First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
The Zeitgeist Discussion
Posted 7/18/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


Yei wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:

Well, the video is essentially an attack on the historical Jesus Christ. This is more of what you see in many videos like these. The Obama Deception, Sicko, and Loose Change all employ the same approach. Mood enhancing music and a bombardment of facts to confuse the viewer. Well, there’s already a thread on rather or not Jesus exists. So, I think that this one should be locked because in the end it’s the same thing.


If you continued watching, it starts talking about all your other favourite topics: 9/11, and the corruption in the government and the Federal Reserve.


Yeah, well I find all of these conspiracy theories to be silly and intentionally misleading. Loose Change is a prime example. But, yeah. I just don’t find these things at all convincing. Actually, I think they’re marketing tools. People make millions of dollars off of these things.


I take you've only watched 15 minutes of the first movie.

The makers of Zeitgeist provide these movies for free.

They leave it up to the viewers to donate to the creation of them or not.


In your previous post you stated that it's another attack on whether or not Jesus existed...No, that is not the main objective of the documentaries. If you can't handle researching the facts which you claim are confusing then you probably shouldn't even be speaking in here since you refuse to research any of it....
20924 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Singapore
Offline
Posted 7/19/09
I think theres a similar thread in the General Discussion.
Posted 7/19/09

digs wrote:


Yei wrote:

lol everything in the movie is great except the parts that conflict with my beliefs.

That's what the main consensus seems to be with this movie. The part in the beginning about the corruption in religion in general is obviously right, but the parts that directly talk about Christianity and Jesus cannot be proven or dis-proven. SeraphAlford has trouble fathoming the 9/11 and conspiracy parts for the same reasons you guys have trouble with the Christianity and religion parts.


It can be debunked and has been. Documentaries with intents should be hardly taken as reliable sources. The production of this film had the desired outcome of hating on Christianity and trying to show it's false as well as other things. As for Christianity and their arguments.... http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/. Here is a website that debunks the movie and historically shows the inaccuracy and the spin of words they place in order to incriminate things. The fact that they purport December 25th so much shows their lack of understanding. The Bible never states the date Jesus was born, in fact Christians don't even believe that December 25th was when He was born either. During the Roman Empire December 25th was a day to celebrate the pagan sun god, so Christian Rome decided to change the pagan holiday to celebrating instead the birth of Christ.


I believe the link provided does not debunk everything within the documentaries and I agree that the movies I've listed should not be taken as a reliable resource. So after reading through a couple parts about what he had to say about the movie and comparing his views (coupled with what's stated in the movie) with other resources including the ones that he provided; I've found that he as well is also spinning words. Such as in the beginning where he states that some civilizations cataloged celestial groups, In ancient times, many cilivilzations (Mayans, Native Americas, Babylonians, Egyptians, and all the way back to early neolithic tribes (Stonehenge)) cataloged celestial groups and if you were to research the Incas, you'd find they cataloged both the gaps between the stars and the stars themselves. But he clearly states that the Incas only cataloged the dark "spots" or clouds which is not true..

As for what he says about Attis ( the son of Nana), he was born a virgin birth in the sense that he has no father, but that's not to say that Nana is an actual virgin as it is unknown. Also, it is true that Attis was resurrected, but it was in the form of a pine tree and it was after he had castrated himself. So indeed, he was not crucified like the movie has stated and many sources point to him being resurrected after 10 days on December 25th. On top of all that, the story of Attis appeared in 400 AD, which means he may have been plagiarized from the story of Jesus...
Posted 7/19/09

azera wrote:

I think theres a similar thread in the General Discussion.


Indeed there is, but they were short lived and are not "In-depth academic discussions."
Oedi 
8588 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 7/19/09

illincrux wrote:


digs wrote:


Yei wrote:

lol everything in the movie is great except the parts that conflict with my beliefs.

That's what the main consensus seems to be with this movie. The part in the beginning about the corruption in religion in general is obviously right, but the parts that directly talk about Christianity and Jesus cannot be proven or dis-proven. SeraphAlford has trouble fathoming the 9/11 and conspiracy parts for the same reasons you guys have trouble with the Christianity and religion parts.


It can be debunked and has been. Documentaries with intents should be hardly taken as reliable sources. The production of this film had the desired outcome of hating on Christianity and trying to show it's false as well as other things. As for Christianity and their arguments.... http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/. Here is a website that debunks the movie and historically shows the inaccuracy and the spin of words they place in order to incriminate things. The fact that they purport December 25th so much shows their lack of understanding. The Bible never states the date Jesus was born, in fact Christians don't even believe that December 25th was when He was born either. During the Roman Empire December 25th was a day to celebrate the pagan sun god, so Christian Rome decided to change the pagan holiday to celebrating instead the birth of Christ.


I believe the link provided does not debunk everything within the documentaries and I agree that the movies I've listed should not be taken as a reliable resource. So after reading through a couple parts about what he had to say about the movie and comparing his views (coupled with what's stated in the movie) with other resources including the ones that he provided; I've found that he as well is also spinning words. Such as in the beginning where he states that some civilizations cataloged celestial groups, In ancient times, many cilivilzations (Mayans, Native Americas, Babylonians, Egyptians, and all the way back to early neolithic tribes (Stonehenge)) cataloged celestial groups and if you were to research the Incas, you'd find they cataloged both the gaps between the stars and the stars themselves. But he clearly states that the Incas only cataloged the dark "spots" or clouds which is not true..

As for what he says about Attis ( the son of Nana), he was born a virgin birth in the sense that he has no father, but that's not to say that Nana is an actual virgin as it is unknown. Also, it is true that Attis was resurrected, but it was in the form of a pine tree and it was after he had castrated himself. So indeed, he was not crucified like the movie has stated and many sources point to him being resurrected after 10 days on December 25th. On top of all that, the story of Attis appeared in 400 AD, which means he may have been plagiarized from the story of Jesus...


Yea, there is absolutely no way Attis appeared in 400 AD. since the story of Attis was a Greek poem from Callatus who lived from 84BC to 54 BC ... so no way that could've been copied from Jesus.

On another note, I remember that Christianity had taken some parts from earlier pre existing pagan traditions to correlate holidays with their days. I remember specifically Easter. This was told by my high school religion teacher so i'm not so sure how reliable the source is.

I do think that the fact that the Mayan's and Incan's can have similar stories to the Egyptians is a miracle in itself to be honest. It's like something is definitely up. I guess the similar correlation to the stars is the most striking fact.
Posted 7/19/09 , edited 7/19/09

Oedi wrote:


illincrux wrote:


digs wrote:


Yei wrote:

lol everything in the movie is great except the parts that conflict with my beliefs.

That's what the main consensus seems to be with this movie. The part in the beginning about the corruption in religion in general is obviously right, but the parts that directly talk about Christianity and Jesus cannot be proven or dis-proven. SeraphAlford has trouble fathoming the 9/11 and conspiracy parts for the same reasons you guys have trouble with the Christianity and religion parts.


It can be debunked and has been. Documentaries with intents should be hardly taken as reliable sources. The production of this film had the desired outcome of hating on Christianity and trying to show it's false as well as other things. As for Christianity and their arguments.... http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/. Here is a website that debunks the movie and historically shows the inaccuracy and the spin of words they place in order to incriminate things. The fact that they purport December 25th so much shows their lack of understanding. The Bible never states the date Jesus was born, in fact Christians don't even believe that December 25th was when He was born either. During the Roman Empire December 25th was a day to celebrate the pagan sun god, so Christian Rome decided to change the pagan holiday to celebrating instead the birth of Christ.


I believe the link provided does not debunk everything within the documentaries and I agree that the movies I've listed should not be taken as a reliable resource. So after reading through a couple parts about what he had to say about the movie and comparing his views (coupled with what's stated in the movie) with other resources including the ones that he provided; I've found that he as well is also spinning words. Such as in the beginning where he states that some civilizations cataloged celestial groups, In ancient times, many cilivilzations (Mayans, Native Americas, Babylonians, Egyptians, and all the way back to early neolithic tribes (Stonehenge)) cataloged celestial groups and if you were to research the Incas, you'd find they cataloged both the gaps between the stars and the stars themselves. But he clearly states that the Incas only cataloged the dark "spots" or clouds which is not true..

As for what he says about Attis ( the son of Nana), he was born a virgin birth in the sense that he has no father, but that's not to say that Nana is an actual virgin as it is unknown. Also, it is true that Attis was resurrected, but it was in the form of a pine tree and it was after he had castrated himself. So indeed, he was not crucified like the movie has stated and many sources point to him being resurrected after 10 days on December 25th. On top of all that, the story of Attis appeared in 400 AD, which means he may have been plagiarized from the story of Jesus...


Yea, there is absolutely no way Attis appeared in 400 AD. since the story of Attis was a Greek poem from Callatus who lived from 84BC to 54 BC ... so no way that could've been copied from Jesus.

On another note, I remember that Christianity had taken some parts from earlier pre existing pagan traditions to correlate holidays with their days. I remember specifically Easter. This was told by my high school religion teacher so i'm not so sure how reliable the source is.

I do think that the fact that the Mayan's and Incan's can have similar stories to the Egyptians is a miracle in itself to be honest. It's like something is definitely up. I guess the similar correlation to the stars is the most striking fact.


Correction, the celebration of Attis's resurrection (the story mutated several times over the centuries) by the cult of Attis is dated at 400 AD (the latest version of the celebration)...My bad, I had too many pages open.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/19/09

azera
It's because you dont open up your mind. If you free your mind, you will know whats right and whats wrong. That is the main problem of human beings in the 21st Century. They kept watching television shows, lack of interest in politics, end up they have no darn idea whats really going on in the country. The public are at fault for loosing the government. And Federal Reserve is not a conspiracy theory, its been proven that the entire system is a big fraud. Congressman Ron Paul is trying hard to get the Bill H.R. 1207 approval from the Congress to audit the Federal Reserve Corp

http://www.michaeljournal.org/fedreserve.htm


I maintain a measure of healthy skepticism.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 7/19/09
let's consider what JFK said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpmi7dBet0c

The Athenian law maker Solon said it was a crime for anyone to shrink from controversy. So conspiracy theories should be welcomed and help keep the government in check.

We really need someone like JFK now.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/19/09 , edited 7/19/09

Yei wrote:

lol everything in the movie is great except the parts that conflict with my beliefs.

That's what the main consensus seems to be with this movie. The part in the beginning about the corruption in religion in general is obviously right, but the parts that directly talk about Christianity and Jesus cannot be proven or dis-proven. SeraphAlford has trouble fathoming the 9/11 and conspiracy parts for the same reasons you guys have trouble with the Christianity and religion parts.


I don’t have trouble fathoming anything. I understand it just fine. I just don’t think there’s any real evidence to suggest it was a controlled demolition and we’ve discussed that in another thread. Not only would it require people to do something that’s never been done before, it would require an insane amount of money that even the American government and Bilderberg group combined simply could not afford. Five trillion dollars, at least. Again, that’s more than the value of all the goods and services produced in Japan over the course of a year combined.


You can’t just buy into everything you hear, Yei. Just because somebody disguises something as official doesn’t mean it’s true. The fact that they call so much evidence out of context is a clear sign that the document lacks academic integrity and is thus not a reliable source for information. That’s like reading John Hagee’s essay on Islam and thinking, “This must be true because a professional theologian wrote it,” even though he claims Muslims worship the moon.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/19/09 , edited 7/19/09

illincrux

I take you've only watched 15 minutes of the first movie.

The makers of Zeitgeist provide these movies for free.

They leave it up to the viewers to donate to the creation of them or not.


That’s just an indirect way of gathering revenue so that they can maintain the “no profit,” status. It’s like planned parenthood. They claim to be a no profit institute but make hundreds of millions of dollars in excess revenue on abortions alone each year.



In your previous post you stated that it's another attack on whether or not Jesus existed...No, that is not the main objective of the documentaries. If you can't handle researching the facts which you claim are confusing then you probably shouldn't even be speaking in here since you refuse to research any of it....


I think you should take a look in the thread about rather or not Jesus was a real man. You’ll see that I’ve done quite bit of research. I just didn’t see the point in transferring the content. As for the video, it’s essentially a series of conspiracy theories juxtaposed. There’ve been individual threads for each of these conspiracies and I’ve participated in many of them. Why would I go through and watch the whole video and then try to re-address each individual conspiracy theory when each one is worthy of its own thread? You have any idea how horrible disjointed and long winded this thread would be?

Go back and find the other conspiracy theory threads and you’ll find pages and pages of me and other users debating the issue. So, I have researched, and you're a silly little man if you think that you can judge rather or not somebody's informed on such a broad topic based on a couple lines posted on the internet.
Revolver Dogelot
72988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / somewhere that is...
Offline
Posted 7/19/09
No we need Roosevelt. Also I only imagine your post was not aimed at me despite seeming to be a blanket statement addressing everyone who posted. As for religion stealing holidays like easter... uh that isn't news, even Christians will admit it happened. December 25 is never named as the birth of Jesus in the bible, it is just the day they use to celebrate his birth. They could have picked any day but since it was already being used at the time why not stick with something people already remember? Everything in Zeitgeist, on the religious level anyway, can be debunked by common sense and a minimal amount of research.

Like I said, it is propaganda. Just like how the only people injured at the Boston Massacre were British Soldiers.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/19/09 , edited 7/19/09

Karkarov wrote:

No we need Roosevelt. Also I only imagine your post was not aimed at me despite seeming to be a blanket statement addressing everyone who posted. As for religion stealing holidays like easter... uh that isn't news, even Christians will admit it happened. December 25 is never named as the birth of Jesus in the bible, it is just the day they use to celebrate his birth. They could have picked any day but since it was already being used at the time why not stick with something people already remember? Everything in Zeitgeist, on the religious level anyway, can be debunked by common sense and a minimal amount of research.

Like I said, it is propaganda. Just like how the only people injured at the Boston Massacre were British Soldiers.


I think you’ve got the wrong incident. Five civilians were killed and six were wounded. Though, Paul Revere never made his moonlight ride and Betsy Ross didn’t make the American flag. Those are just myths.Also, the British soldiers responsible for the massacre were punished. They shouldn’t have been in my opinion, since the civilians were the aggressors. Nobody wants to mention that the British Soldiers were just defending themselves.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 7/19/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


Yei wrote:

lol everything in the movie is great except the parts that conflict with my beliefs.

That's what the main consensus seems to be with this movie. The part in the beginning about the corruption in religion in general is obviously right, but the parts that directly talk about Christianity and Jesus cannot be proven or dis-proven. SeraphAlford has trouble fathoming the 9/11 and conspiracy parts for the same reasons you guys have trouble with the Christianity and religion parts.


I don’t have trouble fathoming anything. I understand it just fine. I just don’t think there’s any real evidence to suggest it was a controlled demolition and we’ve discussed that in another thread. Not only would it require people to do something that’s never been done before, it would require an insane amount of money that even the American government and Bilderberg group combined simply could not afford. Five trillion dollars, at least. Again, that’s more than the value of all the goods and services produced in Japan over the course of a year combined.


You can’t just buy into everything you hear, Yei. Just because somebody disguises something as official doesn’t mean it’s true. The fact that they call so much evidence out of context is a clear sign that the document lacks academic integrity and is thus not a reliable source for information. That’s like reading John Hagee’s essay on Islam and thinking, “This must be true because a professional theologian wrote it,” even though he claims Muslims worship the moon.


You have to at least admit it's ridiculously suspicious. With so many unexplained coincidences and the government still being very secretive, I think it's the people's duty to demand a clear explanation. In fact, I still don't know what the "official" explanation is of how the third tower fell. I never said I believed this, but I do think it should be considered. tbh, I don't think 9/11 is really that important of an issue, the federal reserve problem is much more important.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/19/09

YeiYou can’t just buy into everything you hear, Yei. Just because somebody disguises something as official doesn’t mean it’s true. The fact that they call so much evidence out of context is a clear sign that the document lacks academic integrity and is thus not a reliable source for information. That’s like reading John Hagee’s essay on Islam and thinking, “This must be true because a professional theologian wrote it,” even though he claims Muslims worship the moon.


You have to at least admit it's ridiculously suspicious. With so many unexplained coincidences and the government still being very secretive, I think it's the people's duty to demand a clear explanation. In fact, I still don't know what the "official" explanation is of how the third tower fell. I never said I believed this, but I do think it should be considered. tbh, I don't think 9/11 is really that important of an issue, the federal reserve problem is much more important.

The government hasn’t been secretive with 9/11 at all. Do you know how many independent and international engineers have investigated the official report? I don’t see how they can clandestine this any further than they already have. Maybe there was something suspicious going on, but there’s no evidence that we took down our own tower.
Revolver Dogelot
72988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / somewhere that is...
Offline
Posted 7/19/09
No I have the correct incident. I should rephrase in that my point is the Boston Massacre was a result of an attack on British soldiers, they did not "start" it or act for no reason. However in schools today you are mostly taught they were just scum who attacked a bunch of poor defenseless colonists for no reason, which is flat out not true.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.