So arguing about the actual evidence is useless? The movie makes certain claims based on evidence which is false. Pointing that how is hardly useless.



If we set aside for the moment that all thing could not be equal, as the Son of God will not come in this fashion a second time, why wouldn't we, particularly if he conquered death as Jesus did?




There is a huge problem with this last argument, in that if this person really was the Son of God, he would not allow this to happen if he did not want it to. While Jesus was arrested, he made if very clear that he was allowing this. Also there is the problem that unless a person is a danger to others, it is very difficult to get them committed.

BTW, based on our knowledge of Koine Greek (the Greek of the 1st century) hey-zeus probably is much closer to the original pronunciation.

Elgin

This is the US - we are used to accepting patently incorrect "Facts". For instance, some of the "Facts" we now accept :
1. bush won the 2000 elections
2. Bush never said that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
3. Bush never tried to link 9/11 to Saddam Hussein
4. Bush has never made a single mistake in his life

A few more "Facts" like this shouldn't be that hard to swallow....

what evidence have you presented?

the first three paragraphs are a waste of time where the author tries to prove the "dishonesty" of the movie by the the sole example demonstrated in the differences of the symbolism between a man carrying a pitcher of water and the symbolism of aquarius where the pitcher is being poured out-- in the opinion of the author the the deceit lies in the movies implication that the man holding the water is a symbolism of aquarius yet he is not pouring out the water henceforth they are deceiving you--
then the next three paragraphs are wasted by the author blowing steam about how the movie is nitpicking because they chose not to use the book in the bible whose author wouldnt even pen their name on-- pffft-- and some how ignoring this worthless embarassment of the bible is nitpicking
the last two paragraphs are wasted trying to defend the originality of christianity and debunk the claim that all religion stems from astrotheology-- the first paragraph is begun admitting parrallels exist and ends with implication that it is what is ignored that somehow bunks everything and then gives two examples--
now imo half of the examples given are bogus as it is clear as day that --35) "i have not cursed the king" could easily be the same as the comandment "do not use the lords name in vain" so even the conclusion crumbles upon minor scrutiny

LEARN THE TRUTH ABOUT ORGANIZED RELIGION,9/11 AND THE BANKING CARTEL:WATCH "ZEITGEIST"!!

The evidence cited in my review, and in my notes here, most of which you have simply ignored.

Elgin

You seem to have a problem with reading, for as I clearly said concerning the movie’s dishonest, "While I agree this is revealing, what it reveals is the dishonesty of the movie. While Luke 22:10 is accurately quoted, the disciple’s question is not. "
After detailing how the movie lies about the disciples question and thus meaning of Jesus' answer, I then go on to talk about the symbolism by saying "Even if this [i.e., the movie dishonest] was not a problem, the symbolism is wrong" So your claim is as false and distorted as the movie.


Perhaps you missed it (or just choose to ignore it) but as examples of passages on the end times, I cited Matthew 24 which is from the very same book cited by the movie, and 2 Thessalonians which Paul did put his name to. The simple fact is that the movie's claim that the Great Commission in Matthew 28 is the "main source" of our knowledge of the end times is false. As for Revelation, you may consider it a worthless embarrassment, but that does not change the fact that it has been an accepted part of the Christian canon for nearly 2000 years and is a key part of the Christian understanding of the end times. That the movie has to avoid this book, and other passages on the end times, and then try to falsely claim that a verse whose main focus is not even the end times is the “main source” simply show the dishonesty of the movie and how weak their claims actually are. If there really was the link between the Christian view of the end times and Astrological ages that the movie claims they would not have to stoop to such tactics to try and make their claims.


This is a classic example of the fallacy of equivocation, which is using the same word with different meanings. Lord in relation to a King, is not the same as Lord in the commandment. In fact, the actual command in Exodus 20:7 “You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God” where LORD is the Yahweh, the name of God. But then like the movie, you take meaningless parallels and given them meaning, and when you can’t find a parallel you rearrange, or reinterpret the evidence so as to make one. This is exactly why such parallel based arguments are so worthless.

Elgin

Despite the sarcasm in the answer, I will try to give it a serious response. If you compare likes (the only legitimate comparison), the answer would be no, there never has been a greater bringer of peace, love and understanding, but then about the only other institution that would be large enough and encompassing enough to correspond to organized religion would be government, whose record is far, far worse than religion. In fact much of the evil done by organized religion has occurred when religion has tried to function as a government, such as the European Christian Church in Middle Ages, or more recently radical Islam in Iran and Afghanistan. In addition despite its ultimate failure, the Christian Church in the Middle Ages did at least try to limit with some success, the wars/conflicts between European rulers and to limit the impact of war on civilians with acts such as the Peace of God and the Truce of God. The ultimate decline of the Church’s power and thus this function, did not bring on period of greater peace, but of greater conflict and deaths, as rules were free to peruse their aims without the restrictions placed on them by the Church. So organized religion has nowhere near a clean and pure record, but neither is it the vastly negative record many critics like to portray. As with many things, reality is more mixed and complex.

Elgin

I have posted the last part of my three part review of the movie. Again an MP3 is also available. Let me know if you have any questions or comments.

Elgin

not even worth it-- never in any parts did you offer evidence to support your claims but instead rely on the years of indoctorination and repition to hammer home your baseless arguments

Uhh, okay. I wasn't really looking for one, but if you feel obligated to defend something.



Well, that's sort of true. Religion per se creates an "us versus them" scenario of Believers and non-believers, though.
Human nature being what it is tends to vilify the Other and religion is the perfect excuse to justify and ennoble the prejudices of the Believers. Look at the division between the Sunnis and the Shiites in
Iraq. They don't need the government to blow each other up; nor did the Protestants and Catholics in 17th Century Europe.

I also think you should brush up on your history. The Christian church was only too willing to stir up war when it wanted too -- the Crusades were fought to keep Christians from killing each other or to make the
Chruch money. And it didn't give two figs when thousands of children died in the Children's Crusade. The Pope was constantly playing princes off each other to make money and consolidate temporal power; I doubt he was thinking
much of Wulfric the peasant's farm.

--Jaylemurph

Double agents. there is a new phase of efforts being played out to discredit conspiracies. Look at the movie from that perspective, in fact, look at all main stream conspiracy researchers and see into where they are really coming from. Missinformation had a directive to inform those who know a little, confuse those who are too scared to know and confirm debunker ridicule. Complex pro+con advertising is classic propaganda. But humanity grows wise of their tricks. That is the secret.

Horus Krst, Christ, Kristna. The problem is, early history is now mythology, we rely only on fractured accounts of history which are easily dispelled as nonsense, though a part of us know they are facts or not, our now rapidly expanding subconscious due to the increasing energies effecting all our planets and sol..

Zeitgeist is Zionist disinformation it seems to me! Check out http://www.iamthewitness.com/ The very fact that people just accept the information in this presented as real is just insulting to many of the people around the world who KNOW the bible and other religious and historical texts of old. The video even states that it is meant for people to look at the world more critically. The fact that mnay people watch this video and instantly accept it as truth just PROVES the lack of critical thinking that the video is supposed to promote. Many very qualified people can easily debunk the stories that supposed links that are made between christianity and paganism and astrology. For example - Horus did NOT have 12 disciples - these were the 12 signs of the zodiac that became associated with Horus, the SKY god. They were NOT real, whereas the disciples were. For a start, it does NOT even mention in the bible any date for the birth of christ. It also does not even mention '3 kings'. The fact that there are twelve signs of the zodiac (twelve months) as compared to Jesus' twelve apostles is an insignificant coincidence.
These are just SOME of many, many facts which shows that this video is disinfo bullcrap. Some things staed in the video are just blatant lies and misinterpretations. i'll demostrated here. These are all true facts:
Certain coincidences between Jesus and other figures can only be expected due to sheer probability. As a modern example, let's look at some of
the coincidences between Kennedy and Lincoln as taken from here:
Lincoln was elected to congress in 1846. Kennedy was elected to congress 1946 (Whereas Kennedy had instant success in legislative and
executive politics, Lincoln suffered many defeats).
Lincoln was elected president in 1860. Kennedy was elected president in 1960. (Considering presidential elections were held every four
years, this only brings the odds to 1 in 20).
The names Lincoln and Kennedy both contain seven letters (Until we consider their first names which destroys this parallel).
Both were presidents during times of major changes in civil rights (So were their successors and several other presidents).
Both presidents were killed by an assassin's bullet on a Friday (This holds only a one is seven chance).
Both assassins were known by three names consisting of 15 letters (Each man was not always referred to by three names. This mainly
surfaced after they gained notoriety following the assassinations).
Both assassins were killed before their trials (Booth was killed when captured. Oswald was killed days after his arrest).
Both men were succeeded by men with the surname of Johnson (Considering the popularity of the surname Johnson among white males, it
would be no more of a coincidence by comparing two Muslim men who share the name Mohammed.)

These coincidences may seem startling at first but really aren't that impressive once dissected. But in 2000 years, will future civilizations look back
on the "ancient Americans" and accuse Kennedy of being a figment of our imaginations? Will it seem we were so intrigued with Abraham Lincoln
that we invented a character to mirror a great American hero? The intelligent mind who is willing to do the research and look for the truth behind
such propaganda can easily find it.

Before ANYONE accuses me of being a disinformation agent, let me just say I am not a debunker of conspiracy theories. I am a debunker of false or misleading conspiracy theories. http://thedevineevidence.com/jesus_similarities.html - this is just one of many sites which can show you how Zeitgeist the movie is complete misinformation. This video is supposed to promote critical thinking, but the fact that so many of you won't even consider that it could be fabricated and false is just totally proves your lack of independent critical thinking.
I also understand that the Federal Reserve is bad. I understand that it seems that 9/11 was an inside job. However, this video takes you no closer to finding who the real culprits are behind such atrocities. I encourage you once again easy to see that the media and the US and UK governments are now heavily influenced and dominated by Zionists and the state of Israel. Most of the important bankers are Zionists. If you think about this it is easy to understand why Zionists would want to carry out 9.11, and how they could do it if they control the media. How could such an atrocity be carried out like the blowing up of the trade centers without complete control over most of the media. Think about it. You think these people are not intelligent enough to come up with some video like Zeitgeist and make it seem real. The first part is just completely misleading and wrong, but by associating it with the last two parts about the Federal Reserve and 9/11, which are true is a way of sending 9/11 theorists down the wrong path. Also attacking and 'disproving' Christianity is something that evil Zionsts would love to fool people into thinking. You really should check out this site = www.iamthewitness.com - - - and also watch 9/11 mysteries on google video or youtube, in my opinion the best 9/11 documentary out there. Zionist Jews totally dominate the media, they dominate government, they dominate the pushers of conspiracy theories like UFOs... Alex Jones is one of the most foremost people in the 9.11 truth movement. Why? cause he is a zionist denier. He totally downplays the role Zionists have to play within that conspiracy. Really i'm telling you to check out this information and think for yourselves whether it is true or not. Look for the AIPAC documentary too - i think it's called the Israel Lobby. AIPAC or Israel Lobby, just shows the Zionist control over the US. Look how Larry Silverstein(zionist jew) bought the WTC complex and took out an insurance policy six weeks before the attacks and asked to specifically include acts of terrorism. He got a huge insurance payout when the attacks happened, and got extra because he said the two planes in the towers counted as 2 acts of terrorism. Look at who benefits from all this. Christianity has nothing to do with it!!! and certainly does not benefit these days, there number are totally dwindling, especially the Catholic church. Look at Israel... why does the US give it billions of dollars per year, despite the fact that it is relatively rich.The 9.11 attack was a pretext for the war on terror and wars in afghanistan and Iraq. They want wars with Syria and Iran. These are strategic enemies for the state of Israel! How convenient that 9/11 came olong for them. Zionists prety much ARE the banks, they ARE the governments and they ARE the media, or least they totally dominate all of these! THINK! THINK WHO IS BENEFITTING!
PS - I'm not even religious. Zionism is a philiosophy that is dangerous to every human being on the planet - Christian, Muslim, Jews, and Atheists, or agnostic. I encourage you to think about the part of Zeitgeist with the guy ranting from "Network". It's so true.

ZEITGEIST RULES!! religion is nothing more than a psycological weapon-- the only difference between lincoln,jfk and jesus is that there is actually proof the first two existed-- with your logic we should also consider enkidu and gilgamesh at face value

Ahem, with your logic we'd all end up living in the dark ages. The point about JFK and Lincoln I was making is that looking at that you would assume there was some sort of connection by your logic, if you did not know who these men were. The fact that you can prove who they are has nothing to do with the point I was making! I was trying to say that using the similarities between Jesus's birth and resurrection etc. does not prove that Jesus is false.
An important fact is that there were approximately 300 detailed Messianic prophecies regarding the life, death, and ministry of Jesus in the Old Testament. The prophecies span approximately 450 to 1,500 years before His birth. The accusation of Christians plagiarizing the accounts of other figures in the first century ignores the fact that concepts such as the virgin birth, the resurrection, and a Father-Son, relationship precede most figures in Zeitgeist.
Also, many of the religious texts containing the figures and the alleged similarities claimed by critics postdate the completion of the Christian Bible. Most religious texts concerning these figures were added to over the centuries, with aspects of their lives becoming more spectacular and suspiciously similar to Christianity. An important difference between Jesus and the other figures in this article is the existence of verifiable facts surrounding Jesus' life: we know the approximate year of His birth and death, numerous records exist which verify His existence, accurate historical events that occurred around His lifetime are mentioned in the Christian texts, and we can trace the origins of the Judeo-Christian beliefs.
Most other figures in question have no documented point of origin and mention no dates or approximate dates as to when the alleged events occurred.
And regarding Horus.... Horus' birth was actually celebrated during the month of Khoiak, (October/November). Though some critics claim Horus was born during the winter solstice, this shows more of a relationship to other pagan religions which considered the solstices sacred. The date of december 25th for the celebration of the birth of Christ was introduced in the 5th century, and was merely a continuation of the Roman festival of Saturnalia, which was celebrated in the Roman empire. The Roman Emperor Aurelian blended Saturnalia with a number of birth celebrations of savior Gods from other religions, into a single holy day: DEC-25. After much argument, the developing Christian church adopted this date as the birthday of their savior, Jesus. The people of the Roman Empire were accustomed to celebrating the birth of a God on that day. So, it was easy for the church to divert people's attention to Jesus' birth. It is just a date chosen for celebration... Remember the Romans were totally against Christianity... Christianity was kept underground for many years because of the Romans. Therefore, is it not possible to prove Christianity or Jesus as wrong, but the form with which it has taken was wrong, or rather not truly Christian, because of the oppression it was facing. Stop being such sheep and do some research before you consider yourself all-knowing because of one guy's video on the net.
PS the biggest psychological weapon in the history of mankind is the TV and the media. During no other period in history have people been subjected to such constant bull.

Hardly, but you seem to skip over those parts where I gave specific examples of the movies errors or perhaps you are just using some unusal definition of "evidence." For example, you never addressed the movies lie about the disciples' question Luke 22: 7-9 that I cited in part II of my review, or its false claim about a stranglehold, that completely ignored little events such as Reformation that I pointed out last time.

Sorry, but with these two thing alone, not to mention the other problems I point out, there can be no doubt that the movie's claims are based on lies and errors.

Elgin

Any system of thought does the same between those who accept and those who reject. This is hardly a religious trait but is much more universal. I think that this is one of the dangers in reflexively blaming religion, for it masks deeper underlying causes that are not unique to religion. For example, a while back I was talking to a atheist who was defending a move in California to exclude students from the state universities who had not gone to public schools, because they would not have learned the proper view of evolution. Most groups have some sort of orthodoxy and if left unchecked will try to punish those who stray too far from the accepted beliefs.


Much of what I read is history. While money was not a big factor, as least for Pope Urban II you are correct that keeping Christians from killing each other was. In addition Urban had the hope of winning back the allegiance for the eastern church, who had requested his aid again the invasion of the Turks (Like today aggressive forms of Islam were a problem then as well), along with embarrassing Emperor Henry VII (the Germans were not included in the call).

As for the children crusade and other unofficial crusades not sanctioned by the church, (or even much of the official ones for that matter) like I said, Christians have done great evil. My only point is that it is not as one sided as critics often claim. In fact much of what is claimed is simply false, such as the claim that most wars are religious , or as Sam Harris put it in his book “The End of Faith” most of the ideas that lead people to slaughter other are religious.

One of the problems is that not all conflicts that have people from different religious groups on opposite sides have their roots in religion or are fought for religious reasons. For example many portray the conflict in Ireland as a religious conflict between Catholics and Protestants, but this ignores the fact that the conflict existed long before there was a religious difference and in fact a good case can be made that the religious difference stems more from the conflict between the English and the Irish than the other way around.
Perhaps the most devastating of the “religious wars” was the 30-years war, but even here things are not quite as clear cut. While there clearly was a religious component to the war, what is often over looked is that the religious issue was settled in the Treaty of Prague in 1635. Yet that was only 15 years into the war. The war went on for another 15 years, which were some of the bloodiest of the war.

The simple fact is that critics still frequent make reference to erroneous history in their attacks on Christianity (e.g. attacking Christians for believing in a flat earth.) In addition distorted references, such as those in the movie are common, as if Christianity was a completely negative influence in the history of western civilization, when in fact I believe the history is pretty clear that on the whole it has been a positive one. Yes the Church at times has not only failed, but has been responsible for great evil. There are usually mitigating factors, but ultimately the responsibility still rest with those who made the final decisions, and Christians need to face that.

The Inquisition is a good case in point. Prior to the Enlightenment, in the so called “Dark Ages” really the Middle Ages, the maximum penalty for heresy was excommunication. Then came the revival of Roman law in Bologna, and with it the Roman legal concept of the inquisiti, which allowed a judge to inquire into charges of heresy when no witnesses were available. It was from this Roman concept that the Inquisition came. Yet it was still Christians that incorporated this into the practices of the church, and thereby committed evil.

But there are the great progresses as well. The Middle Ages laid the foundations for most of what we could now consider advances in later times. The intellectual and spiritual foundations for science, human rights, the abolition of slavery, for example, are in Christianity. This is not to say Christianity was the only factor in these developments, but was an important one, and its key role is normally overlooked by those who see only the negative.

Elgin

Ahem...we have been living in the dark ages since 1913-- and for the record religion was exposed long ago by pioneers such as jordan maxwell so astrotheology is nothing new and in fact pre dates christianity by millenia and even certain quotes used in zeitgeist prove that the founding fathers were also well aware of the personification-- again,as i asked elgin i now ask you "where is your proof that a man walked on water,raised people fom the dead and the ressurected from the dead himself?" ill be waiting

just as elgin never replied i suspect you will do the same and as you go ask your self which theory is the "greater" leap of faith one that professes magic,wizardry and the triumph over death(yet he is not here) or one that explains the first with logic and reason?

I don't remember this particular question. But I did address such demands for proof in my reply to you in Post #36.

As for the evidence for the claims of Christianity, there is considerable evidence, some of which I detail in my two books on the subject. As for which takes more faith, given the lies and errors I have pointed out in the movies’ claims, and to which you have not given any substantial reply, I would clearly say that the movie takes much more faith.

After all, how can anyone take the movie’s claim about Luke 22 seriously after they read the verses leading up Jesus statement and see that Jesus was talking about the meal that night. Now of course if one does not really care about facts and evidence, and is willing to play fast and loose with the truth then one can reach any conclusion they want. And this is exactly what the movie does.

Elgin

Not sure I understand where your coming from, your all over the place on these post. One minute your defending the religious side then the next your saying your not religious. Why did you join today to post this novel of info about this? What's your angle bro?

Amazing...

I read the post from the start after watching zeitgeist for the second time. I wanted to research the historical claims on horus and the rest of the gods on similarities to Jesus. With very little effort, I found numerous resources on the subject that show the first part of the movie to be flat out misleading and false. This puts the rest of the movie in suspect.

I said amazing at the start of this post because of the vigor at which sunofone defends this propaganda piece just like many religious types defend their beliefs, many times without evidence or logic. Staring in the face of contradictory evidence, he counter punches with slurs of ignorance. I love it.

I'm not going to lay out a long and boring bed of reasoning, as I see it falls on deaf ears in this forum. I see that no one is truly looking for truth, as you all believe what you believe based on comparisons to ancient documents and stars. The truth is probably in the pursuit, you all enjoy debating the unprovable. Proving that ones proof is not proof does not truth make.

Anyway, thanks for the entertainment and for the occasional reference.

I am not sure how closely you read the posts (particularly given your comments on proof), as such a broad brush critisicm of everyone in this forum is hardly justified. For example, even though jaylemurph and I have disagreed, I would say your comments certanly are not a fair depiction of him.

As for truth begin in the pursuit, one comment would be that what better way to pursue truth than disucssion with those who disagree? To have one's idea challenged and tested for weakness and flaws. As Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another (Prov 27:17) It is just a simple fact of human nature that we are all much better at seeing the flaws in beliefs we disagree with, than in beliefs we hold. If you only wish to talk to those who will not challenge what you believe, then you will have a much harder time finding the flaws and errors in your beliefs.

On the other hand there is a possible problem with claim that truth is in the pursuit, as this seems to implies that truth is an action. Yet such an view of truth simply does not fit our most basic understanding of reality where there are truths that are not actions. For example the truth that I exist is not an action. The pursuit of truth is a noble endevor, but if one confuses the process with the goal, the process itself become pointless.

Elgin

ok ill be waiting for you to link the post with the details in question as you are obviously too lazy to research yourself or too shocked to realize the big picture


because you cant

I am amazed that over 90% of this discussion is devoted to religion rather than conspiracy. As far as I know, hieroglyphs are still very hard to decipher. But it does make sense that the Hebrews would have taken the Egyptian religion with them, as slaves, just as the Africans were forced to adopt Christianity. And, obviously, the Greeks and Romans were very well aware of the Egyptian religion, and being in arid environments themselves- certainly must have done a lot of star gazing as well. I wouldn't poo poo too quickly an astronomical connection (i.e. astrology)- to these people, after all, the stars WERE the heavens. In any case, those facts are easily accessible. Before just criticizing the movie makers' sources, why not do some research on your own?

I've always found it odd that all the churches, be they Catholic or Protestant, have always depicted Jesus to be both the rabble rouser (seemingly against their desires for riches and power) and the gentle healer, miracle worker, protector of prostitutes, and bloodied crucified martyr. It does make sense, in a very odd way I admit, that through this very complex psychological persona, the church maintained brutal control over the populace for decades. Aside from the Renaissance and the following Romantic era, who in their right mind could deny such a thing?

But this movie is not about religion. It doesn't matter the region and it says so outright. It's about social control. The main point of religion- ANY religion- is it's ability to foster myth. And nothing is more controlling than divine myth.

But the movie then goes beyond that to show how this social structure has evolved into something completely different.

Now I would be the first to admit that the Romantic era was not without it's problem. But if you are looking for some profoundly intelligent literature on Humankind (though the writers may have been sexist or racist, that is true), go to the late 1700's from West Europe and the United States, and you will find amazing texts. These people truly did know not only what freedom was but how fragile it was too. Most importantly, they knew how Humankind was enslaved (despite their own hypocrisy at times). Alas. it took less than a hundred years for the robber barons to start wielding tremendous influence again. We had our chance, we blew it.

9/11. Again, I am amazed that with the overwhelming evidence, the shoddiness of the operation, that people still refuse to believe that this was not a deliberate act. I think the end of the movie made an excellent point of showing that the world is going to crap and that the mass majority of the complacent people out there are simply satisfied with being entertained.

Conspiracies have a long history and a long history of being revealed. 9/11 was one of the clumsiest of all. What does that say about the society of the USA? I would say that it is a society sadly oppressed, with both elements of Brave New World and 1984 controlling it.

Facts that are meant to be hidden will be- for a while (in the case of 9/11 very short lived). You don't need facts. Go out- look around. Look at the lifestyles people are leading. Why are Americans dying from too much food while Africans are dying from not enough of it? Look at your glitzy malls, your movie theaters, your huge highways and skyscrapers. Watch your TV, Then maybe ask, is this happiness? Or is this something something bigger created for me, just to keep me getting angry?

I thought the movie was right on it.

I just saw the movie a couple days ago and I have decided to start doing research on my own, but before I start I was hoping someone could help me with one thing I didn't see the movie cover. The religion part was talking about all of these ancient religions having many similarities and how they are all frauds, this covered a broad range of cultures, except Islam. The islamic religion is one of the largest in the world today. Zeitgeist didn't mention any similarities with that, I know very little about the islamic religion so maybe there are no similarities. If someone can shed some light on this for me or point me in the right direction of where I can do some accurate research, I would greatly appreciate it.

well if your hoping to link the luciferic qualities of most religions to islam you'll be disappointed-- the word islam translates as "peace" and anyone praticing islam is therefore a practioner of peace and the myth of an "islamo facist" is complete redundancy as you cannot equate a corporate monopoly with peace or even claim to be peaceful if you are a corporate whore-- the bush administration is using double speak and ouright lies to demonize the purest of all the religions and hence manifest a world of double thought where peace is terrorism-- all of zeitgeist is the unadulterated speaking of truth to power and if your hoping to somehow find a flaw with peace or link it to the luciferic cults of mesmerism you will be wasting your time-- there is a reason the elite have targeted "islam" ...because they cant stand peace

newbie, here, so be gentle. anyway, I signed up just b/c of this debate. I was so intrigued. The very simple point I'd like to add is this: the bible came to be(as most know it today-give or take a few books, i.e. catholic vs. others)b/c constantine(roman emperor)summoned the first council of nicaea, it resulted in the formulation of the common bible of today(after much debate over different beliefs within the christian cults/followers of christ). prior to this, constantine worshipped/was part of a sun cult/religion. his conversion is thought to have taken place after winning a battle, which before hand god is said to have given him a vision or something along those lines. also, it is thought by some that constantine's conversion to christianity was of convenience. b/c in constantine's time it's estimated that around twenty percent or so of rome's population were christians with an even larger proportion of the military following the teachings/cult of christ. so, again and i believe this to be well recorded by the history books....the bible came to be b/c an emperor of rome who previously worshipped the sun/sun god-don't split hairs-called a meeting and said give me a book to give these people. the sun, the sun, the sun. and them there is the facts, fellas, love it or hate it. so, the bible of TODAY that all these people put sooo much faith in owes its being to a worshipper of the sun. good night, ladies & gentlemen. o, yea, one more quick point i'd like to add in reply to an earlier post....if the catholic church is evil and false and yet most all other branches of christianity use the bible, which was created by the roman catholic church via the council of nicaea(so what if they don't use all the books they still use most of them and don't use the rest so it can suit their needs/beliefs-i.e. king james)then wouldn't that in turn cause all christianity to be based on falsehoods? hmmmm.

LOL please correct me if I am wrong but did you just say that most if not all religions are frauds except Islam?

How can the Abrahamic tree be rooted in fraud but Islam, a branch of that tree, remain uncorrupted?

Also what are these "luciferic qualities" you mentioned? Are they qualities found in a Morning Star(Venus) archetype or a Satanic archetype?

--

I've watched the movie, didn't hear or see anything I haven't heard or seen before but it was entertaining. There will always be people that believe in a magical zombie man who is the son of God but at the same time God too, people that believe that three buildings can free fall into their own footprints on a magical day but not ever before or after and there will always be people that believe those who make money off of them care about their well-being. Most people prefer the world of make-believe, you can try and "help" them even though they don't want it, you can yell at them or even throw sh** at them if that makes you feel better but to me the most important part of that movie was the end when it says this is all just a ride, have fun, f*** em

your confusing the personification and adoration of the sun with a bloodline which is what was the original goal of the fabricated religions-- islam is nothing more than the pursuit of "peace"--

I recall a scene from that movie that shows a cartoon God sitting in the clouds watching everyone at all times, he has a list of things he does not want his followers to do and if if they do these things they will be punished. I think that was the main point of the movie's critique of religion - the sun connection merely illustratred the "copycat" aspect of Christianity(it's nothing new) - to address the absurdity of a magic dude in the clouds judging us. Islam, like other Abrahamic faiths, also believes in a magic dude in the sky that sets rules out for his followers and expects them to adhere to them which opens the doors for the corrupt rulers to use this God/Allah against their citizens.

As with Christianity Islam sets out to achieve peace in this world with God/Allah as guidance - as with Christianity Islam has failed time and again for centuries to achieve this peace. The failings of man? The failings of God? Or the failings of a God created by Man?

I get the feeling that just as those who will defend Christianity's absurd nature, you will defend the same absurd nature of Islam, correct me if I am wrong.

--

Also I am still curious about the 'luciferic' comments, I ask because the mythological Lucifer or Morning Star(what Jesus claims to be) is another fine example of religious manipulation of text and belief for the benefit of the Church. Imagine that Lucifer who is said to be Satan is exactly what Jesus claims to be in the Bible, what a mindf***

i believe all religion is corrupt but there is also a fine line between religion and spiritualism and that islam seeks to be spiritualistic while the others glorify either personifications or numbers-- of course there are those that corrupt the true nature of islam by spreading disinfo and attempting to equate other spirtual movements with the corrupt religious organisations

and i meant it in the astrological sense

While a common myth, the idea that the council of Nicaea set or changed the Bible is still false, as is clear from the writings of the church father who discussed this issue before the council. As with doctrine, the Council only ratified what had already been accepted by Christians for some time. So like the movie, your premises are false. I would recommend my 3 part review of the movie for a more complete discussion of the numerous lies and errors in the movie’s discussion of Christianity.

Elgin

Greetings,

I have written a review and thought-piece on this movie that I think everyone here will find interesting. You can view it at http://www.realitysandwich.com/node/471.

-ST

No need to disprove religion, religion has yet to prove its self beyond reason, historical records, science, and critical thinking.

For those of you who believe that most or all religions are corrupt, I ask you then, what do you believe is the real purpose of religion?

As for those who have faith in religion or just their own, would you not say that most of all teachings in any religion teach morality?

I then ask, is it so harmful to believe that a man walked the earth and taught us how to live our daily lives? Son of God or not, is it harmful to the world if we obey his teachings? Is it harmful to follow the ten commandments? The teachings of Muhammad? Or regarding the polytheistic religions, is it so harmful to follow their teachings? In no religious text does it say that we shall go to war to fight for our religion, in fact most if not all say that murder or killing of any kind is a deadly sin. Religious violence then, is caused not by the teachings themselves but by the organization, the human.

Therefore, what is Zeitgeist trying to warn us of? To me, it seems it is trying to warn us of the teachings themselves. In my opinion, it is wasting its time. the corruption is not in religious beliefs but in humanity Itself. Human instincts and desires. Greed, lust, desire for power, etc. This is what we should be warned of.

I still dont know what to think about this first part. I know there are obvious falsities about religion being linked to astrology in this movie. but hell, for all we know astrotheology may be true, but not how they say it is in the movie. However, the things they do mention towards to end about religion are absolutely true, no doubt about it. Religion is the most powerful form of control ever created.
I do agree with Sunofone somewhat. EVERYONE should see this movie, especially parts 2 & 3. BTW, How come no one is talking about those?

While I agree that the purpose of most religious organizations is to control the masses in a sense, you will notice, however, with a bit of historical research, that religious texts such as the bible are not just some ridiculous fabricated stories. AND, Zeitgeist, as proven earlier in this thread, uses many inaccurate claims as well, so it is not something one can place their trust in either.

I myself have experience with religious organizations that tend to exercise much power and control over people's lives, and I know now what to trust and what not to trust. Zeitgeist does not make many claims against any particular organization but the religious stories themselves.

And as for faith that such-and-such texts are God's holy word, well thats for the person to decide. Whether they believe so or not is not going to harm society unless they decide to "control" others.

How, by whom and for what purpose ? This might make sense when dealing with a religion that has a clear hierarchical power structure, but not all religions have such a structure. In fact, one of the problems with Islam is that it lacks any formal power structure that could control its radical extremes.

Many protestants churches have a very democratic power structure (which was historically an important factor in the emergence of democracy in Europe and the US.) How does “control” fit as a purpose of these groups? Applied to specific groups and individuals, “control” might be a good explanation, but as a blanket explanation, it fails miserably.



Goals I agree with, but what should one do when they do the research and find out that the claims made in the movie are based on problems, errors, and lies, has I have demostrated. Is the moive just an exercise to get people to test their false claims?

Elgin

Actually, the errors extend throughout the entire first part. In particular for the section you mentioned see Part III of my review.

I would disagree that religion is the most powerful form of control. Government is frequently far more powerful and invasive. More importantly, while religion is often, and should always be, voluntary, government, by its nature is not. Just look at the massive amount of control Government has over our lives in the US, and we are classified as a “free” society. Consider the amounts of control totalitarian governments have over the day to day lives of their citizens. So government is much more a source of control.

In fact one of the benefits of religion is that it can provide a check and balance on government. Sort of like the separation of powers set up in the Constitution. This was why the founding fathers view religion as so important, yet independent of government, for it could provide a check on government.

The real danger occurs when government becomes completely dominated by any single group so as to use it power to suppress and restrict competing groups as the ability for checks and balances disappears. In European history, Christianity was at time too closely allied, and in some cases was, the government. That was a problem. Today the danger lies with secularism, which has come to dominate government, and is using its power to restricting the influence of religion. Completely remove the influence of religion and you remove any ability it has to check the control of government.

To see this just look at the last century where you had a declining influence of religion in America you had a corresponding increase in the growth of government, and a corresponding decrease in freedom. Sure we now have much more freedom to use certain words formally considered vulgar, but in exchange we now have speech codes on what opinions and thoughts are acceptable. Express a politically incorrect opinion, however true it may be, and you can be sent to sensitive training, or even lose your job. (In Europe, which even more secular, you can go to jail). So in 21st century America, I fear Big Government much more than Big Religion. If I lived in Iran, I might have a different point of view, but I live in America, and here the current threats to freedom are not from Christians.

Elgin

Yeah, i watched the movie... Believed it (did go thru the "What if THEY are the men behind the curtain" theory - just not considered likely in my mind anyways... i mean, come on... seriously, is the conspiracy theorist of this age really THAT paranoid...)

Then i read this thread, witch i also must say i found very intertaining to say the least, it was also fairly informational.
Now... Just too share my conclusions with the users of this board;

I Believe that Christianity as a whole was originally just a way of life. (lifestyle etc. get it?)
I Believe that the people behind the world (and yes, lets just admit it, they're real) transformed this way of life into a religion to control the mases (as to how they came across it - well, i leave it to you imagination to figure that one out)
I Believe that 9/11 was the first steps in the final stage of the transformation of the world into a One-World-Government (to further "Back" my claim here i will refer to Albert Pike, and the letter he wrote in the early 19-hundreds. This letter describes how the world would have to bare witness to three (THREE) World Wars. WW I already happened - so did the second, now think about it, what classifies as a world war? a war in witch the most countries of the world form a united front against a common enemy... ring any bells???)

I believe that in the comming decades we will see this one world come true... we will see our liberties disapear ... and i believe that the Facist's will win... (since we all by now know that the nazi's just changed names and ethics and went after world domination in another way) One must do what one can to prevent this from happening, and sure, be suspicious... about everything and everyone... we all talk about, nature, being who we are and humanity, we hear it alot... well greed is something that most human beings share.

So of course in the end (being not that many years away) we will be ruled by the Rockefeller/Morgan/Who-ever-got-enough-money syndicate out there (look into the Bilderberg group for an instance) in my mind - no doubt about it (unless what those guys are doing is actually pissing someone off enough to just blow the whole sh** up ... Thank "GOD" for the NUKE!



"I saw a whole in the man - and that hole will never be filled"

But look why these governments have never survived, there has always been something there to stop them. example: World War II. We able to stop Hitler because the Allies were a greater power than the Axis. If it were not, im pretty sure we'd all be speaking German right now. So if this NWO play out whos to stop them then if every nation on earth was united into one government?

Thank you, what you said just here proves my point even more. There will always be a huge power to stop these tyrannical governments. Like I said, humanity needs its liberties and freedoms, and many governments fight for just this purpose. Resistance will always form to an unjust and cruel government, even if it is in the form of a country. The Nazi regime did not and could never survive, the world knew what they were doing, what they were capable of. It is highly unlikely that the human race will ever form one government over the entire world, if they do it will not be for thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years, because we just aren't ready to handle it. Right now, the world is kept in somewhat order because of the checks and balances off each of the powers. Still crude and somewhat ineffective at the moment, but it will still never let such a horrible government rule over all of us

I guess that is pretty true. Which is what I think that entire movie was about. Not to force these "truths" down your throat, but rather to open your eyes to whats happening around you. that there more to the world than what you see on TV. It says at the end of the movie, that "The revolution is now". Which I believe it is. We have to stop these "men behind the curtain" from carrying out their plans before its too late.

As far as that movie goes towards implying that the government is evil, and the world is controlled by a few, etc, I'm not sure. There is obviously something going on behind the scenes that the bush administration refuses to tell us about, and I know that there is so much screwed up sh** now wrong with this country, that it really does need to be revamped. Problem is, most of the people today are so brainwashed by the ideas of getting more money, more stuff, and that they are 'patriotic', that any attempt to change the way this nation is set up or is run is likely to be fought every step of the way.


By the way, sorry for jumping a but of topic.

you either have alot to learn or are you intentionally spreading ignorance-- the regime that designed,funded and pushed the nazi policies are the same globalists that are in the vatican and pimped by the throne of the british monarchy-- chavez,ahmedinijad,bush,cheney,putin,ratzinger and the queen are all manuevering to exterminate the masses and install a fascist dictatorship after they reduce the population by more than half

Umm...I'm guessing this is just your own theory which you just pulled out of the air when you typed that post?

Remember how I once said extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? Well so far I've seen a few legitimate claims about exactly how the 9/11 terrorist attacks were executed, but there has not been one SHRED of evidence that points to this "New World Order" garbage. And the first part of Zeitgeist (religion) was just completely distorted by untrue facts. Any historian could tell you that. Is this the type of evidence you make your theories out of?

Doctor...your not helping..... Sunofone is right about this. your more or less right about the religion bit of zeitgeist but there is a lot to more to this story than you seem to have figured out.
here is a recent post I tried to reference things as well as I could in regards to this.
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...howtopic=103598

Christianity is a mix between Judaism and Paganism basically IMO.

Even Angels are from the Zoroastrian religion and such.