|
ZShroom
Stranger


Registered: 07/08/07
Posts: 1,061
|
Zeitgeist....wanna try and poke holes?
#7710170 - 12/03/07 10:19 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
I thought this movie was informatitive and easy to understand. I mean I know there are alot of people out there that still dont wanna believe in "conspiracy" theorys, but i mean after watching this you really dont have a choice. And also it is not like this movie is just a bunch of ideas and thoughts...no it is a movie with ideas with facts to back them up, so like i said....go ahead and try. I was half tempted to put this in the P&S forum but i know they would flip out and write a bunch of crazy things saying how the movie is not good. Whatever just watch and respond....
--------------------
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Zeitgeist....wanna try and poke holes? [Re: ZShroom]
#7710198 - 12/03/07 10:29 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Since you are inviting us to "poke holes," can I assume that you are waiving the right to certain protections from criticism implicit in the forum rules?
I have to go somewhere right now, but I'll be back later to watch the video and critique it. Although I haven't seen it yet, I've seen the kind of this people have been spouting after seeing it, so I suspect I'll have quite a few holes to poke in the theory.
--------------------
|
ZShroom
Stranger


Registered: 07/08/07
Posts: 1,061
|
Re: Zeitgeist....wanna try and poke holes? [Re: Silversoul]
#7710261 - 12/03/07 10:52 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
OK well I look forward to what you have to say. I just watched it for the second time and i am very angry about what has happened so far and what WILL happen in the future if we don't do something about this. Doesn't really seem there is too much we can do now that this is so far along. What really makes these things work is people like you silversoul, I know you are just trying question what is real and not but if people like you keep trying to shoot down any idea of conspiracy it is simply feeding their fire and keeping us (citizens) down. Oh and i take that back if you agree with the movie, i can't see how you wouldn't.
--------------------
|
ZShroom
Stranger


Registered: 07/08/07
Posts: 1,061
|
Re: Zeitgeist....wanna try and poke holes? [Re: ZShroom]
#7710268 - 12/03/07 10:54 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
and yes fuck the rules, i wanna know what people think...i mean the movie is very one sided but i cant seem to think that any of it is not true. Government is not the answer, nor is religion......we need something new......really doubt we will have freedom ever though.
--------------------
|
AlteredAgain
Visual Alchemist



Registered: 04/27/06
Posts: 11,181
Loc: Solar Circuit
|
Re: Zeitgeist....wanna try and poke holes? [Re: ZShroom]
#7710327 - 12/03/07 11:12 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
the message of the movie is
organized religion and organized government
cannot be trusted, ever.
--------------------
|
Shroomism
Space Travellin



Registered: 02/13/00
Posts: 66,015
Loc: 9th Dimension
|
Re: Zeitgeist....wanna try and poke holes? [Re: AlteredAgain]
#7710395 - 12/03/07 11:32 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
This is a good movie. It doesn't claim to know all the answers but it does a very good job of poking fingers in the many holes of the current power structure.. which there are no end to.
--------------------
|
Middleman

Registered: 07/11/99
Posts: 8,399
|
Re: Zeitgeist....wanna try and poke holes? [Re: ZShroom]
#7710449 - 12/03/07 11:45 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I think there have been a few Zeitgeist bashing threads in S+P, maybe those in here will have wider minds...
I really enjoyed Zeitgeist, it's well put together and the soundtrack makes it more interesting than others like it. I swear there's subliminal messages that cause people to talk about it, I've never seen so much buzz.
Though the info at the beginning isn't 100% correct, the rest of it is, imo.
The Love > Fear bit at the end is a nice sentiment but doesn't really properly empower the viewer, like most New Age foo-foo.
The movie also doesn't give proper recognition to the pioneering researchers of this info except to some in the credits at the end.
It also quotes David Icke quoting Bill Hicks, it really annoyed me that Icke hijacked Hicks' bits without even mentioning him in his talks.
Boooooo Icke. 
But overall I'm happy to see this information finally hitting the mainstream, times they are a changin... 
Related interest Videos:
[url=1]End Game[/url]
[url=5]The Pharmacratic Inquisition[/url]
The Naked Truth
Seallion's Syncromystical Vids - Outstanding independent research, imo. You gotta be a little nuts to see the connections.
|
Jack Albertson
bismillah rahmani rahim



Registered: 04/14/06
Posts: 10,065
Loc: SOLARIS
|
Re: Zeitgeist....wanna try and poke holes? [Re: Middleman]
#7710637 - 12/03/07 12:18 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I bash this movie constantly and mind is infinitely wide. Ive said id once and i'll say it again. this movie is pretentious.
Edited by ts727 (12/03/07 12:18 PM)
|
Shroomism
Space Travellin



Registered: 02/13/00
Posts: 66,015
Loc: 9th Dimension
|
Re: Zeitgeist....wanna try and poke holes? [Re: Jack Albertson]
#7710685 - 12/03/07 12:24 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
It brings up a lot of good points though.
--------------------
|
Middleman

Registered: 07/11/99
Posts: 8,399
|
Re: Zeitgeist....wanna try and poke holes? [Re: Jack Albertson]
#7710724 - 12/03/07 12:29 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ts727 said: I bash this movie constantly and mind is infinitely wide. Ive said id once and i'll say it again. this movie is pretentious.
Pretentious? Come on, you can do better than that. Calling something pretentious is a shortcut to thinking.
|
Jack Albertson
bismillah rahmani rahim



Registered: 04/14/06
Posts: 10,065
Loc: SOLARIS
|
Re: Zeitgeist....wanna try and poke holes? [Re: Middleman]
#7710739 - 12/03/07 12:31 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
your point being? i just didnt want to waste time discussing ive talked about this movie enough. there's much better media out.
-------------------- Man is timid and apologetic; he is no longer upright; he dares not say "I think," "I am," but quotes some saint or sage. He is ashamed before the blade of grass or the blowing rose.Man postpones or remembers; he does not live in the present, but with reverted eye laments the past, or, heedless of the riches that surround him, stands on tiptoe to foresee the future. He cannot be happy and strong until he too lives with nature in the present, above time TRANSCEND
|
Middleman

Registered: 07/11/99
Posts: 8,399
|
Re: Zeitgeist....wanna try and poke holes? [Re: Jack Albertson]
#7710750 - 12/03/07 12:32 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Such as?
|
Jack Albertson
bismillah rahmani rahim



Registered: 04/14/06
Posts: 10,065
Loc: SOLARIS
|
Re: Zeitgeist....wanna try and poke holes? [Re: Middleman]
#7710759 - 12/03/07 12:34 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
although i dont agree with his religious ties anything alex jones puts out is gold.
-------------------- Man is timid and apologetic; he is no longer upright; he dares not say "I think," "I am," but quotes some saint or sage. He is ashamed before the blade of grass or the blowing rose.Man postpones or remembers; he does not live in the present, but with reverted eye laments the past, or, heedless of the riches that surround him, stands on tiptoe to foresee the future. He cannot be happy and strong until he too lives with nature in the present, above time TRANSCEND
|
Middleman

Registered: 07/11/99
Posts: 8,399
|
Re: Zeitgeist....wanna try and poke holes? [Re: Jack Albertson]
#7710886 - 12/03/07 12:57 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Right on, Alex Jones has balls of steel.
Have you seen his most recent flick, End Game (above)?
All I can say is Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuck...
|
Mastamike1118


Registered: 03/29/07
Posts: 2,010
|
Re: Zeitgeist....wanna try and poke holes? [Re: Middleman]
#7711222 - 12/03/07 02:25 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
the law is such bullshit i have no respect for the law or the powers of the law because the law refuses to respect me...
fucking shit what did u think of the jugo chaves part?
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Zeitgeist....wanna try and poke holes? [Re: ZShroom]
#7711242 - 12/03/07 02:32 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Ok, my main beef with the movie is Part I, and it insinuation that Jesus was a mythological construct based on Horus and astrology. Not that I discount the theory entirely, but they make a lot of the same baseless claims that I've seen so many others make.
"Horus" does not mean "sun" or "light." It means "high" or "distant," which reflects his nature as the sky(hence his representation as a hawk). Not merely a sun god, it was said that the sun was his right eye and the moon was his left. Thus, they misrepresent his conflict with Set. I can find no reference to him being born on December 25. As for being born of a virgin, well, kind of. Set had killed Osiris, but Isis(whose name was not Merri) used his phallus to impregnate herself. So it's more a matter of him being a product of necrophilia than of a virgin birth. I can find no reference to him being a teacher at age 12, being baptized, or having 12 disciples. I can find no reference to him being crucified or resurrected(his father Osiris was resurrected, but not crucified). The only real confirmed connections I can find between Jesus and Horus are that he was the "Son of God"(of course, as with any polytheistic system, several gods had children), and his mother Isis was called "Queen of Heaven."
On Krishna, I can find no reference to a star in the East or Devaki being a virgin. Nor is there any reference to him being resurrected.
Dionysus and Mithras are the two best cases they have, and even there I can't confirm all the claims made.
Another issue I have is where they talk about the "M" shape of the sign Virgo, thus explaining the names of other prophet's mothers starting with "M," including Maya, the mother of the Buddha. Does he realize that in India they used Vedic astrology rather than Western astrology? Does he further realize that they used the Sanskrit alphabet, rather than the English one? The letter "M" is irrelevant here.
Then he talks about "Bethlehem" referring to Virgo. DOES HE REALIZE THAT BETHLEHEM IS AN ACTUAL PLACE?! How about the fact that Jewish prophecy predicted that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem?
The point about December 25th is well-made. Of course, December 25th is not mentioned in the Bible, and it wasn't until about the 3rd or 4th century that Christians began to celebrate Christmas on that date, probably to fit in with the Romans celebrating Saturnalia, or Mithraism celebrating Mithras' birth. However, their point about the sun being over the Southern Cross is irrelevant, since the Southern Cross is not visible from the northern hemisphere.
Then they make the point about the timing of Easter celebrating the Spring Solstice, apparently oblivious to its connection to the Jewish holiday of Passover.
It also talks of Jesus' 12 disciples representing the 12 signs of the zodiac, without apparently considering that Jesus might have deliberately chosen 12 to correspond to the 12 tribes of Israel.
Also, insisting that the cross comes from the zodiac may have some merit, but he seems to ignore the fact that Romans did, in fact, crucify people quite readily. Also, the cross was not used in early Christian symbolism(it was originally seen as an embarrassment, until Christian theology focused more on his role as the "Lamb of God").
He says that the idea of "end of the world" is a misinterpreted astrological allegory. Yet almost every religion has some end times prophecy. Are we to believe that Christianity was meant to be unique by not having an end times prophecy?
Then he talks about Noah's ark being a plagiarism of the Epic of Gilgamesh. It is more likely that both stories were based on a real flood that occurred at one point, probably in what is now the Black Sea.
He then talks about parallels between Moses and Sargon of Akkad. Well, it turns out that there are a lot of missing pieces in the "Sargon legend," many of which it appears he is trying to fill in out of nowhere. All the story of Sargon actually says is that he was born of one father and raised by a king. The missing pieces in between are lost to history.
Then he talks about Moses as lawgiver being a plagiarism because so many other cultures have a similar figure. Gee, who would've thought that laws would be a universal phenomenon among civilized cultures? It then further insults my intelligence by saying that the ten commandments are taken from the Egyptian Book of the Dead, as if stealing, murder, and adultery were not universal taboos.
As for Egypt being the basis for the Judeo-Christian tradition, what culture do you think Moses led his people out of? OF COURSE Egyptian culture would have affected them.
As for Josephus' reference to Jesus being a forgery(ironic, since this documentary cites so many unsupported facts), that is still a matter of debate(link).
It should also be noted that no references to the Buddha were made in his lifetime, nor do such records exist for Alexander the Great(though he left behind an empire as evidence of having been there). These people were both royalty, while Jesus was a mere peasant. I should hardly think it a surprise that no historical references were made to him during his lifetime.
Then they talk about the political establishment of Rome making Jesus into a historical figure for political control. Excuse me, but weren't the Romans feeding Christians to the lions?! Does the name Nero ring a bell for anyone?
Part 1 badly misinterprets the common use and association of archetypes across different cultures, and makes numerous bogus claims about history and mythology. It also overemphasizes the connection between Christianity and other religions while ignoring more obvious connections to the Jewish tradition in which it is rooted.
I think I've spent enough time and space addressing the overwhelming amount of bullshit in part 1, so I don't feel the need to address the subject matter of parts 2 and 3, which have been covered in numerous other threads. Quite honestly, I expected this film to have a little more redeeming value than it did, but while a few of the points it brings up have some legitimacy, they can all be interpreted in other ways, and only by mixing these claims with tons of misinformation can they convincingly make the case that they do.
--------------------
|
Jack Albertson
bismillah rahmani rahim



Registered: 04/14/06
Posts: 10,065
Loc: SOLARIS
|
Re: Zeitgeist....wanna try and poke holes? [Re: Silversoul]
#7711349 - 12/03/07 02:55 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said: Ok, my main beef with the movie is Part I, and it insinuation that Jesus was a mythological construct based on Horus and astrology. Not that I discount the theory entirely, but they make a lot of the same baseless claims that I've seen so many others make.
"Horus" does not mean "sun" or "light." It means "high" or "distant," which reflects his nature as the sky(hence his representation as a hawk). Not merely a sun god, it was said that the sun was his right eye and the moon was his left. Thus, they misrepresent his conflict with Set. I can find no reference to him being born on December 25. As for being born of a virgin, well, kind of. Set had killed Osiris, but Isis(whose name was not Merri) used his phallus to impregnate herself. So it's more a matter of him being a product of necrophilia than of a virgin birth. I can find no reference to him being a teacher at age 12, being baptized, or having 12 disciples. I can find no reference to him being crucified or resurrected(his father Osiris was resurrected, but not crucified). The only real confirmed connections I can find between Jesus and Horus are that he was the "Son of God"(of course, as with any polytheistic system, several gods had children), and his mother Isis was called "Queen of Heaven."
On Krishna, I can find no reference to a star in the East or Devaki being a virgin. Nor is there any reference to him being resurrected.
Dionysus and Mithras are the two best cases they have, and even there I can't confirm all the claims made.
Another issue I have is where they talk about the "M" shape of the sign Virgo, thus explaining the names of other prophet's mothers starting with "M," including Maya, the mother of the Buddha. Does he realize that in India they used Vedic astrology rather than Western astrology? Does he further realize that they used the Sanskrit alphabet, rather than the English one? The letter "M" is irrelevant here.
Then he talks about "Bethlehem" referring to Virgo. DOES HE REALIZE THAT BETHLEHEM IS AN ACTUAL PLACE?! How about the fact that Jewish prophecy predicted that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem?
The point about December 25th is well-made. Of course, December 25th is not mentioned in the Bible, and it wasn't until about the 3rd or 4th century that Christians began to celebrate Christmas on that date, probably to fit in with the Romans celebrating Saturnalia, or Mithraism celebrating Mithras' birth. However, their point about the sun being over the Southern Cross is irrelevant, since the Southern Cross is not visible from the northern hemisphere.
Then they make the point about the timing of Easter celebrating the Spring Solstice, apparently oblivious to its connection to the Jewish holiday of Passover.
It also talks of Jesus' 12 disciples representing the 12 signs of the zodiac, without apparently considering that Jesus might have deliberately chosen 12 to correspond to the 12 tribes of Israel.
Also, insisting that the cross comes from the zodiac may have some merit, but he seems to ignore the fact that Romans did, in fact, crucify people quite readily. Also, the cross was not used in early Christian symbolism(it was originally seen as an embarrassment, until Christian theology focused more on his role as the "Lamb of God").
He says that the idea of "end of the world" is a misinterpreted astrological allegory. Yet almost every religion has some end times prophecy. Are we to believe that Christianity was meant to be unique by not having an end times prophecy?
Then he talks about Noah's ark being a plagiarism of the Epic of Gilgamesh. It is more likely that both stories were based on a real flood that occurred at one point, probably in what is now the Black Sea.
He then talks about parallels between Moses and Sargon of Akkad. Well, it turns out that there are a lot of missing pieces in the "Sargon legend," many of which it appears he is trying to fill in out of nowhere. All the story of Sargon actually says is that he was born of one father and raised by a king. The missing pieces in between are lost to history.
Then he talks about Moses as lawgiver being a plagiarism because so many other cultures have a similar figure. Gee, who would've thought that laws would be a universal phenomenon among civilized cultures? It then further insults my intelligence by saying that the ten commandments are taken from the Egyptian Book of the Dead, as if stealing, murder, and adultery were not universal taboos.
As for Egypt being the basis for the Judeo-Christian tradition, what culture do you think Moses led his people out of? OF COURSE Egyptian culture would have affected them.
As for Josephus' reference to Jesus being a forgery(ironic, since this documentary cites so many unsupported facts), that is still a matter of debate(link).
It should also be noted that no references to the Buddha were made in his lifetime, nor do such records exist for Alexander the Great(though he left behind an empire as evidence of having been there). These people were both royalty, while Jesus was a mere peasant. I should hardly think it a surprise that no historical references were made to him during his lifetime.
Then they talk about the political establishment of Rome making Jesus into a historical figure for political control. Excuse me, but weren't the Romans feeding Christians to the lions?! Does the name Nero ring a bell for anyone?
Part 1 badly misinterprets the common use and association of archetypes across different cultures, and makes numerous bogus claims about history and mythology. It also overemphasizes the connection between Christianity and other religions while ignoring more obvious connections to the Jewish tradition in which it is rooted.
I think I've spent enough time and space addressing the overwhelming amount of bullshit in part 1, so I don't feel the need to address the subject matter of parts 2 and 3, which have been covered in numerous other threads. Quite honestly, I expected this film to have a little more redeeming value than it did, but while a few of the points it brings up have some legitimacy, they can all be interpreted in other ways, and only by mixing these claims with tons of misinformation can they convincingly make the case that they do.
Didnt read the whole thing but that's my problem with it too.
-------------------- Man is timid and apologetic; he is no longer upright; he dares not say "I think," "I am," but quotes some saint or sage. He is ashamed before the blade of grass or the blowing rose.Man postpones or remembers; he does not live in the present, but with reverted eye laments the past, or, heedless of the riches that surround him, stands on tiptoe to foresee the future. He cannot be happy and strong until he too lives with nature in the present, above time TRANSCEND
|
Middleman

Registered: 07/11/99
Posts: 8,399
|
Re: Zeitgeist....wanna try and poke holes? [Re: Silversoul]
#7711701 - 12/03/07 04:34 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said: Ok, my main beef with the movie is Part I, and it insinuation that Jesus was a mythological construct based on Horus and astrology. Not that I discount the theory entirely, but they make a lot of the same baseless claims that I've seen so many others make.
"Horus" does not mean "sun" or "light." It means "high" or "distant," which reflects his nature as the sky(hence his representation as a hawk). Not merely a sun god, it was said that the sun was his right eye and the moon was his left. Thus, they misrepresent his conflict with Set. I can find no reference to him being born on December 25. As for being born of a virgin, well, kind of. Set had killed Osiris, but Isis(whose name was not Merri) used his phallus to impregnate herself. So it's more a matter of him being a product of necrophilia than of a virgin birth. I can find no reference to him being a teacher at age 12, being baptized, or having 12 disciples. I can find no reference to him being crucified or resurrected(his father Osiris was resurrected, but not crucified). The only real confirmed connections I can find between Jesus and Horus are that he was the "Son of God"(of course, as with any polytheistic system, several gods had children), and his mother Isis was called "Queen of Heaven."
On Krishna, I can find no reference to a star in the East or Devaki being a virgin. Nor is there any reference to him being resurrected.
Dionysus and Mithras are the two best cases they have, and even there I can't confirm all the claims made.
Another issue I have is where they talk about the "M" shape of the sign Virgo, thus explaining the names of other prophet's mothers starting with "M," including Maya, the mother of the Buddha. Does he realize that in India they used Vedic astrology rather than Western astrology? Does he further realize that they used the Sanskrit alphabet, rather than the English one? The letter "M" is irrelevant here.
Then he talks about "Bethlehem" referring to Virgo. DOES HE REALIZE THAT BETHLEHEM IS AN ACTUAL PLACE?! How about the fact that Jewish prophecy predicted that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem?
The point about December 25th is well-made. Of course, December 25th is not mentioned in the Bible, and it wasn't until about the 3rd or 4th century that Christians began to celebrate Christmas on that date, probably to fit in with the Romans celebrating Saturnalia, or Mithraism celebrating Mithras' birth. However, their point about the sun being over the Southern Cross is irrelevant, since the Southern Cross is not visible from the northern hemisphere.
Then they make the point about the timing of Easter celebrating the Spring Solstice, apparently oblivious to its connection to the Jewish holiday of Passover.
It also talks of Jesus' 12 disciples representing the 12 signs of the zodiac, without apparently considering that Jesus might have deliberately chosen 12 to correspond to the 12 tribes of Israel.
Also, insisting that the cross comes from the zodiac may have some merit, but he seems to ignore the fact that Romans did, in fact, crucify people quite readily. Also, the cross was not used in early Christian symbolism(it was originally seen as an embarrassment, until Christian theology focused more on his role as the "Lamb of God").
He says that the idea of "end of the world" is a misinterpreted astrological allegory. Yet almost every religion has some end times prophecy. Are we to believe that Christianity was meant to be unique by not having an end times prophecy?
Then he talks about Noah's ark being a plagiarism of the Epic of Gilgamesh. It is more likely that both stories were based on a real flood that occurred at one point, probably in what is now the Black Sea.
He then talks about parallels between Moses and Sargon of Akkad. Well, it turns out that there are a lot of missing pieces in the "Sargon legend," many of which it appears he is trying to fill in out of nowhere. All the story of Sargon actually says is that he was born of one father and raised by a king. The missing pieces in between are lost to history.
Then he talks about Moses as lawgiver being a plagiarism because so many other cultures have a similar figure. Gee, who would've thought that laws would be a universal phenomenon among civilized cultures? It then further insults my intelligence by saying that the ten commandments are taken from the Egyptian Book of the Dead, as if stealing, murder, and adultery were not universal taboos.
As for Egypt being the basis for the Judeo-Christian tradition, what culture do you think Moses led his people out of? OF COURSE Egyptian culture would have affected them.
As for Josephus' reference to Jesus being a forgery(ironic, since this documentary cites so many unsupported facts), that is still a matter of debate(link).
It should also be noted that no references to the Buddha were made in his lifetime, nor do such records exist for Alexander the Great(though he left behind an empire as evidence of having been there). These people were both royalty, while Jesus was a mere peasant. I should hardly think it a surprise that no historical references were made to him during his lifetime.
Then they talk about the political establishment of Rome making Jesus into a historical figure for political control. Excuse me, but weren't the Romans feeding Christians to the lions?! Does the name Nero ring a bell for anyone?
Part 1 badly misinterprets the common use and association of archetypes across different cultures, and makes numerous bogus claims about history and mythology. It also overemphasizes the connection between Christianity and other religions while ignoring more obvious connections to the Jewish tradition in which it is rooted.
I think I've spent enough time and space addressing the overwhelming amount of bullshit in part 1, so I don't feel the need to address the subject matter of parts 2 and 3, which have been covered in numerous other threads. Quite honestly, I expected this film to have a little more redeeming value than it did, but while a few of the points it brings up have some legitimacy, they can all be interpreted in other ways, and only by mixing these claims with tons of misinformation can they convincingly make the case that they do.
I'd sit and poke holes in your holes but I'm too tired.
The point is that all religions (even Taoism and Buddhism) are integrally linked with, if not based upon, Astronomy. I suspect that Tutankhaten aka Tutankhamun was the orginal sacrificial Sun king and "Annointed One".
|
Le_Canard
The Duk Abides


Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 94,392
Loc: Earthfarm 1
|
Re: Zeitgeist....wanna try and poke holes? [Re: Jack Albertson]
#7711775 - 12/03/07 04:46 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ts727 said:
Quote:
Silversoul said: Ok, my main beef with the movie is Part I, and it insinuation that Jesus was a mythological construct based on Horus and astrology. Not that I discount the theory entirely, but they make a lot of the same baseless claims that I've seen so many others make.
"Horus" does not mean "sun" or "light." It means "high" or "distant," which reflects his nature as the sky(hence his representation as a hawk). Not merely a sun god, it was said that the sun was his right eye and the moon was his left. Thus, they misrepresent his conflict with Set. I can find no reference to him being born on December 25. As for being born of a virgin, well, kind of. Set had killed Osiris, but Isis(whose name was not Merri) used his phallus to impregnate herself. So it's more a matter of him being a product of necrophilia than of a virgin birth. I can find no reference to him being a teacher at age 12, being baptized, or having 12 disciples. I can find no reference to him being crucified or resurrected(his father Osiris was resurrected, but not crucified). The only real confirmed connections I can find between Jesus and Horus are that he was the "Son of God"(of course, as with any polytheistic system, several gods had children), and his mother Isis was called "Queen of Heaven."
On Krishna, I can find no reference to a star in the East or Devaki being a virgin. Nor is there any reference to him being resurrected.
Dionysus and Mithras are the two best cases they have, and even there I can't confirm all the claims made.
Another issue I have is where they talk about the "M" shape of the sign Virgo, thus explaining the names of other prophet's mothers starting with "M," including Maya, the mother of the Buddha. Does he realize that in India they used Vedic astrology rather than Western astrology? Does he further realize that they used the Sanskrit alphabet, rather than the English one? The letter "M" is irrelevant here.
Then he talks about "Bethlehem" referring to Virgo. DOES HE REALIZE THAT BETHLEHEM IS AN ACTUAL PLACE?! How about the fact that Jewish prophecy predicted that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem?
The point about December 25th is well-made. Of course, December 25th is not mentioned in the Bible, and it wasn't until about the 3rd or 4th century that Christians began to celebrate Christmas on that date, probably to fit in with the Romans celebrating Saturnalia, or Mithraism celebrating Mithras' birth. However, their point about the sun being over the Southern Cross is irrelevant, since the Southern Cross is not visible from the northern hemisphere.
Then they make the point about the timing of Easter celebrating the Spring Solstice, apparently oblivious to its connection to the Jewish holiday of Passover.
It also talks of Jesus' 12 disciples representing the 12 signs of the zodiac, without apparently considering that Jesus might have deliberately chosen 12 to correspond to the 12 tribes of Israel.
Also, insisting that the cross comes from the zodiac may have some merit, but he seems to ignore the fact that Romans did, in fact, crucify people quite readily. Also, the cross was not used in early Christian symbolism(it was originally seen as an embarrassment, until Christian theology focused more on his role as the "Lamb of God").
He says that the idea of "end of the world" is a misinterpreted astrological allegory. Yet almost every religion has some end times prophecy. Are we to believe that Christianity was meant to be unique by not having an end times prophecy?
Then he talks about Noah's ark being a plagiarism of the Epic of Gilgamesh. It is more likely that both stories were based on a real flood that occurred at one point, probably in what is now the Black Sea.
He then talks about parallels between Moses and Sargon of Akkad. Well, it turns out that there are a lot of missing pieces in the "Sargon legend," many of which it appears he is trying to fill in out of nowhere. All the story of Sargon actually says is that he was born of one father and raised by a king. The missing pieces in between are lost to history.
Then he talks about Moses as lawgiver being a plagiarism because so many other cultures have a similar figure. Gee, who would've thought that laws would be a universal phenomenon among civilized cultures? It then further insults my intelligence by saying that the ten commandments are taken from the Egyptian Book of the Dead, as if stealing, murder, and adultery were not universal taboos.
As for Egypt being the basis for the Judeo-Christian tradition, what culture do you think Moses led his people out of? OF COURSE Egyptian culture would have affected them.
As for Josephus' reference to Jesus being a forgery(ironic, since this documentary cites so many unsupported facts), that is still a matter of debate(link).
It should also be noted that no references to the Buddha were made in his lifetime, nor do such records exist for Alexander the Great(though he left behind an empire as evidence of having been there). These people were both royalty, while Jesus was a mere peasant. I should hardly think it a surprise that no historical references were made to him during his lifetime.
Then they talk about the political establishment of Rome making Jesus into a historical figure for political control. Excuse me, but weren't the Romans feeding Christians to the lions?! Does the name Nero ring a bell for anyone?
Part 1 badly misinterprets the common use and association of archetypes across different cultures, and makes numerous bogus claims about history and mythology. It also overemphasizes the connection between Christianity and other religions while ignoring more obvious connections to the Jewish tradition in which it is rooted.
I think I've spent enough time and space addressing the overwhelming amount of bullshit in part 1, so I don't feel the need to address the subject matter of parts 2 and 3, which have been covered in numerous other threads. Quite honestly, I expected this film to have a little more redeeming value than it did, but while a few of the points it brings up have some legitimacy, they can all be interpreted in other ways, and only by mixing these claims with tons of misinformation can they convincingly make the case that they do.
Didnt read the whole thing but that's my problem with it too.
Sounds like some holes big enough to drive a truck through.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Zeitgeist....wanna try and poke holes? [Re: Middleman]
#7711831 - 12/03/07 04:53 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The point is that all religions (even Taoism and Buddhism) are integrally linked with, if not based upon, Astronomy.
I'm not denying that there's a connection. But correlation does not equal causation. Astrology ascribes archetypes to the stars and planets, while religion personifies archetypes as deities. But the common link here is archetypes. They did not originate with the stars, but were ascribed to them just as they were ascribed to various deities.
Quote:
I suspect that Tutankhaten aka Tutankhamun was the orginal sacrificial Sun king and "Annointed One".
And do you argue, based on that fact, that he was a mythological construct? Cuz I heard they found some tomb where he was buried.
--------------------
|
|