Zeitgeist

[Kyle Smith]

Anybody seen it?

Zietgeist (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331&q=zeitgeist&total=3005&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

[ChumpDumper]

I gave it two minutes and got nothing in return. Tell Cimino to get to the point next time.

[Galileo]

Anybody seen it?

Zietgeist (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331&q=zeitgeist&total=3005&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

This is the greatest movie ever filmed.

Even better than Loose Change.

All records for viewership are being broken at this time.

[Extra Stout]

This is the greatest movie ever filmed.

Even better than Loose Change.

All records for viewership are being broken at this time.
Typical crackpot truther/tinfoil hat/John Bircher nonsense. I guess we can rule out your being one of the libertarian Paul supporters. You're one of the nutjobs.

Hey, when the Illuminati suppress Paul's coming landslide win this November, what are you going to do? Will you simply go on playing Xbox in your parents' basement? Will you join a militia? Will you buy thicker foil for your hat? Will you buy special reflective sunglasses so that the elite's attempt to control you mind when you look at a $20 bill is thwarted? Will you stock your bunker for the coming race war?

[thispego]

:rolleyes

[Ignignokt]

:rolleyes

he he hoo choooooaaaadddddeee!!!!!!!!

[Optimus Choade]

Typical crackpot truther/tinfoil hat/John Bircher nonsense. I guess we can rule out your being one of the libertarian Paul supporters. You're one of the nutjobs.

Hey, when the Illuminati suppress Paul's coming landslide win this November, what are you going to do? Will you simply go on playing Xbox in your parents' basement? Will you join a militia? Will you buy thicker foil for your hat? Will you buy special reflective sunglasses so that the elite's attempt to control you mind when you look at a $20 bill is thwarted? Will you stock your bunker for the coming race war?


Victoriabots, assemble and attack!!

[LaMaximus Bryant]

Rofl!

Like the time I found pictures of Smeagol bloated with sperms her her her!!

Rofl!

[Mookietron2001]

Typical crackpot truther/tinfoil hat/John Bircher nonsense. I guess we can rule out your being one of the libertarian Paul supporters. You're one of the nutjobs.

Hey, when the Illuminati suppress Paul's coming landslide win this November, what are you going to do? Will you simply go on playing Xbox in your parents' basement? Will you join a militia? Will you buy thicker foil for your hat? Will you buy special reflective sunglasses so that the elite's attempt to control you mind when you look at a $20 bill is thwarted? Will you stock your bunker for the coming race war?


Do you ride toll roads?

[Wild Cobra]

Kyle, I suggest you stop using that crack. It deteriorates the mind and bdy.

[inconvertible]

north american union and the amero and the NAFTA superhighway are all real.

[Galileo]

Typical crackpot truther/tinfoil hat/John Bircher nonsense. I guess we can rule out your being one of the libertarian Paul supporters. You're one of the nutjobs.

Hey, when the Illuminati suppress Paul's coming landslide win this November, what are you going to do? Will you simply go on playing Xbox in your parents' basement? Will you join a militia? Will you buy thicker foil for your hat? Will you buy special reflective sunglasses so that the elite's attempt to control you mind when you look at a $20 bill is thwarted? Will you stock your bunker for the coming race war?

a tad bit jealous that Zeitgeist is fast becoming the most watched movie of all time?

[Extra Stout]

a tad bit jealous that Zeitgeist is fast becoming the most watched movie of all time?
It's quite easy to make a claim that a movie is the most watched of all time when you have no qualms about fabricating the statistics.

[inconvertible]

thats a very good point. objectivity needs to rule the day as much as possible.

[Extra Stout]

thats a very good point. objectivity needs to rule the day as much as possible.
I've been waiting to somebody to start floating some of the movie's claims about Christianity and other religions, much as a cat anticipates pouncing on its favorite toy. Nobody has stepped up yet.

[BacktoBasics]

Religion part

I have yet to see anyone on any board produce links or text or any facts that are inconsistant with whats being reported in the first 40 or so minutes of the movie. I think this is the kind of information thats overlooked by the masses because people refuse to believe that we are here simply to exist within our own existance and nothing more. Too hard to swallow that life itself has no real or "other" meaning or purpose.

9/11

Not much new here but at least its watchable. Some of the information about the drills being done on the same day and so forth have also yet to be debunked. Its obvious that no matter if you're on the side of conspiracy or whats reported you can't simply sit by and feel you're getting the whole story. We act as if our Government or wealthy powers within society haven't manipulated us before.

Feds

I think its a sad realization about whats so unbelievable in real time compared to whats believable years later. Again I have yet to see any links or information debunking whats being reported. Particularly about the actions leading to war and the fact that people with money control us like ants. The facts leading up to the depression was of real interest to me and its more believable than unbelievable that things could really go down that way.

We can sit back today and say "oh shit richers got over on us all those years ago, damn we should have been smarter". We'd never do that now its too unfathomable.

Is anyone here going to argue that there is no written law pertaining to us paying taxes?

Of course its sensationalized. How else should it be written?

[Extra Stout]

I have yet to see anyone on any board produce links or text or any facts that are inconsistant with whats being reported in the first 40 or so minutes of the movie. I think this is the kind of information thats overlooked by the masses because people refuse to believe that we are here simply to exist within our own existance and nothing more. Too hard to swallow that life itself has no real or "other" meaning or purpose.
I'll be happy to debunk a claim if you'll actually make one.

[BacktoBasics]

I'll be happy to debunk a claim if you'll actually make one.I'm not making a claim the documentary did. All I'm saying is that it made sense to me and I'm not shocked by it. Out of curiousity please...

Debunk all the countless religions from centuries past mirroring current views of God.

Debunk the richers controlling the depression

Debunk the correlation of the training drills mirroring Europe's catastrophic event

Debunk North American Union

Debunk anything from the movie you find inconsistant.

[Extra Stout]

I'm not making a claim the documentary did. All I'm saying is that it made sense to me and I'm not shocked by it. Out of curiousity please...

Debunk all the countless religions from centuries past mirroring current views of God.
Well, for one, there is a notable difference between the nature religions, which claim that God or gods are found in nature, and a religious tradition like the Hebrew one, which proposes a God that transcends nature and is described in historical narrative. The rejection of nature worship is one of the prominent features of the Judeo-Christian religious tradition.

The movie lacks any sources versed in the history of any religion, and thus primarily deals in claims which are credible only to the credulous. It's like the atheist version of Creation Science.

For example, the movie makes several statements about the Egyptian god Horus which are blatantly false, such that he was born on December 25th, born of a virgin, that a star in the east appeared when he was born, that he was worshipped by kings, that he was a teacher of 12, that he was called the lamb of God, and that he was crucified. It claims that this non-existent version of the Horus myth was the original one from 3000 BC, which is curious since there are no known sources on Horus from that far back.

It also claims that the 12 disciples represent the 12 signs of the zodiac, as opposed to the 12 tribes of Israel, from the Genesis narrative, which had absolutely nothing to do with astrology.

It claims that A.D. 1 represents some new age under the zodiac, which is fine since Jesus was born around 6 B.C., and the calendar represents an error by a later scholar.

It claims that Christian worship on Sunday is pagan in origin, despite the copious evidence of the debate between church fathers on which day should be the day or worship (Sabbath or the day following?) which has to do with the relationship between the tradition of temple worship and the tradition of the Eucharist. It has nothing to do with sun worship.

It claims that the Christian "fish" symbol is zodiacal, rather than a symbol of a Greek anagram for Jesus (i-ch-th-u-s = Iesous CHristos THeou Uios Soter).

The movie claims that "Son" of God might actually really mean "Sun" of God, as though the language of Judea or the Roman Empire were modern English.

The whole idea that Christianity from its outset was a tool of the elites to control the people is historically ridiculous, insofar as it was a religion which outside of its stronghold in western Anatolia was a tiny minority religion until the Edict of Milan in 313. It was intermittently persecuted by local rulers (though not systematically throughout the Empire as is often believed), because Christians refused to confess Caesar as Lord and Savior, and therefore were regarded as seditious. There are volumes of writings documenting these first three centuries.

You can't claim the so-called intellectual high ground as a skeptic while believing a movie whose claims about Christianity are devoid of scholarship even to the level of reading Wikipedia entries. Latching onto such tripe betrays one simply as an anti-religious bigot with an axe to grind.

[Extra Stout]

How Napoleon Never Existed, or The Great Error, Source of an Infinite Number of Errors To be Seen in the History of the Nineteenth Century

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Monsieur J.-B.Péres, AOAM, town librarian of Agen

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Published for the first time in 1827

Napoleon Bonaparte, of whom so much has been written, never even existed. He is simply an allegorical figure. He is a personification of the sun, and this assertion is borne out if we look at how everything that has been published about Napoleon the Great is borrowed from the Great Star.

Let us see, then, in summary, what we are told about this marvellous man.

We are told:

that he was called Napoleon Bonaparte;
that he was born on an island in the Mediterranean;
that his mother was called Letitia;
that he had three sisters and four brothers, three of whom were kings;
that he had two wives, one of whom bore him a son;
that he ended a great revolution;
that he had sixteen imperial marshals under him, twelve of whom were on active service;
that he won victories in the south and was defeated in the north;
that, finally, after a reign of twelve years, which he had begun with an arrival from the East, he went away and disappeared in the western seas.
It remains, then, to ascertain if these different details are borrowed from the sun, and we hope that whoever reads this essay will be convinced.

To begin with, everyone knows that the sun is called Apollon by the poets; now, the difference between Apollon and Napoleon is not great, and it seems even less still if one goes back to the meaning of the names or to their origin.

It is certain that the word Apollon (the Greek form of the name) means 'destroyer': and it seems that this name was given to the sun by the Greeks because of the harm that it did them before Troy, where a section of their army perished in the excessive heat and the resultant illness when Agamemnon committed sacrilege against Chryses, the priest of the sun, as we see at the start of Homer's Iliad, and the brilliant imagination of the Greek poets transformed the rays of the star into flaming arrows which the offended god shot from all directions, and which would have causes complete devastation if Chryseis, daughter of the priest Chryses, had not been freed in order to appease his anger.

It is probably thus and for this reason that the sun was named Apollon. But, whatever the circumstances or causes were for giving such a name to the star, it is certain that it means 'destroyer'.

Now, Apollon is the same word as Apoleon. They come from Apollyo or Apoleo, two Greek verbs which constitute the same word, and which mean lose, kill, destroy. Therefore, if the alleged hero of our century was called Apoleon, he would have the same name as the sun and he would, moreover, fulfil completely the meaning of this name, for he is presented to us as the greatest destroyer of men who has ever lived. But this figure is called Napoleon and, therefore, there is an initial letter in his name which is not in the name of the sun. Yes, there is an extra letter, even a syllable; for, following the inscription which people have engraved everywhere in the capital, the real name of this alleged hero was Neapoleon or Neapolion. This is what we see, notably, on the column in Vendôme Square.

Now, this extra syllable makes no difference. This syllable is Greek, without doubt, like the rest of the name, and, in Greek, ne or nai is one of the strongest words of affirmation, which we can translate by the word 'truly'. Hence it follows that Napoleon means 'true destroyer', 'true Apollo'. He is, then, 'truly the sun'.

But what does his other name mean? What relationship can the word Bonaparte have with the day-star? It is not at all immediately apparent, but we understand at least that, just as bona parte means 'good part', we have do to here with something which has two parts, one good and one bad, something which, moreover, is linked with the sun Napoleon. Now, nothing is more directly related to the sun than the effects of its daily movement, and these effects are the day and the night, the light and the darkness, the light which its presence produces and the darkness which prevails in its absence. This allegory is borrowed by the Persians: they have the empire of Ahura Mazda and of Ahriman, the empire of the light and of the darkness, the empire of the good and evil spirits. And it is these latters, these spirits of evil and darkness, that people used to invoke in cursing with the expression 'Abi in malam partem'. If by malam partem one understands the darkness, there is no doubt that one must by bona parte mean the light - that is, the day, as opposed to the night. So it cannot be doubted that this name has links with the sun, especially when one sees it associated with Napoleon, who is the sun itself, as we have just demonstrated.

2. According to Greek mythology, Apollo was born on an island in the Mediterranean (the island of Delos); Napoleon's birth too is located on an island in the Mediterranean, and Corsica has been chosen in particular because the position of Corsica relative to France, where people have wanted to locate his reign, is most similar to the position of Delos relative to Greece, where Apollo had his main temples and oracles.

Pausanias, it is true, describes Apollo as an Egyptian deity; but, to be an Egyptian deity, it was not necessary for him to be born in Egypt. It sufficed that he was regarded as a god there, and that is what Pausanias wanted to convey to us: he wanted to tell us that the Egyptians worshipped him, and this further established another link between Napoleon and the son, since it is said that in Egypt Napoleon was regarded as endowed with a supernatural character, as the friend of Muhammad, and that he received veneration there that reached the levels of worship.

3. It is claimed that his mother was called Letitia. But by the name Letitia, which means 'joy', the dawn was meant: the light of the dawning day spreads joy throughout nature. The dawn gives birth to the sun, as the poets put it, by opening to him the gates of the East with her rosy fingers.

It is also remarkable that, according to Greek mythology, the mother of Apollo was called Leto. But if the Romans made 'Latona' from Leto, it was preferable in our century to make 'Letitia' from it, since loetitia is the noun from the verb loetor or the unused loeto, which means 'to inspire joy'.

It is therefore certain that this Letitia is found, like her son, in Greek mythology.

4. According to what we are told, this son of Letitia had three sisters, and it is beyond dispute that these three sisters are the three Graces, who, along with the companions the Muses, were the ornament and charm of the court of their brother Apollo.

5. It is said that this modern Apollo have four brothers. Now, these four brothers are the four seasons of the year, as we shall prove. But first, let us not be surprised to see the seasons represented by men rather than by women. This should not even seem unfamiliar, for only one of the four seasons is feminine in French - that is, autumn - and, moreover, our grammarians are far from agreed on this point. In Latin, however, autumnus is no more feminine that the three other seasons, so there is no difficulty at all in this respect. The four brothers of Napoleon can represent the four seasons of the year, and what follows will prove that they really do represent them.

Of Napoleon's four brothers, three (they say) were kings, and these three kings were Spring, who reigns over the flowers, Summer, who reigns over the harvests, and Autumn, who reigns over the fruits. And just as these three seasons owe everything to the powerful influence of the sun, it is said that the three brothers of Napoleon owed their kingly status to him and reigned only at his pleasure. And when it is added that, of the four brothers of Napoleon, there was one who was not a king, it is because, of the four seasons of the year, there is one which reigns over nothing: Winter.

But if, to weaken our parallel, one claimed that winter does not lack an empire, and one wanted to assign him the sad rule over clouds and frosts, which, in this grim season whiten out countryside, our reply would be ready at hand; this is, we would say, what they wanted to indicate to us by the vain and ridiculous rule which they claim that this brother of Napoleon was invested with after the decline of his whole family, the rule which they have placed over the village of Canino in preference to any other, because canine comes from cani, which means the white hair of cold old age, which recalls winter. For, in the eyes of the poets, the forests which crown our hills are their hair, and when winter covers them with its frosts, they are the white hair of frail nature in the old age of the year: Cum gelidus crescit canis in montibus humor.

So, the alleged prince of Canino is just winter personified: winter, which begins when the pleasant seasons are no more and the sun is furthers from our lands, which are invaded by the passionate children of the North, the name which the poets give tot he winds which, coming from these lands, discolour our countryside and cover it with a horrid whiteness. This provided the subject of the mythical invasion of France by the northern peoples, who got rid of a flag coloured by different hues and replaced it with a white one which supposedly covered the whole country after the departure of the mythical Napoleon. But it would be pointless to repeat what is simply an emblem of the frosts which the winds of the North bring upon us in winter in place of the lovely colours which the sun sustains in our lands, before it departs and leaves us. It is easy to see analogies of all this in the ingenious stories which people have imagined taking place in our century.

6. According to the same stories, Napoleon had two wives, just as people have assigned two to the sun. These two wives of the sun were the Moon and the Earth, the Moon according to the Greeks (it is Plutarch who attests this), and the Earth according to the Egyptians, with this very remarkable difference: from one (the Moon) the Sun had no children, and from the other he had a son, an only son: that is, the younger Horus, son of Osiris and Isis, of the Sun and of the Earth, as one sees in the Story of Heaven, chapter 1 page 61 and following. There is an Egyptian allegory in which Horus, born from the fertile earth to the Sun, represents the fruits of agriculture; and people have placed the birth of the alleged son of Napoleon on 20th March, the spring equinox, because it is in the spring that the produce of agriculture grow greatly.

7. They say that Napoleon put an end to a devastating plague which terrorised France, and which was called the Hydra of the Revolution. Now, a hydra is a serpent - the species is of no importance, especially since we are dealing with a story. It was the serpent Python, an enormous reptile which was the object of extreme fear for Greece, that Apollon got rid of, by killing the monster, which was his first exploit. And this is why Napoleon began his reign by kiling the French revolution, which is just as chimerical as everything else, since we see clearly that 'revolution' is derived from the Latin word revolutus, which signfies a serpent which is coiled up - Python, and nothing more.

8. The famous warrior of the 19th century had, they say, 12 imperial marshals at the head of his armies and 4 inactive ones. Now, the first 12 (as is well understood) are the 12 signs of the zodiac, marching under the orders of the sun Napoleon, and each commanding a division of the innumerable army of the starts, which is called the 'heavenly army' in the Bible, and is divided by us into 12 parts, corresponding to the 12 signs of the zodiac. So much for the 12 marshals who, according to our mythical histories, were on active service under the Emperor Napoleon; and the four others are probably the four cardinal points, immobile in the midst of the general movement, who are very well represented by the non-activity associated with them.

So, all the marshals, the active and inactive ones, are purely symbolic beings, and no more real than their chief.

9. We are told that this leader of so many brilliant armies had triumphantly gone through all the lands of the South, but could not establish himself when he penetrated too deeply into the North. Now, all this perfectly characterises the course of the sun.

The sun, as is well known, holds sovereign domination in the South, as, we are told, did the Emperor Napoleon. But the truly remarkable thing is that after the spring equinox the sun seeks to reach the northern regions by moving further from the equator. But at the end of three months' march towards these lands, it encounters the ?tropical Borealis? which forces it to retreat and retract its steps towards the South, following the sign of Cancer - that is, the crab, a sign given this name (according to Macrobius) in order to express the retreating course of the sun in this area of the sky. And it is on this account that people invented the mythical expedition of Napoleon towards the North, towards Moscow, and the humiliating retreat by which it was allegedly followed.

So, everything which we are told about the successes and reverses of this strange warrior are only diverse allusions regarding the course of the sun.

10. Finally - and this needs no explanation - the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, as everyone knows. But for the watchers situated at the ends of the earth the sun seems to come out of the eastern seas in the morning and plunge into the eastern seas in the evening. So it is, moreover, that the poets depicting it as rising from bed and going to sleep. And it is in these terms that we must understand everything when we are told that Napoleon came from the eastern sea (from Egypt) to reign over France and that he disappeared into the western seas, after a reign of 12 years, which are nothing other than the 12 hours of the day during which the sun shines above the horizon.

He reigned only one day, says the author of the Nouvelles Messéniens in reference to Napoleon, and the manner in which he describes his rise, his decline and his fall prove that this charming poet, like us, saw in Napoleon only an image of the sun. And he is nothing other than this, as is proved by his name, the name of his mother, his three sisters, his four brohters, his two wives, his son, his marshals and his exploits. It is proven by the place of his birth, by the place from which they say he came when he embarked upon his career of domination, by the time that he spent going through it, by the lands where he ruled, by those where he experienced failure, and by the region where he disappeared, pale and uncrowned, after his brilliant course, as the poet Casimir Delavigne puts it.

It is therefore proven that the alleged hero of our century was only an allegorical character, all of whose attributes are borrowed from the sun. And consequently Napoleon Bonaparte, of whom people have said and written so many things, never even existed, and the error before which so many people have bowed their heads comes from a quiproquo - that is, they have taken the mythology of the 19th century for history.

PS - We would also be able to call upon, in support of our thesis, a large number of royal decrees whose certain dates are obviously contradictory to the reign of the alleged emperor; but we have had our reasons for not making use of these.

[inconvertible]

.....and the North American Union w/o congressional approval or oversight......try and explain that one.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Well, for one, there is a notable difference between the nature religions, which claim that God or gods are found in nature, and a religious tradition like the Hebrew one, which proposes a God that transcends nature and is described in historical narrative. The rejection of nature worship is one of the prominent features of the Judeo-Christian religious tradition.

The movie lacks any sources versed in the history of any religion, and thus primarily deals in claims which are credible only to the credulous. It's like the atheist version of Creation Science.

For example, the movie makes several statements about the Egyptian god Horus which are blatantly false, such that he was born on December 25th, born of a virgin, that a star in the east appeared when he was born, that he was worshipped by kings, that he was a teacher of 12, that he was called the lamb of God, and that he was crucified. It claims that this non-existent version of the Horus myth was the original one from 3000 BC, which is curious since there are no known sources on Horus from that far back.

It also claims that the 12 disciples represent the 12 signs of the zodiac, as opposed to the 12 tribes of Israel, from the Genesis narrative, which had absolutely nothing to do with astrology.

It claims that A.D. 1 represents some new age under the zodiac, which is fine since Jesus was born around 6 B.C., and the calendar represents an error by a later scholar.

It claims that Christian worship on Sunday is pagan in origin, despite the copious evidence of the debate between church fathers on which day should be the day or worship (Sabbath or the day following?) which has to do with the relationship between the tradition of temple worship and the tradition of the Eucharist. It has nothing to do with sun worship.

It claims that the Christian "fish" symbol is zodiacal, rather than a symbol of a Greek anagram for Jesus (i-ch-th-u-s = Iesous CHristos THeou Uios Soter).

The movie claims that "Son" of God might actually really mean "Sun" of God, as though the language of Judea or the Roman Empire were modern English.

The whole idea that Christianity from its outset was a tool of the elites to control the people is historically ridiculous, insofar as it was a religion which outside of its stronghold in western Anatolia was a tiny minority religion until the Edict of Milan in 313. It was intermittently persecuted by local rulers (though not systematically throughout the Empire as is often believed), because Christians refused to confess Caesar as Lord and Savior, and therefore were regarded as seditious. There are volumes of writings documenting these first three centuries.

You can't claim the so-called intellectual high ground as a skeptic while believing a movie whose claims about Christianity are devoid of scholarship even to the level of reading Wikipedia entries. Latching onto such tripe betrays one simply as an anti-religious bigot with an axe to grind.tripe, indeed. nice work, ES.

[BacktoBasics]

What point or which side are you trying to prove with the Napoleon post? It would seem proving his lack of existance could easily equate to religious misinformation which is in disagreement with your original post.

Good info nontheless, thanks for posting.

lol @ incovertable I don't know why but it was funny after reading two long rants. I would still be interested in your opinions on the rest of my questions.

[Extra Stout]

What point or which side are you trying to prove with the Napoleon post? It would seem proving his lack of existance could easily equate to religious misinformation which is in disagreement with your original post.

Good info nontheless, thanks for posting.

lol @ incovertable I don't know why but it was funny after reading two long rants. I would still be interested in your opinions on the rest of my questions.
The Napoleon post is a satire of half-baked arguments throughout the ages against the historicity of Christ, of which this truther film is just the latest, and far from the best.

[DarkReign]

Alrighty then...

So, are you saying ES that the similarities between the astrological movements and Judeo-Christianity's tenets are just purely coincidence? Regardless of the other religions mentioned (of which I have even less knowledge of than Christianity) and the similarities in "saviors" or "Christs"?

By no means am I saying youre wrong, but even if I were to eliminate the other religions/saviors mentioned in the documentary, the similarities are there.

(to be quite honest, I dont give a flying-fuck about religion or the religious, the real meat of Zeitgeist for me was the NAU/Federal Reserve stuff. I have shown some folks Zeitgeist and told them "If youre sensitive about religion, skip the first part.")

[BacktoBasics]

The religion part was basically icing on the cake. I agree with DarkReign. Anyone wanna tackle the richers.

[Galileo]

Well, for one, there is a notable difference between the nature religions, which claim that God or gods are found in nature, and a religious tradition like the Hebrew one, which proposes a God that transcends nature and is described in historical narrative. The rejection of nature worship is one of the prominent features of the Judeo-Christian religious tradition.

The movie lacks any sources versed in the history of any religion, and thus primarily deals in claims which are credible only to the credulous. It's like the atheist version of Creation Science.

For example, the movie makes several statements about the Egyptian god Horus which are blatantly false, such that he was born on December 25th, born of a virgin, that a star in the east appeared when he was born, that he was worshipped by kings, that he was a teacher of 12, that he was called the lamb of God, and that he was crucified. It claims that this non-existent version of the Horus myth was the original one from 3000 BC, which is curious since there are no known sources on Horus from that far back.

It also claims that the 12 disciples represent the 12 signs of the zodiac, as opposed to the 12 tribes of Israel, from the Genesis narrative, which had absolutely nothing to do with astrology.

It claims that A.D. 1 represents some new age under the zodiac, which is fine since Jesus was born around 6 B.C., and the calendar represents an error by a later scholar.

It claims that Christian worship on Sunday is pagan in origin, despite the copious evidence of the debate between church fathers on which day should be the day or worship (Sabbath or the day following?) which has to do with the relationship between the tradition of temple worship and the tradition of the Eucharist. It has nothing to do with sun worship.

It claims that the Christian "fish" symbol is zodiacal, rather than a symbol of a Greek anagram for Jesus (i-ch-th-u-s = Iesous CHristos THeou Uios Soter).

The movie claims that "Son" of God might actually really mean "Sun" of God, as though the language of Judea or the Roman Empire were modern English.

The whole idea that Christianity from its outset was a tool of the elites to control the people is historically ridiculous, insofar as it was a religion which outside of its stronghold in western Anatolia was a tiny minority religion until the Edict of Milan in 313. It was intermittently persecuted by local rulers (though not systematically throughout the Empire as is often believed), because Christians refused to confess Caesar as Lord and Savior, and therefore were regarded as seditious. There are volumes of writings documenting these first three centuries.

You can't claim the so-called intellectual high ground as a skeptic while believing a movie whose claims about Christianity are devoid of scholarship even to the level of reading Wikipedia entries. Latching onto such tripe betrays one simply as an anti-religious bigot with an axe to grind.

so you really believe that Jesus rose from the dead for our sins and WTC 7 fell from an office fire?

Nice.

[ChumpDumper]

You really believe this is becoming the most watched movie of all time?

Nice.

[Galileo]

It's quite easy to make a claim that a movie is the most watched of all time when you have no qualms about fabricating the statistics.

today, Zeitgeist is in the Google top 50 no less than SIX TIMES!

The regular version is # 1, as usual, as it has been for the past seven months.

Also in the top 50 are:

part # 1

part # 3

part # 2

the Spanish version

and

the old version

As I said before, you Zeitgeist haters are just jealous of someone else's success, and ought to consider Marxism.

[Extra Stout]

Alrighty then...

So, are you saying ES that the similarities between the astrological movements and Judeo-Christianity's tenets are just purely coincidence? Regardless of the other religions mentioned (of which I have even less knowledge of than Christianity) and the similarities in "saviors" or "Christs"?

By no means am I saying youre wrong, but even if I were to eliminate the other religions/saviors mentioned in the documentary, the similarities are there.
The similarities as the movie presents them? I wouldn't call them so much coincidence as distortion.

Tying the ancient Jewish narrative to Hellenistic (as opposed to more ancient) astrology is a dumb anachronism. You might as well claim that Exodus is based upon Grapes of Wrath. I could believe that the worship of the golden calf was in some way related to Taurus. "Sacred bull" worship was widespread in many cultures, and Taurus has been identified as a bull for several millenia under Babylonian astrology. But Moses as Aries? The shofar? Nonsense. That constellation was the "Hireling" at least until 700 B.C. or so.

As far as Jesus instituting the age of Pisces, the connection is arbitrary. First of all, that fish are mentioned in the New Testament is about as relevant as if beef were mentioned in a story set in Texas. It's what they ate. Second, the ICHTHUS anagram has already been explained. Third, one could just as easily tie Jesus' birth to Aries (Lamb of God), Leo (Lion of the Tribe of Judah), Virgo (Virgin Mary), Capricorn (scapegoat), Aquarius (the miracle at Cana) or Libra (divine justice). You can also tie him to Venus (Morning Star). The point is that all these similarities are speculative. You can also claim Jesus is light, water, oil, fire, air, bread, wine, a camel, a donkey, a dove, a swallow, a snake, a snake-killer, a horseman, a general, a book, a lump of coal, a hunk of granite or marble, or any other kind of rock you like, gold, silver, jewels, fine cloth, or detergent. Those are off the top of my head; if I actually went back through the Bible I could come up with dozens more. To pick one symbol out and proclaim it proves Jesus is an astrological invention is ridiculous and disingenuous.

[ChumpDumper]

today, Zeitgeist is in the Google top 50 no less than SIX TIMES!:lol
What does that actually mean? How many viewers does that represent?

National Lampoon's Van Wilder 2: The Rise of Taj is in the top Google videos as well -- does that mean that more people watched that than Titanic?

[Extra Stout]

today, Zeitgeist is in the Google top 50 no less than SIX TIMES!

The regular version is # 1, as usual, as it has been for the past seven months.

Also in the top 50 are:

part # 1

part # 3

part # 2

the Spanish version

and

the old version

As I said before, you Zeitgeist haters are just jealous of someone else's success, and ought to consider Marxism.
Google video top 50 = most watched movie of all time?

Do you believe you have superpowers?

[Extra Stout]

so you really believe that Jesus rose from the dead for our sins and WTC 7 fell from an office fire?

Nice.


AACCKKKK!!! Facts! Knowledge!! I must run away and retreat into smug snarkiness!!

[Extra Stout]

:lol
What does that actually mean? How many viewers does that represent?

National Lampoon's Van Wilder 2: The Rise of Taj is in the top Google videos as well -- does that mean that more people watched that than Titanic?
It's easy to be a Truther. You just uncouple yourself from reality and make up whatever you want. Any countervailing evidence was fabricated as part of the ethereal "conspiracy."

[OldDirtMcGirt]

The first part of Zeitgeist was so laughably bad that I stopped watching it. Apparently I didn't miss much.

[Galileo]

It's easy to be a Truther. You just uncouple yourself from reality and make up whatever you want. Any countervailing evidence was fabricated as part of the ethereal "conspiracy."

Aha, but you are a Jesus truther. That makes you a kook.

Did WTC 7 fall down for our sins?

[ChumpDumper]

a tad bit jealous that Zeitgeist is fast becoming the most watched movie of all time?How many people have actually watched it?

[DeeBo]

The first part of Zeitgeist was so laughably bad that I stopped watching it.

Translation: Cop out.

You must have been intimidated. If it was that funny why not watch more? Unless you don't like comedies.

I think deep down your scared.



Apparently I didn't miss much.

You miss enough to not know how it all ended. And now you can't comment on it and if you do you will just sound like the other Blush lovers in this topic.

And we all know you can't talk to a Bush lover without the same old tired tin foil smack they seem to use to avoid the truth.

[BacktoBasics]

So does this mean we're only going to discuss the religion aspect of the movie. I'd like to hear from you guys on the Fed parts of it.

[ChumpDumper]

Actually I got bored when nothing happened after two minutes.

[DeeBo]

Actually I got bored when nothing happened after two minutes.

Translation: I was intimidated and I turned it off like a coward.

[Extra Stout]

Aha, but you are a Jesus truther. That makes you a kook.

Did WTC 7 fall down for our sins?
Did you just admit that your conspiracy theories about the World Trade Center and New World Order are analogous to religious faith?

[ChumpDumper]

No really -- nothing happened at all. Just a bunch of file footage. Berlin Alexanderplatz moved faster than this turkey.

[Extra Stout]

So does this mean we're only going to discuss the religion aspect of the movie. I'd like to hear from you guys on the Fed parts of it.
We hashed the Truther BS over and over again last year. It got old. It didn't really matter what evidence people came up with, if it didn't fit the Truther narrative they simply ignored it.

Example:

Truther: "If the steel wasn't cut by thermite, then why was all of it quickly whisked away and melted down? What are they hiding?"

ChumpDumper: "Here are two hundred photographs of structural steel from the WTC site quarantined for the investigation."

Truther: *crickets*

Three days later

Truther: "They melted down all the steel and sent it to China! If it weren't thermite, they would have kept the steel for the investigation. They're hiding it!"

ChumpDumper: "Here is a link to the two hundred photographs of structural steel from the WTC site quarantined for the investigation that I posted three days ago."

Truther: *crickets*

Repeat for three months.

[Extra Stout]

Truther: "There is no engineering explanation for how a plane impact could have made that hole in the Pentagon."

Sane Person: 'Here is the engineering explanation for how the plane impact made that hole in the Pentagon."

Truther: "SHEEP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

[BacktoBasics]

We hashed the Truther BS over and over again last year. It got old. It didn't really matter what evidence people came up with, if it didn't fit the Truther narrative they simply ignored it.

Example:

Truther: "If the steel wasn't cut by thermite, then why was all of it quickly whisked away and melted down? What are they hiding?"

ChumpDumper: "Here are two hundred photographs of structural steel from the WTC site quarantined for the investigation."

Truther: *crickets*

Three days later

Truther: "They melted down all the steel and sent it to China! If it weren't thermite, they would have kept the steel for the investigation. They're hiding it!"

ChumpDumper: "Here is a link to the two hundred photographs of structural steel from the WTC site quarantined for the investigation that I posted three days ago."

Truther: *crickets*

Repeat for three months.

I was thinking more along the lines of the fed stuff in the movie. I agree that no matter what happened on 9/11 the arguement will wage.

[DeeBo]

Example:

Truther: "If the steel wasn't cut by thermite, then why was all of it quickly whisked away and melted down? What are they hiding?"

ChumpDumper: "Here are two hundred photographs of structural steel from the WTC site quarantined for the investigation."

Truther: *crickets*



Look how much footage they have on the JFK assassination and they still haven't come clean on who was really responsible.

Pictures don't mean shit according to you and Chump when you see pics like this.

http://www.european911citizensjury.com/WTC-Evidence%20of%20thermite%20on%20column-indicated-b.jpg


You can't have it both ways either pics are proof, or they are not.
Not just when you and Chump want to used them.

Pat Na!

[Galileo]

Truther: "There is no engineering explanation for how a plane impact could have made that hole in the Pentagon."

Sane Person: 'Here is the engineering explanation for how the plane impact made that hole in the Pentagon."

Truther: "SHEEP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Sane Person: Dead people don't rise from the dead.

Sane Person: If the carpeting in your office catches fire, the whole building won't fall down. Especially if the building is made of steel.

Kook: Jesus turned water into wine.

Kook: I drank too much wine.

Nutjob: Jesus walked on the water, just like Poseidon. Its a miracle!

Sane Person: You can walk on a frozen lake.

Moonbat: The assassination of Julius Caesar was NOT an inside job.

[braeden0613]

lol at this thread

[OldDirtMcGirt]

Translation: Cop out.

You must have been intimidated. If it was that funny why not watch more? Unless you don't like comedies.

I think deep down your scared.

I didn't watch more for the same reason I don't watch Hannity and Colmes. Just because something is so illogical as to produce laughter, doesn't mean I should waste an hour watching it. And what the hell am I scared of? I'm not a Christian, and am totally agnostic.



You miss enough to not know how it all ended. And now you can't comment on it and if you do you will just sound like the other Blush lovers in this topic.

And we all know you can't talk to a Bush lover without the same old tired tin foil smack they seem to use to avoid the truth.

I didn't vote for Bush either time, but just because I didn't want him to be president doesn't mean I think that he's the fucking anti-christ. The tin foil hat crowd needs to get over themselves.

[Last Comic Standing]

The tin foil hat crowd needs to get over themselves.

And you need some new material "Tin Hat" is so 2004

[OldDirtMcGirt]

And you need some new material "Tin Hat" is so 2004

Well I figured crackpot is overused these days.

[Extra Stout]

Sane Person: Dead people don't rise from the dead.

Sane Person: If the carpeting in your office catches fire, the whole building won't fall down. Especially if the building is made of steel.

Kook: Jesus turned water into wine.

Kook: I drank too much wine.

Nutjob: Jesus walked on the water, just like Poseidon. Its a miracle!

Sane Person: You can walk on a frozen lake.

Moonbat: The assassination of Julius Caesar was NOT an inside job.
You can't be a rationalist skeptic and a Truther at the same time. Pick one.

And besides, what is the point behind your snark? That Truthism is no less rational than religion?

[JoeChalupa]

I believe.

[DarkReign]

I didn't vote for Bush either time, but just because I didn't want him to be president doesn't mean I think that he's the fucking anti-christ. The tin foil hat crowd needs to get over themselves.

If "Bush being the anit-christ" is the only tenet you got out of it, youre an idiot.

Sorry.

[DarkReign]

The similarities as the movie presents them? I wouldn't call them so much coincidence as distortion.

Tying the ancient Jewish narrative to Hellenistic (as opposed to more ancient) astrology is a dumb anachronism. You might as well claim that Exodus is based upon Grapes of Wrath. I could believe that the worship of the golden calf was in some way related to Taurus. "Sacred bull" worship was widespread in many cultures, and Taurus has been identified as a bull for several millenia under Babylonian astrology. But Moses as Aries? The shofar? Nonsense. That constellation was the "Hireling" at least until 700 B.C. or so.

As far as Jesus instituting the age of Pisces, the connection is arbitrary. First of all, that fish are mentioned in the New Testament is about as relevant as if beef were mentioned in a story set in Texas. It's what they ate. Second, the ICHTHUS anagram has already been explained. Third, one could just as easily tie Jesus' birth to Aries (Lamb of God), Leo (Lion of the Tribe of Judah), Virgo (Virgin Mary), Capricorn (scapegoat), Aquarius (the miracle at Cana) or Libra (divine justice). You can also tie him to Venus (Morning Star). The point is that all these similarities are speculative. You can also claim Jesus is light, water, oil, fire, air, bread, wine, a camel, a donkey, a dove, a swallow, a snake, a snake-killer, a horseman, a general, a book, a lump of coal, a hunk of granite or marble, or any other kind of rock you like, gold, silver, jewels, fine cloth, or detergent. Those are off the top of my head; if I actually went back through the Bible I could come up with dozens more. To pick one symbol out and proclaim it proves Jesus is an astrological invention is ridiculous and disingenuous.

Alright, Im buzzed up from hanging out withe the boss, so forgive the typos.

As it were....

Are you using the Bible as some sort of historical document?

The 12 disiples just coincidentally pertains to the MUCH older 12 signs of the zodiac?

The winter solstice and its 3 day "hiatus" of hanging in the sky just so happens to coincide with the biblical death and resurection of Christ?

The correlation of other religion's "saviors" as having been killed then resurected? All spanning 3 days?

All being born of a virgin?

Again, I dont pretend to know the other religions tents/beliefs, but if the other religions beliefs entail...

a) born of a virgin
b) teaching at "young age"
c) death and resurection

...then the similarities are too striking to ignore.

Half the world's popular religion CANNOT have that many similarities withou raising the eyebrow of an objective individual.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

If "Bush being the anit-christ" is the only tenet you got out of it, youre an idiot.

Sorry.

I was just responding to Deebo who's whole "blame everybody who disagrees with me a bush lover" as if that's a huge insult, seems like a hallmark of the crowd that thinks Bush is responsible for all of the worlds ills. It had nothing to do with the movie.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

Alright, Im buzzed up from hanging out withe the boss, so forgive the typos.

As it were....

Are you using the Bible as some sort of historical document?

The 12 disiples just coincidentally pertains to the MUCH older 12 signs of the zodiac?

The winter solstice and its 3 day "hiatus" of hanging in the sky just so happens to coincide with the biblical death and resurection of Christ?

The correlation of other religion's "saviors" as having been killed then resurected? All spanning 3 days?

All being born of a virgin?

Again, I dont pretend to know the other religions tents/beliefs, but if the other religions beliefs entail...

a) born of a virgin
b) teaching at "young age"
c) death and resurection

...then the similarities are too striking to ignore.

Half the world's popular religion CANNOT have that many similarities withou raising the eyebrow of an objective individual.

The 12 disciples of Jesus pertain more likely pertain to the 12 tribes of Israel, which came 500 years before the Zodiac was divided into 12 portions.

Also, according to the Bible, Jesus probably wasn't born in December or on the winter solstice. This is where the pagan influences in modern day adaptations of Christianity are probably correct; that Christmas was originally a pagan holiday. However it does nothing to dispute the Bible.

And the worst part of the documentary was all of the Horus similarities, basically because they're all blatant falsehoods. Horus was not born of a virgin, he didn't have 12 disciples, he wasn't a savior, he wasn't baptized, and he was never crucified.

That's not to say that there aren't some pagan religious figures who were born of a virgin, were crucified, who were saviors, and who rose from the dead, but I'm not aware of any that encompass all of those traits as Zeitgeist seems to infer.

[Holt's Cat]

Times are bad when the only voice for any kind of limited government in a presidential election is supported by those morons.

[Wild Cobra]

All I can say is that my boots aren't high enough to walk through this shit again.

My God... Some of you here are real fools. Believing that bullshit.

[mouse]

I was just responding to Deebo who's whole "blame everybody who disagrees with me a bush lover" as if that's a huge insult, seems like a hallmark of the crowd that thinks Bush is responsible for all of the worlds ills. It had nothing to do with the movie.



Drop the tin foil
we drop the Bush lover
what is so to hard figure out?

[grindmouse]

Bring it...................

[ChumpDumper]

Why is George Carlin not listed in the sources?

Is he being compensated?

[DarkReign]

The 12 disciples of Jesus pertain more likely pertain to the 12 tribes of Israel, which came 500 years before the Zodiac was divided into 12 portions.

Patently, not even remotely close.

United Monarchy, the 12 descendants of Jacob, formed in or about 1020 BCE. Lets be gracious with that date in reference to the forefather of all Judeo Christianity; Abraham, chalk it up to "record keeping" of the time, and say (very generously) that it was formed in 1200 BCE (Abraham was thought to have been brought to Canaan in or around 2000-1700 BC).

Seeing as Jacob was the grandson of Abraham, he must have been (obviously) younger (after 2000-1700). Therefore, the 12 sons of Jacob....the 12 tribes you refer to in the above comment, couldnt have been granted their kingdoms until after saaaaaaaay....1400? There abouts.

I just cant keep giving slack on the date. All this crap is only referenced in (you guessed it) the Bible/Torah/Qua ran and records kept in Egypt and (afterwords) Alexandria (the famous Library burned to the ground by the conquering Romans).

In conclusion, it can be "guessed at" that the descendants of Jacob (the 12 Tribes) were granted land and title between 1400-1200 BC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Lost_Tribes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Monarchy

The Zodiac (without the 12 constellations, admittedly) was known to have existed with evidence in 2000 BC. It is said the knowledge of the Zodiac though is far older, maybe even 5000 BC, maybe even older than that....

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

The 12 constellations as we know them today, in another total coincidence of history and relation, seemed to have been hurriedly named and assembled when? Between 1300-1000 BC.

Yeah, Im sure the two had NO relationship whatsoever. The existence of the 12 tribes of Israel and the formation of the 12 constellations just-so-happen to exist at the exact same time.

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

Nevermind that the only documents that specifically and categorically identify the existence of Abraham, his offspring and the reality of the 12 sons of Jacob are religious doctrines the entire Middle Eastern and Western world base their entire (popular) religions on.

Another total coincidence, Im sure.


Also, according to the Bible, Jesus probably wasn't born in December or on the winter solstice. This is where the pagan influences in modern day adaptations of Christianity are probably correct; that Christmas was originally a pagan holiday. However it does nothing to dispute the Bible.

Dont care, really. Doesnt have anything to do with the foundation of or the existence of Jesus Christ or Judeo-Christianity. That is just one of many alterations made to the scripture to indoctrinate new converts more easily.


And the worst part of the documentary was all of the Horus similarities, basically because they're all blatant falsehoods. Horus was not born of a virgin, he didn't have 12 disciples, he wasn't a savior, he wasn't baptized, and he was never crucified.

What is this obsession with Horus? The documentary/film cited, shit I dont know....(just for consistency in the use of this number) twelve other deities/religions/saviors ALL using the same, tired script of...

1) virgin birth
2) teaching at young age
3) long absence
4) Calling it a comeback of Godlike proportion (gathering followers)
5) Persecution
6) Death ((whether it be crucifixion or otherwise)
7) Resurrection

Now, Im not as dumb as you might think, I'll readily admit the script isnt followed 100% (or even 70%, shit 50%) in every case.

But the similarities in doctrine across the globe are there. All formed and dated around the exact same time.....the "time" being documented by the religious doctrines supporting the existence of their Deity. Conflict of interest, much?

---------------------------------------------

Example:

I, Dark Reign, am the Son of God.

I get some hanger-ons to believe in me and spread my W3rd. The Enlightened, over time, document my life thru the writing of a text.

Fast forward 3000 years.

I, Duk Rain, am the descendant of Dark Reign, the Son of God.

Here is the proof of my royalty and relationship....this book that was written 2500 years ago called "Dark Reign is the Shit".

-----------------------

You get my point. All of this "history" is based on books written specifically to support that history.


That's not to say that there aren't some pagan religious figures who were born of a virgin, were crucified, who were saviors, and who rose from the dead, but I'm not aware of any that encompass all of those traits as Zeitgeist seems to infer.

Fair enough. Like I said, this isnt that important to me. But the coincidence, the parallels, the timelines, the deities, the similarities....its all there. The religious shrug it off because it doesnt fit into their worldview.

Think what the world would be next year if today it was proven, beyond a fabric of doubt to a rational mind, that the stories of the Bible are only allegorical. That Jesus Christ is an analogy to human suffering and the bonds that bind.

Would it be so bad? No, but it sure would be bad for those who have accumulated untold wealth, power and influence using those stories to subvert the masses.

But thats just an analogy to prove a point.

[Extra Stout]

The Zodiac (without the 12 constellations, admittedly) was known to have existed with evidence in 2000 BC. It is said the knowledge of the Zodiac though is far older, maybe even 5000 BC, maybe even older than that....
If the zodiac isn't tied to the number 12 contemporaneously, I see no sense in tying the Hebrew narrative to the zodiac. If you want to make the tribes into symbols, don't the 12 months of the year make a lot more sense?


The 12 constellations as we know them today, in another total coincidence of history and relation, seemed to have been hurriedly named and assembled when? Between 1300-1000 BC.
When the Babylonians first developed a zodiac, it had 18 signs, not 12. Naming of the constellations is not the same thin as devleoping a 12-sign zodiac. The whittling down to 12 doesn't happen until the 7th century BC at the earliest.


Yeah, Im sure the two had NO relationship whatsoever. The existence of the 12 tribes of Israel and the formation of the 12 constellations just-so-happen to exist at the exact same time.
They didn't happen at the same time.


Nevermind that the only documents that specifically and categorically identify the existence of Abraham, his offspring and the reality of the 12 sons of Jacob are religious doctrines the entire Middle Eastern and Western world base their entire (popular) religions on.
That they are religious documents does not matter in evaluating their historical validity. You need not take them as inerrant to recognize that yes, Hezekiah actually was king of Judah and Sennacherib really did besiege him in Jerusalem, for example. Places mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures are confirmed by archaeology.


What is this obsession with Horus? The documentary/film cited, shit I dont know....(just for consistency in the use of this number) twelve other deities/religions/saviors ALL using the same, tired script of...

1) virgin birth
2) teaching at young age
3) long absence
4) Calling it a comeback of Godlike proportion (gathering followers)
5) Persecution
6) Death ((whether it be crucifixion or otherwise)
7) Resurrection
The film deals in distortions. For example, in the Roman myth, Mithra was born out of solid rock. If you really twist your mind around, caves are made of solid rock, and I suppose technically since the rock had never had sex with a man, it was a virgin. In the Iranian myth, Mithra was the result of Ahura-Mazda having sex with his mother. In the Indian version, he was born of Aditi, which means "boundless heaven," but if you wanted to get poetic with the translation, you could also say "virgin dawn."

So if you tie all the various versions together and twist them around, you can arrive at the notion that Mithra was born of a "virgin" in a "cave."

What of December 25th and the shepherds? Well, that Mithra's birth was celebrated on Dec. 25th is a conjecture by scholars, since some think there were parallels between Roman sun worship and Roman Mithraism. So basically these skeptics speculate that Mithraists celebrated this holiday, and together with the speculation that Christianity is warmed-over sun worship, they speculate a parallel. A far likelier explanation is that both Mithraism and Christianity in Rome adapted the festival of Sol Invictus in order to avoid persecution.

The shepherd part of the narrative does not appear in Mithraism until the second century. The Christian Gospels date to the mid-to-late first century A.D. (some of the less scholarly skeptics simply will claim they are second-century works in order to get around this problem). So who is borrowing from whom?

The notion that Mithra was any kind of itinerant teacher is a fabrication. Or do they mean only to say that he was an important leader? Well, I would hope so; does anybody start a religion in order to follow an unremarkable slob?

The notion that Mithra gathered some large number, or even, 12 disciples, also is a fabrication. In the Iranian version he had one companion; in the Roman one, he had two, along with some number of animal companions, but it never added up to 12. There is one carving of Mithra slaying a bull that has 12 faces on it, but there is nothing to suggest the 12 faces represent 12 disciples, and in any event, the carving dates from centuries following the establishment of Christianity.

Mithra was not persecuted or killed like Jesus, rather, it was he who did the killing. Nor was he resurrected. The reference to resurrection comes from Tertullian, who commented on a Mithraic ritual mentioning an "image of a resurrection." Of course, Tertullian dates from after New Testament times.

There are other fun fabrications. Some Mithraic carvings have bunches of grapes on them, so obviously they must have consumed wine to represent Mithra's blood.

It is very easy to make other narratives sound like the Jesus narrative when you tie together the most tenuous of parallels, and fabricate things out of whole cloth to fill in the gaps.

What these guys did, more or less, is regurgitate material from Acharya S's book, The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Told, which is not taken seriously by mainstream biblical scholars. If you actually look into secular (as opposed to Christian) scholarship of the historicity of Jesus, you find that the Jesus myth hypothesis is held only by a tiny minority of scholars, and of those, maybe two or three are even regarded as intellectually honest by their peers (e.g., Robert M. Price).


Fair enough. Like I said, this isnt that important to me. But the coincidence, the parallels, the timelines, the deities, the similarities....its all there. The religious shrug it off because it doesnt fit into their worldview.
And reputable scholars shrug it off because the Jesus Myth Hypothesis is dreadful scholarship.

[DarkReign]

?

[BacktoBasics]

So we're all in agreement that the elite wealthy controlled the depression. We all should pay taxes because there is no law stating we should and all the major world wars were nothing more than pawn work for the almighty dollar. Anyone wanna discuss something beyond religion and tin foil hats?

[DarkReign]

So we're all in agreement that the elite wealthy controlled the depression. We all should pay taxes because there is no law stating we should and all the major world wars were nothing more than pawn work for the almighty dollar. Anyone wanna discuss something beyond religion and tin foil hats?

Thats obviously the simplistic version, but...

To a point, yes. I believe all things are controlled for reasons unbeknownst to all, save for the elite.

Again, the parallels that are drawn from the "How to make War and have the Masses Lap it Up" are still excercised everywhere in the world.

This isnt exclusive to the USA.

Think about it for a second...

This is a pretty popular board, yes? Spurstalk I mean.

Really, if it wasnt for NBADan, the political forum would have been dead most of the time I have been here. But some newbs/trolls have spiced it up lately. And really, its POTUS election year...bound to be active.

But ultimately, the interest level and participation in political discourse is only excercised by a handful of people on a regular basis.

Most people are either...

a) disinterested/disenfranchised in/by politics (this gets my vote)
b) confused by politics
c) dont care
d) too ignorant and stubborn to think they could learn something

....which is exactly the way this democracy has been tailored to create.

I sincerely believe the forefathers approached the forming of a new nation with good intentions, with keen knowledge of the fact that the populace was an uneducated and dangerous mob, and therefore couldnt run the joint in earnest (representative government, checks and balances, seats by population, etc).

But the total molestation....no, the prison gang-rape of that intention by the subsequent governments that presided over this country, over time thru small and large changes to voting laws, redistricting, transparency law, lobbyists, corporate law (they were illegal for a looooong time) and other various methods of keeping the sheep in the herd have distinguished this country as something of an abomination in its current form.

Obviously, this is an opinion piece.

But I sincerely believe that if any of the forefathers were somehow transported from their time, to this time and given the proper amount of time for their education on current laws surrounding government action/inaction/power pyramid, they'd go back to their time and frame what would be considered "obscure laws" to prevent the very direction we have ended in today.

2008 United States of America is the bastard son of the retarded, inbred grandson of 1783 United States of America (in terms of government, not people or living standard).

[DarkReign]

second thought...the people are starting to get there, too, IMO.

[ChumpDumper]

So who made this video?

[DarkReign]

If the zodiac isn't tied to the number 12 contemporaneously, I see no sense in tying the Hebrew narrative to the zodiac. If you want to make the tribes into symbols, don't the 12 months of the year make a lot more sense?

They would depending on the calender used at the time, I cant speak for that. Months are (obviously) based on the phases of the moon according to our current accepted standard (Gregorian), not to the stars. Regardless, I wasnt trying to say there was a relation between the Hebrew narrative and the months of the year.

I was saying there is a correlation between the Hebrew narrative of "12 Tribes" and the parring down of known constellations into 12, that these events were coincidentally happening at the same time (within a 300 year time frame) from 1300-1000 BC.

Putting the United Monarchy's unification in the same time period as that reduction.



When the Babylonians first developed a zodiac, it had 18 signs, not 12. Naming of the constellations is not the same thin as developing a 12-sign zodiac. The whittling down to 12 doesn't happen until the 7th century BC at the earliest.

The Wiki stated it was 1300-1000 that the parring happened.

Poof, bam....done. Nevermind. I completely misread that. Always some stupid error. The constellations werent parred down during 1300-1000....that time period refers to first known evidence of humans cataloging ANY constellation period (of which there were 40 some odd).

Fuck.

Fuck it. I tried to argue not necessarily for "Zeitgeist" (i never put all my stock in one theory/truth...I try ingest and devise my own from known sources), I tried to use known dates to correlate the coincidence between the burgeoning knowledge/catalogue of constellations as it relates to known religious doctrine, the timeframes they purport and the similarities thereof.

With that info made known, I now understand what you meant by relating the argument to the calender. That threw me at first.

Ah well. Shit happens. Wrong again (at least with this approach).

BTW, thanks for not being a dick about it. I actually enjoy learning.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

weren't there 10 months a year at one point?

[DarkReign]

weren't there 10 months a year at one point?

Early Roman calendar. After the Greeks showed the year to be longer (i think), the Julian Calendar was adopted under Gais Julius Ceasar.

To eventually be replaced by the Gregorian calendar that we use today.

[Galileo]

So who made this video?

do you believe in the supernatural?

[ChumpDumper]

Just say you don't know.

[JoeChalupa]

This thread cracks me up.

[Galileo]

Just say you don't know.

A clandestine group, often cloaked in mystery, made Zeitgeist. They have a secret handshake and are probably involved in some sort of conspiracy.

I still think you believe in the supernatural.

[ChumpDumper]

I think some dude made it in his mom's basement.

So do you have the number of viewers for this most watched movie in history?

[Galileo]

I think some dude made it in his mom's basement.

So do you have the number of viewers for this most watched movie in history?

google

[ChumpDumper]

googleHow many people have watched this movie?

[ChumpDumper]

a tad bit jealous that Zeitgeist is fast becoming the most watched movie of all time?How many people have watched it?

[Galileo]

How many people have watched it?

if you watch, the total amount will increase by one. You may have a zeitgeist experience.

:elephant

[Galileo]

How many people have watched it?

at least three zillion documented.

:bang

:ihit

:pctoss

[ChumpDumper]

That's not a real number.

How many people have watched it?

[Galileo]

That's not a real number.

How many people have watched it?

do you believe in the supernatural? Was the virgin Mary REALLY a virgin?

[grindmouse]

DarkReign and Extra Stout should have their own radio show very entertaining and knowledgeable.

[DarkReign]

DarkReign and Extra Stout should have their own radio show very entertaining and knowledgeable.

ES, yes. Me admitting I was blatantly wrong, not so much.

[Mavtek]

I would guess according to google stats it's been viewed around 250,000 times. On Google anyway. On bit torrent it's been downloaded roughly 180,000 times.

Huhm I would guess it's been downloaded to Ipod format around 40,000 times. So if I had to guess how many people have seen it I'd guess fewer than 1 million. I've seen it, it's ok, good stuff on Religion, that checks out. The 911 stuff is sketchy.

[BradLohaus]

I watched some of the movie before, skipping around for about 30 minutes total, but I went back and watched all of the last part that included the Fed. There’s one thing about the Fed that I guess is technically true, but it is usually stated in a very misleading way: the part about the Fed charging the government interest. About 95% of the interest that the Fed collects on its treasury securities is returned to the treasury. The rest is used to operate the Fed and to pay a dividend to the shareholders (the dividend is set at 6% of the value of each share of stock – which is set by law at $100 per share – and it is essentially nothing compared to the federal budget). So basically, the government pays the cost of operating the Federal Reserve. It should still be abolished for other reasons.

And this quote in the movie: "We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest." That wasn’t said by Paul Warburg, the architect of the Federal Reserve System; it was said by his son, James Warburg (his middle name was Paul – that’s probably the source of confusion since his father had been dead for nearly 20 years by 1950). Nevertheless, the quote itself is pretty frightening, considering he said it to the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. These people mean business, and much of the time they don’t even try to hide what that business is.

As for the 1929 stock market crash being an engineered event: I certainly wouldn’t put it past them. I know that FDR’s son-in-law claimed that it was in his book about FDR and his connection to the banks. And as for the other events that led to war being staged or allowed to happen: anything is possible when it comes to the government. If you haven’t read Operation Northwoods and the Cuban Operation Mongoose yet, you should. After reading them I stopped saying that the 9/11 inside job people are crazy. You’ve got people inside the Pentagon discussing the possibility of killing innocent people in a staged attack that will be blamed on Castro, which would then be used as an excuse to invade Cuba and take him out. What does it say about our government that this is even being discussed? What aren’t they capable of, if they think they can get away with it? But that isn’t proof, and if you are trying to prove these things beyond any reasonable doubt, then good luck.

I just wish that people who make movies or websites or whatever like Zeitgeist would crack open a textbook on money and banking before they talk about the Federal Reserve. And double check your quotes. Also, basing the first third of the film on wild conjecture probably wasn’t a good idea.

[ChumpDumper]

do you believe in the supernatural? Was the virgin Mary REALLY a virgin?Who made the video?

[Mavtek]

What's amazing about the film is how well it's done, it's overall an amazing film for a low budget free documentary. Even though there are inaccuracies I encourage everyone to investigate the subjects.

Yea Brad, the 1st part of the film while accurate tends to run on and is a lot of redundancy and conjecture. Although people with history bugs do find it somewhat interesting.

[Duncan]

BradLohaus sounds like a well educated individual.

[Homeland Security]

I would guess according to google stats it's been viewed around 250,000 times. On Google anyway. On bit torrent it's been downloaded roughly 180,000 times.

Huhm I would guess it's been downloaded to Ipod format around 40,000 times. So if I had to guess how many people have seen it I'd guess fewer than 1 million. I've seen it, it's ok, good stuff on Religion, that checks out. The 911 stuff is sketchy.
And we have a file for every person that has seen it.

[Galileo]

I would guess according to google stats it's been viewed around 250,000 times. On Google anyway. On bit torrent it's been downloaded roughly 180,000 times.

Huhm I would guess it's been downloaded to Ipod format around 40,000 times. So if I had to guess how many people have seen it I'd guess fewer than 1 million. I've seen it, it's ok, good stuff on Religion, that checks out. The 911 stuff is sketchy.

Zietgeist was averaging 40,000 downloads per day on just one google download, starting last June and into the fall. That rate has increased dramatically. We are talking over 20,000,000 views easily by now.

[Wild Cobra]

OK, I've made up my mind. I'm going to make myself a 'tin hat' against the 'tin [mad] hatters.'

Mine will not corrode my brain like theirs obviously do to them. Mine is to protect me from their venomous lies that are as corrosive as Hydrofluoric Acid. I'm making mine out of hastalloy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastalloy).

[Mavtek]

Wild Cobra it's easier just to close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and holler la la la la la la, "I can't hear you". I can't stand people who think they are putting on a tinfoil hat or some BS just because they watched a non mainstream film. Idiotic, hell can't you just watch it then make up your mind on whether or not it's believable? Are people this fearful of videos that may not fit the mold of what they have been indoctrinated throughout their lives? How sad..... Lets all go burn some books.

[Holt's Cat]

So riddle me this, who are the people behind the curtain? It seems like any wealthy or powerful individual who ever existed over the past few centuries in Western civilization is allegedly in on the game.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

What's amazing about the film is how well it's done, it's overall an amazing film for a low budget free documentary. Even though there are inaccuracies I encourage everyone to investigate the subjects.

Yea Brad, the 1st part of the film while accurate tends to run on and is a lot of redundancy and conjecture. Although people with history bugs do find it somewhat interesting.

Did you miss that whole part about it being entirely based on outright lies, distortions, and omissions?

[Mavtek]

Olddirt the 1st part of the film is accurate, regarding religion.

[Wild Cobra]

Olddirt the 1st part of the film is accurate, regarding religion.
I'd be surprised. I have studied religion, and the Bible is even so wrong with the way it's translated.

Before you tell me to watch it. I would if I had the time, and didn't have to watch it on a tiny window on a monitor. Care to send me the DVD? Besides, I simply have better things to do. I do like nitpicking such idiotic things. I have watched Loose Change, An Inconvienent Truth, and Fahrenheit 9/11. So easy to pick them apart piece by piece, I'm saddened there are so many people who are dumb enough to be a believer.

[Mavtek]

WC, there's a full-screen button down at the bottom on the right hand side. Oh and it's nothing like Loose Change or a shitty Michael Moore movie.

Or an Al Gore movie that I have not seen.

[Cartman]

WC, there's a full-screen button down at the bottom on the right hand side.

If you have to tell someone that, then they are to stupid to understand the movie in the first place.




Oh and it's nothing like Loose Change or a shitty Michael Moore movie.

If you don't like Michael Moore just say so. His movies have won many awards so don't make yourself look like some ignorant redneck by calling his films shitty, just say you don't like him or his films.




Or an Al Gore movie that I have not seen.

That makes allot of sense to criticize a movie you haven't seen.
But then again reading your last post its to be expected.

[Mavtek]

Cartman says I criticized Al Gore's movie by saying I haven't seen it...........

Think about that one Carty.... Really get those synapses popping!

[Wild Cobra]

Mavtek, do some of your own research before advocating such things. I have read enough to know it is bullshit.

Tell me if these summaries are right or wrong:



The first section is entitled “The Greatest Story Ever Told” and looks critically at Christian beliefs established in the Bible. It never attacks Christians themselves, but delivers a critique of the Bible as fiction over fact.


Fiction over fact? There is no evidence of that. The problem with the Bible is the 17th century translation which is totally wrong at times. I would say the Bible was translated as a political tool then. However, when you take the time to understand the original text... It cannot be proven wrong.

Jesus did exist. Their is ample evidence he did, he was not a myth. The bible is not the only references to a man called Jesus and some aspects of his life, and execution.

It is accepted that the God's did use different names in different regions. However, Jesus was not a God! He was not Horus.

Another misconception is that the Bible does not say their is only one God. At least when properly translated.



Arguments are presented that the United States was internationally warned of imposing attacks, that NORAD was purposely confused on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001 and that the World Trade Center buildings were destroyed demolition-style. This section also delivers arguments that some hijackers are still alive, the Bush administration covered up details in the 9/11 Commissions’ Report and that a plane never hit the Pentagon. Most of all it attempts to show Osama Bin Laden as nothing more than an enemy image created by the media and government to perpetuate fear so that financially profitable war can be generated.

OK, I can grant an intelligent person being wrong in theology. This is unacceptable. Another 9/11 conspiracy remake...

Give me a break. Stop beating that dead horse.



The third section is titled “Don’t Mind the Men behind the Curtain” and attempts to describe how the powerful bankers of the world have been conspiring for world domination and increased power. According to the documentary, the rich of society have been using their wealth to increase financial panic and foster a consolidation of independent competing banks.


That is possible. It wouldn't surprise me. However, with two starting false segments, how can I trust this is any more accurate?

I have better things to do than watch this bullshit.

Full article for the quotes:

'Zeitgeist' raises real questions (http://media.www.arbiteronline.com/media/storage/paper890/news/2007/10/15/Culture/zeitgeist.Raises.Real.Questions-3032256.shtml)

[rolled up $20]

http://btjunkie.org/torrent/Zeitgeist-DVDRip-XviD/4598c34878e6c31d29982a471a83903527be5504e9c2

[Tenacious D]

Thanks for the link.

[Extra Stout]

Olddirt the 1st part of the film is accurate, regarding religion.
If you mean "accurate" in the sense that the movie accurately outlines the parallels between Christianity and other religions, you are wrong. The movie does not reflect mainstream scholarship on the history of Christianity.

If you mean "accurate" in the sense that all religions are created to control the people, then that is false in general, given the vast number of small sparsely-followed religions which have nothing to do with the power structure of the elites, and is false specifically with regard to Christianity, which for its first three centuries was one of those sparsely-followed small religions. If you want to look into the relationship between Christianity and the workings of state, your search does not begin until the fourth century when the Roman Empire first legalized it, and eventually made it mandatory.

If you mean "accurate" in the sense that you don't believe in God, and that the film reinforces your unbelief, regardless of how badly it flubs the details, well then fine, but then the "accuracy" of the film does not extend past your own personal belief system and experience.

[ChumpDumper]

Any video that uses Loose Change as primary source material sucks.

[Pick of Destiny]

The truth is getting harder to swallow as it approaches.

[ChumpDumper]

What truth?

What are you guys really saying here?

[Tenacious D]

Get out of your trailer and make the two hour trip to town and rent the video.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/cock-job.gif

[ChumpDumper]

I already saw it.

Why can't you answer the question?

[Tree hugger]

How many trees died making this film?