes on Part I, and even though I didn't bother with whole chunks of historical inaccuracies, it's pretty clear they didn't bother even the most mundane fact-checking (seriously, their comments about the Southern Cross constellation are hillariously wrong).
In what way? And why do you care about this enough to take notes?
Heh, because the 'Southern Crux' wasn't identified and named until the 16th century CE, while the makers of Zeitgeist attempt to connect it to pre-Christian mythology. Before it was identified in the 16th century CE, it was considered part of the constellation Centaurus by the Greeks and is often mistaken for the False Cross in that part of the night sky.

Basically, someone didn't bother doing a little dating for their research. :)

The only thing I care about is the fact that completely false information like this movie are being parrotted as if it were 'truth' and, even worse, factual. It is neither and is damaging to people who are genuinely searching for valid information in the ever-growing sea of nonsensical misinformation that is the World Wide Web.

For f-ing sakes it's a internet movie that no one will remember in 5 years or even a year for that matter...why fly into a a tizzy over it?

There's no tizzy. This is a methodical deconstruction and dissection of an obvious and sloppy fraud.

I'll cover the rest in subsequent postings of the material I've gathered. :)
 
Am I to gather that no one here thinks that the stars played any significant role in the creation and formulation of religious beliefs?
 
What do you think I think it means? Because all things are derived from the mind...ie...you can see and object, but whatever the object is is decided on by the mind...all experience is subjective in nature as a result, hence the need for multiple scientists to agree on findings because we can't take just one person's word at face value.
However, while scientists' work may be subjective, science is, by definition, not.

Actually my first link was nominated and it was decided that it should be kept...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus_myth_hypothesis

I don't see how it parrots anything...it's is a legitimate area of debate for some people....zeitgeist just cashed in.
It's a legitimate area of debate in circles that are determined to disagree with conventional historical assessment. :) Even the discovery of the Nag Hammadi tends to disagree with assessments similar to those espoused in the movie.

The second link is just from the same article as the first, and there is plenty of citiations...granted there are plenty of "citation/attribution needed" problem area's however perhaps those will be cleared up with further editing of the article...I see this as no emergent reason to assume it's all bunk....maybe just being cautious is all that is required?
I didn't say it was all bunk. I said that every single talking point in the link that was used in Zeitgeist predictably has no citation.

The third link does in fact support zeitgeist if you assume that the first part of the film is trying to establish that idea that christianity is a made up religion...for instance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_comparative_mythology#Predecessors_and_parallels
The third link makes the assertion using none of the claims used in the movie, which unless there are hidden tracks in the movie that I didn't see means that it doesn't support the film. :)

anyway...the film was hardly trying to prove anything in the first place....it was just to make you stop and think...which it obviously succeeded at, because look at us discuss it now so far after the fact.

Direct quote from the movie: “Christianity, along with all other belief systems, is the fraud of the age.”

Seems pretty definitive to me. :)
 
Am I to gather that no one here thinks that the stars played any significant role in the creation and formulation of religious beliefs?

Why do you feel the need to argue as if disagreeing with the claims made in the movie mean that the person believes the polar opposite?
 
Heh, because the 'Southern Crux' wasn't identified and named until the 16th century CE, while the makers of Zeitgeist attempt to connect it to pre-Christian mythology. Before it was identified in the 16th century CE, it was considered part of the constellation Centaurus by the Greeks and is often mistaken for the False Cross in that part of the night sky.

Basically, someone didn't bother doing a little dating for their research. :)

The only thing I care about is the fact that completely false information like this movie are being parrotted as if it were 'truth' and, even worse, factual. It is neither and is damaging to people who are genuinely searching for valid information in the ever-growing sea of nonsensical misinformation that is the World Wide Web.



There's no tizzy. This is a methodical deconstruction and dissection of an obvious and sloppy fraud.

I'll cover the rest in subsequent postings of the material I've gathered. :)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_cross#History

Due to precession of the equinox the stars comprising Crux were visible from the Mediterranean area in antiquity, so their stars had to be known by Greek astronomers. However, it was not regarded as a constellation of its own, but rather as part of Centaurus.


A CTX image of crux.The separation of Crux to be a separate constellation is generally attributed to the French astronomer Augustin Royer in 1679. Other historians attribute the invention of Crux to Petrus Plancius in 1613, and that the constellation was later published by Jakob Bartsch in 1624. However, Crux had already been a well known southern asterism at least four centuries before it was promoted to an official constellation and published in the Seventeenth Century.

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

When the sun is in the sign of Virgo, it sits directly above the constellation Centaurus.

Perhaps this is where they thought of this...the sun "dies" and is reborn in virgo...and this goes on directly above this fake cross....
 

Back
Top Bottom