ZEITGEIST: MOVING FORWARD | OFFICIAL RELEASE | 2011

[YAN]

Watching it now. Very well done. I hope they are done with the 9/11 conspiracies and religion bashing? The movement will never take off if they keep doing that. They need to focus on economics, politics, psychology, and sociology and stay away from conspiracy theories and making people feel defensive about being religious like they did with the first movie.

 

I totally agree with you. A movement that endeavor to positively alter our way of life has to acknowledge the spiritual aspect of man or it run the risk of being nothing else but "Marxism on steroids".

 

I understand that they are denouncing the enslaving tendencies of organised religions that they are part of the "Matrix" but most of us here on the Taobums know from experience that meaningful spiritual practice is the basis for a well grounded, fruitful lifestyle.

 

To me atheism and the general absence of spiritual life are just another obvious symptom of what they are denouncing (hyper materialism, greed, ignorance..).

 

We do need a moral compass a way to relate to what we intuitively feel is greater than us.

 

My favorite vision of a utopian society was in the Aldous Huxley last novel "Island". I can see myself living in such a community :

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_(novel)

[markern]

If you are referencing "Alex Jones" you are referencing someone who has proclaimed themselves to be

a believer in christianity. Mr. Jones has an obvious slant in his views concerning Zeitgeist.

If you are referencing an impartial person( this atheist person) please give more info.

The Zeitgeist movie#1 has plenty of references as well. Look it up.

There is no debunking what was actual in pre- recorded history.

Experts being on both sides, who is to say what is information and disinformation?

 

No he is Norwegian. The essay is here but is in Norwegian:

 

http://skepsis.no/?p=594

 

As mentioned several of zetigeits references reference books that themselves have no source for their claims other than fiction written in the 1800. Most of the other sources are amateurs from the 1800s and 1900s that in their present day and even more today was looked upon as unserious and whos claims have been thoroughly critiqued by actual religious historians.

 

Here is another critique:

 

Chris Forbes, Senior lecturer in Ancient History of Macquarie University and member of the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney, severely criticized Part I of the movie, asserting that it has no basis in serious scholarship or ancient sources, and that it relies on amateur sources that recycle frivolous ideas from one another, rather than serious academic sources, commenting, "It is extraordinary how many claims it makes which are simply not true."[28]

Examining some of the specific claims made by the film, Forbes points out that while there are parallels between the story of Jesus and many ancient mythological figures, many of the ones mentioned in the film are false, as are other aspects of the film's description of these myths. Forbes states that there is no evidence in Egyptian sources that Horus' mother Isis was a virgin, and says that Ra was the Egyptian god of the sun, not Horus. Similarly, neither Krishna nor Dionysus nor Attis were ever said to be born of virgins, as Krishna was the eighth child of his parents, Devaki and Vasudeva, and Dionysus' mother, Semele, had slept with Zeus. Forbes asserts that Horus was not adored by three kings, and that neither he nor Attis were crucified nor resurrected. Forbes and interviewer John Dickson, founder of the Centre for Public Christianity, took issue with what they perceived as an argument centered on the homophony between the words "Sun" and "Son" in regards to Jesus, with Forbes dismissing this point as a pun, and pointing out that those words are not homophonic in ancient Egyptian, Latin or Greek. Forbes also points out that neither Horus, Attis nor Jesus were born on December 25, as the ancient Egyptian calendar did not include the month of December found in the Latin calendar, and that the date of Christmas is a celebratory tradition historically derived from Sol Invictus and Saturnalia, rather than the Bible.[28]

Forbes also criticizes the movie's use of Roman sources to suggest that Jesus did not exist, noting that the list of supposed contemporaneous historians alleged by the film to have not mentioned Jesus is actually a list of geographers, literature professors, poets, philosophers and writers on farming or gardening, who would not be expected to mention him, and that the modern sources cited in the film are either experts in fields other than ancient history, such as German literature, or uncredentialed amateur Egyptologists. Forbes challenges the film's allegation that Josephus' mention of Jesus was doctored by pointing out that Josephus actually mentions Jesus twice, and that only one of these mentions is believed by scholars to have been doctored in the Middle Ages, in order to change an already existing mention of him (see Testimonium Flavianum). Forbes also argues that while Emperor Constantine I legalized Christianity, it was Theodosius I who made it compulsory later in the 4th century, and that contrary to the film's thesis, Constantine did not invent the historical Jesus, as early records show that his historicity was already a key element of early Christianity prior to Constantine's conversion to it.[28]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist:_The_Movie#Scholarly_responses

 

If I were you and believed Zeitgeist to be an important movie I would look into academic per reviewed material wether the critique in what I quoted is right nor not.

Edited February 7, 2011 by markern

[strawdog65]

No he is Norwegian. The essay is here but is in Norwegian:

 

http://skepsis.no/?p=594

 

As mentioned several of zetigeits references reference books that themselves have no source for their claims other than fiction written in the 1800. Most of the other sources are amateurs from the 1800s and 1900s that in their present day and even more today was looked upon as unserious and whos claims have been thoroughly critiqued by actual religious historians.

 

Here is another critique:

 

Chris Forbes, Senior lecturer in Ancient History of Macquarie University and member of the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney, severely criticized Part I of the movie, asserting that it has no basis in serious scholarship or ancient sources, and that it relies on amateur sources that recycle frivolous ideas from one another, rather than serious academic sources, commenting, "It is extraordinary how many claims it makes which are simply not true."[28]

Examining some of the specific claims made by the film, Forbes points out that while there are parallels between the story of Jesus and many ancient mythological figures, many of the ones mentioned in the film are false, as are other aspects of the film's description of these myths. Forbes states that there is no evidence in Egyptian sources that Horus' mother Isis was a virgin, and says that Ra was the Egyptian god of the sun, not Horus. Similarly, neither Krishna nor Dionysus nor Attis were ever said to be born of virgins, as Krishna was the eighth child of his parents, Devaki and Vasudeva, and Dionysus' mother, Semele, had slept with Zeus. Forbes asserts that Horus was not adored by three kings, and that neither he nor Attis were crucified nor resurrected. Forbes and interviewer John Dickson, founder of the Centre for Public Christianity, took issue with what they perceived as an argument centered on the homophony between the words "Sun" and "Son" in regards to Jesus, with Forbes dismissing this point as a pun, and pointing out that those words are not homophonic in ancient Egyptian, Latin or Greek. Forbes also points out that neither Horus, Attis nor Jesus were born on December 25, as the ancient Egyptian calendar did not include the month of December found in the Latin calendar, and that the date of Christmas is a celebratory tradition historically derived from Sol Invictus and Saturnalia, rather than the Bible.[28]

Forbes also criticizes the movie's use of Roman sources to suggest that Jesus did not exist, noting that the list of supposed contemporaneous historians alleged by the film to have not mentioned Jesus is actually a list of geographers, literature professors, poets, philosophers and writers on farming or gardening, who would not be expected to mention him, and that the modern sources cited in the film are either experts in fields other than ancient history, such as German literature, or uncredentialed amateur Egyptologists. Forbes challenges the film's allegation that Josephus' mention of Jesus was doctored by pointing out that Josephus actually mentions Jesus twice, and that only one of these mentions is believed by scholars to have been doctored in the Middle Ages, in order to change an already existing mention of him (see Testimonium Flavianum). Forbes also argues that while Emperor Constantine I legalized Christianity, it was Theodosius I who made it compulsory later in the 4th century, and that contrary to the film's thesis, Constantine did not invent the historical Jesus, as early records show that his historicity was already a key element of early Christianity prior to Constantine's conversion to it.[28]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist:_The_Movie#Scholarly_responses

 

If I were you and believed Zeitgeist to be an important movie I would look into academic per reviewed material wether the critique in what I quoted is right nor not.

 

 

The use of references that are based on christian beliefs is ridiculous.

Using people that have an obvious connection to the church is laughable.

Thats like proving the bible is true by using excerpts from the bible it self.

 

There is no historical reference to the existence of jesus christ that is unassailable.

 

If the the first moive Zeitgeist is so wrong, then why is it so difficult to prove?

Opinions and conjecture used as evidence, can always be taken more than one way.

There is no way to prove the existence of jesus, end of story. Believe what you wish.

 

This post is really more about the newest movie, Zeitgeist moving forward.

Lets talk about that instead of wasting this time trying to prove who is right.

[Owledge]

Some time ago I found a film called "Zeitgeist Refuted" and I was curious about the quality of the critique, so I watched it (or at least a significant part, I can't remember). It was mostly nitpicking. Meticulously looking for any detail that can be used to denounce Zeitgeist, without actually touching the things that make the information presented convincing. It's the usual kind of critique you get from someone who has a really strong belief against the piece criticized.

I guess in fewer words "not at all impartial" also says it quite well.

 

In my opinion the most interesting information that could go against what's shown in Zeigeist is information that supercedes its claims into an even deeper understanding. Also, sometimes differing fundamental views on matters don't have to be contradicting, but both might in fact fit together.

[strawdog65]

Now more than ever the movement that has become Zeitgeist

is very relevant to world affairs....People. if you have not seen

any of these movies you need to.

[NeiChuan]

Some time ago I found a film called "Zeitgeist Refuted" and I was curious about the quality of the critique, so I watched it (or at least a significant part, I can't remember). It was mostly nitpicking. Meticulously looking for any detail that can be used to denounce Zeitgeist, without actually touching the things that make the information presented convincing. It's the usual kind of critique you get from someone who has a really strong belief against the piece criticized.

I guess in fewer words "not at all impartial" also says it quite well.

 

In my opinion the most interesting information that could go against what's shown in Zeigeist is information that supercedes its claims into an even deeper understanding. Also, sometimes differing fundamental views on matters don't have to be contradicting, but both might in fact fit together.

 

Yea I agree. Not to mention the arguements presented just raise more questions for the people asking them.

 

Meaning they're making more problems for themselves then zeitgeist did. Annoyingly sat through the entire thing.

[Stevekare]

To me this movement vibrates at the same level as Scientology

[YAN]

To me this movement vibrates at the same level as Scientology

 

 

Could you please expand on this ?

 

I mean I've got a soft spot for the Venus project but Scientology is to me the best embodiment of a brainwashing deadend cult.

[strawdog65]

To me this movement vibrates at the same level as Scientology

 

please explain why you feel this way.....

[Sunya]

Scientology is the opposite of science. They have strange beliefs and their methods are not scientifically valid. Venus Project embraces science and technology, critical thinking, and global reform to better mankind, so it's the complete opposite of Scientology.

[Stevekare]

Could you please expand on this ?

 

I mean I've got a soft spot for the Venus project but Scientology is to me the best embodiment of a brainwashing deadend cult.

Agreed Scientology is not based on science. Where I see the two as similar is that they both say good things, but Scientology is about control and domination. I am sure that the same thing would happen if Venus project had the power to do what they say they want to do. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I don't get any idea that they wish to follow the Tao or trust in a Higher Power. This is a very ego driven program. Also I don't agree with there belief that addictions are caused by unequal wealth. Just my opinion.

[YAN]

Agreed Scientology is not based on science. Where I see the two as similar is that they both say good things, but Scientology is about control and domination. I am sure that the same thing would happen if Venus project had the power to do what they say they want to do. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I don't get any idea that they wish to follow the Tao or trust in a Higher Power. This is a very ego driven program. Also I don't agree with there belief that addictions are caused by unequal wealth. Just my opinion.

 

 

Interesting, the main weakness in the Venus project is that they are counting on people good will apparently they believe that the benefits of their project are so self evident that everyone will be convinced to drastically change their way of life to implement it. This might prove to be true for a portion of the educated world population that would be far outweighed by the masses.

 

To be effectively implemented their new civilization model would need the help of an "Elite of enlightened" to guide the rest of humanity and like you said : Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

The only antidote to this would be coupling the material implementation of their plan with a teaching / practice of Dhamma (in the larger sense of the term no need for mass conversion to Buddhism but an ethic based on peacefulness, self sustenance, wisdom).

 

Like I wrote in a previous post if they remained blind to the spiritual needs of man the Venus project will only be a kind of 21 century newage marxism.