Zeitgeist part I - "The Greatest Story Ever Told" (Christianity,et al)

[furyshade]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i think the reason the revelations prophecies are so "chilling" is because history repeats itself, whether it be the roman occupation of the jerusalem, Nero's oppressive reign, the final battle at armageddon (a historic site in israel which has held more recorded battles than any other place in the ancient world), all of it has already happened. the rest of it has logical, historical explanations but they aren't coming to mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a lot of Christians that believe that most of Revelation already occurred with respect to the reign of Nero. They (generally) believe that Christ is yet to come.

These are called partial preterists. Full preterists (or just preterists) believe that Christ has already returned. I have explored both and remain undecided due to the complexity of overlaying the text with history.

[/ QUOTE ]


the reason that they overlay so much is that the bible is a moral book, not a historical one. i am an atheist, i have read some of the bible and i agree it is a great moral book. the stories are well written, cover moral dilemmas that survive the ages, but are not historic. the reason these "prophecies" seem to have already happened but are also yet to happen is because human nature has us repeat these same situations covered in many religious texts.

[Ajahn]

[ QUOTE ]
I find it nearly impossible to believe that the producer believes in this vast conspiracy while, at the same time believing that Christianity cannot possibly be true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Christianity is a mythology; it's a set of symbols. Symbols can only be true in a metaphorical sense. Symbols cannot be true in a factual sense; it is not their purpose. The Bible is not a science book. It does not try to describe reality and its workings.

Second point: you call it a conspiracy, however you should realize that these things do not need to be conspired. They can also evolve. It's usually the people who are involved in them who are the most clueless about what's going on.


[ QUOTE ]
If you have a religion that lots of people believe, why would you purposefully fulfill the prophecies in the book and make yourself out to be in league with the Satan that you have everybody believing in?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you be more specific?

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i think the reason the revelations prophecies are so "chilling" is because history repeats itself, whether it be the roman occupation of the jerusalem, Nero's oppressive reign, the final battle at armageddon (a historic site in israel which has held more recorded battles than any other place in the ancient world), all of it has already happened. the rest of it has logical, historical explanations but they aren't coming to mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a lot of Christians that believe that most of Revelation already occurred with respect to the reign of Nero. They (generally) believe that Christ is yet to come.

These are called partial preterists. Full preterists (or just preterists) believe that Christ has already returned. I have explored both and remain undecided due to the complexity of overlaying the text with history.

[/ QUOTE ]


the reason that they overlay so much is that the bible is a moral book, not a historical one. i am an atheist, i have read some of the bible and i agree it is a great moral book. the stories are well written, cover moral dilemmas that survive the ages, but are not historic. the reason these "prophecies" seem to have already happened but are also yet to happen is because human nature has us repeat these same situations covered in many religious texts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree with you. I would point out, however, that the same depth of knowledge and understanding of human nature that make Biblical prophecies inevitable is evidence itself that the Bible is divinely inspired. In other words, it's not just the prophecies themselves, but the inevitability and universality of them (when you think of them being written in a localized vacuum over 2,000 years ago) that makes them more likely to be divinely-inspired than not.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I find it nearly impossible to believe that the producer believes in this vast conspiracy while, at the same time believing that Christianity cannot possibly be true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Christianity is a mythology; it's a set of symbols. Symbols can only be true in a metaphorical sense. Symbols cannot be true in a factual sense; it is not their purpose. The Bible is not a science book. It does not try to describe reality and its workings.

Second point: you call it a conspiracy, however you should realize that these things do not need to be conspired. They can also evolve. It's usually the people who are involved in them who are the most clueless about what's going on.


[ QUOTE ]
If you have a religion that lots of people believe, why would you purposefully fulfill the prophecies in the book and make yourself out to be in league with the Satan that you have everybody believing in?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you be more specific?

[/ QUOTE ]

Zeitgeist's big claim on Christianity is that it is a control structure. Why, then, would the controllers destroy their mythological control structure as Zeitgeist seems to implicate. If the beginning and the end of the film are more or less accurate, why would the controllers destroy there own myth?

It certainly can't be out of their kindness and desire to give up their controlling myth because a lot of people will die fighting against the one-world government, the chip, and other such "prophecies" In other words, they would be choosing a path that would:

1) Result in a lot of deaths caused by fervant the fervant religious belief that one-world government, chip implants, etc. are Satanic. People fighting the government and the rich will think they are doing God's work and fighting Satan.
2) Prove that Christianity is a myth (because all of the prophecies get fulfilled, more or less, and Christ does not return)
3) Make the elites look as if, (in the near term, that is, until the "myth" is busted), they are truly evil and make them targets of radical extremists.

This is a great way to turn your societal control structure into your worst enemy.

That is why it defies even atheistic logic that the first part and the last part could be reasonably true.

[Ajahn]

It's funny how this movie is being censored from wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...eist_the_Movie


It's there in other languages yet for the big English public, too many people are trying to keep it off.

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist_(film)

http://nn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist,_the_movie


Obviously this can only last so long. The movie has like 5 million views now.

[Allinlife]

one of my friend sent me the link to this video and I was checking this thread out.

the cliff notes of huge debate on wiki is basically

Keep: lots of people have seen it, so let's "discuss" it (likely have a summary of movie, and have a huge criticisms page)

delete: it's got no independent sourcing

From what I've seen people no one from "keep" side has yet to counterargue people from "delete" side by providing such source.

I personally think the article should get started, with a warning saying that it's still under a huge debate and have another big criticisms page.

[Mr_Pathetic]

When I watched this film I couldn't help but notice how much it mirrored some of Alex Jones' stuff. You can even hear his voice in parts of the movie. If you are not familiar with Alex Jones he is a conspiracy nut who has been pushing this same info for years. I first watched his 9/11 the road to tyranny film about 5 years ago. Most of zietgiest sans the religion stuff is straight from Alex Jones and http://www.infowars.com/ I even seen the Loose Change video linked there.

As someone who minored in history it would not shock me if our government was involved in 9/11 or knew about it and let it happen for various reasons. We let so much happen in the past to go to war this would not be any different. About every war we let something happen to get the war started or created the incident ourself so why should this be any different?

But as someone with a graduate level education it is extremely hard for me to believe anything in a movie I cannot research myself or put together logically. As some have mentioned in this thread the zeitgeist movie doesn't even tie itself together. It bashes Christianity and then uses all its prophecies Alex Jones style. The lack of respected documentation, clarification, and closure in the film shows a total lack of planning. It is like they took all the Alex Jones stuff and slapped a Christianity bashing on the front of it.

Now with respect the the religious part of the movie, Thomas Paine has wrote something similar to it in Age of Reason. A quote from the Age of Reason wiki page “the Christian theory is little else than the idolatry of the ancient Mythologists, accommodated to the purposes of power and revenue"”[23] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age..._and_the_state
There is plenty in his works on religion and it has been awhile since I read it but I think everyone who watched zeitgeist should go read it including myself.

You may also want to read Paine's Origins of Freemasonry here
http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/history/paine_t.html

On a side note, if you want to watch a decent documentary on the Iraq War with real sources like Armitage and others who served in the government then try "No End in Sight." Several military and political figures in that film.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
one of my friend sent me the link to this video and I was checking this thread out.

the cliff notes of huge debate on wiki is basically

Keep: lots of people have seen it, so let's "discuss" it (likely have a summary of movie, and have a huge criticisms page)

delete: it's got no independent sourcing

From what I've seen people no one from "keep" side has yet to counterargue people from "delete" side by providing such source.

I personally think the article should get started, with a warning saying that it's still under a huge debate and have another big criticisms page.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't know exactly what 'independent sourcing' means, but I say what does 'it' matter? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which has the purpose of documenting knowledge. Zeitgeist exists so why would it not be allowed?

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
It's funny how this movie is being censored from wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...eist_the_Movie


It's there in other languages yet for the big English public, too many people are trying to keep it off.

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist_(film)

http://nn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist,_the_movie


Obviously this can only last so long. The movie has like 5 million views now.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not being censored, it's being removed in accord with wikipedia notability guidelines for videos.

The movie is some worthless crap put together by someone who doesn't care for facts or references. Most of his claims have no basis in fact. There are no third party sources that make the movie notable. Just because something has received a medium amount of views on the internet doesn't make it notable for an encyclopedia entry.

[madnak]

Internet phenomena should certainly be documented in Wikipedia. The question of whether Zeitgeist is credible has no more relevance than the question of whether William Hung (or even Britney Spears) can sing.