No. I was brought up a protestant, and thankfully saw the error of my ways. However, I have five loves in my life, one is studying the development of religions, religious symbolism, writing, and civilisatons since around 12,000 BC (from there into Sumerian, Babylonian, Akkadian, Egyptian, etc) and the rise of christian theology. My main interest until about 25 years ago was Egypt and the Indus Valley, but it would not have been complete without an understanding of the surrounding peoples and their contribution to civilsation as a whole, so I eventually had to learn about them too as best I could. I'm currently studying the cross-over culture at Gobekle Tepe in Turkey, and Incipient Jomon in Japan - fascinating stuff if you ever get time to check it out. MelT
The speech by JFK was chopped all to hell. They edited out at least 80% of that speech and made it seem like it was about the illuminati or something. In reality it was a rather benign speech about communism. The religion part doesn't really prove that Christianity is a sham. After watching it you can come to two conclusions, Christianity was completely made up to control the masses or Christianity was adapted to fit the preconceived notions of the people of its day (like every religion that was ever effectively spread). It seems just as likely that Christianity was an independent religion that was modified to fit into the ideology of the people to prevent it from dieing out. Its really hard to know the motives of people who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago. The economics part is not quite on point. The gold standard would not work in a modern economy because it creates a complete lack of control over inflation. The economy has become so vast and complicated that it must be manipulated in some way to make it stable. The fed reserve is not the best option but its ok. The main problem is that the fed reserve loans the money creating perpetual debt. The fed reserve often buys back money at face values and the reissues it so they dont make as much as you would think. The feds main source of income comes when the take money out of circulation, which only accounts for a small percentage of money. At least thats what I remember from econ 1a years ago, feel free to correct me. The thing about that, it only happens because we let it. If the fed tried to collect all of the interest that they are theoretically owed the government/people couldn't afford to pay and we would tell them to go f themselves. The main thing I do agree with in the movie is that the international financial elite are manipulating the world for their benefit. People dont need a movie to tell them that though. Its common sense everyday knowledge. Its a complete matter of fact that needs almost no effort to be proven true.
Yeah, but it seems more plausible that everyone just made them up. Why go to such lengths to make up for inconsisitencies? The Razor strikes again...
it isnt going to too far out there lengths how else do you account for all the similarities from all the different cultures around the world. the razor is dull
Seriously? Early contact between different groups of people would not account for any of that? Also, what similarities are you talking about exactly?
This isn't really on topic, but I mentioned this to my friend the other day, so I figured I would put it in the Zeitgeist thread. This film essentially preaches critical thinking and rigorous investigation, especially when it comes to power or authority, or any claim which should require evidence to advance. But, from what it seems like, Zeitgeist itself has misinformation all throughout, including errors in the Horus comparisons (right, MelT?) to conspiracy theories that have been debunked. Thus, the makers of this film are ignoring the fact that people should take what they preach, and use it on Zeitgeist itself. Correct? Consider if this film is seen in mass by the same 'uneducated' class that the film claims is out there. They would under the circumstances take this film on face value, and continue to spread false or misinformed theories and facts, in the same way religious myth could spread, etc. An apparent authority has produced this film, so again, in their minds, why question any of the theses advanced? Any thoughts?
Good post, I was at a loss how to explain the above as you've done. The reason that I'm so anti Zeitgeist is that it's now very easy to plant ideas into people's minds through 'enlightening' films like this, and the wrong people are starting to realise this and use it to their own ends. People accept that it's factual and never bother to check the information in it, because they assume that nobody would have the balls to put out two hours worth of stuff with no real basis. It's why people belive in channeling, crystal healing, reiki and a million other things, they just don't check the facts. The films is so blatantly untrue that you have to wonder what the makers think of the intelligence of those watching - they must be laughing themselves silly to see how it's all taken off and how easily people have taken it on board. MelT