Zeitgeist - the movie,2007!

[holydiver55]

Watch...

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

[holydiver55]

http://sector.ynet.sk/zeitgeist-subtitles/Zeitgeist.DVDRip.XviD.torrent

To Download *Torrent File* : Click above Icon and select "Save to Disk" or

[bicycle]

Seen it the other day, cant say I learnt anything new but good to e-mail to family and freinds who love Jesus:D

[holydiver55]

Zeitgeist was created as a non-profit filmiac expression to inspire people to start looking at the world
from a more critical perspective and to understand that very often things are not what the
population at large think they are. The information in Zeitgeist was established over a year long period
of research and the current Source page on this site lists the basic sources used / referenced.
Soon, an Interactive Transcript will be online with detailed footnotes and links so exact sources
and further research can be relayed.

Now, it's important to point out that there is a tendency to simply disbelieve things that are
counter to our understanding, without the necessary research performed.
For example, some information contained in Part 1 and Part 3, specifically, is not obtained
by simple keyword searches on the Internet. You have to dig deeper. For instance,
very often people who look up "Horus" or "The Federal Reserve" on the Internet
draw their conclusions from very general or biased sources. Online encyclopedias or text book
Encyclopedias often do not contain the information contained in Zeitgeist. However, if one takes
the time to read the sources provided, they will find that what is being presented is
based on documented evidence. Any corrections, clarifications & further points regarding the film
are found on the Clarifications page.

That being said, It is my hope that people will not take what is said
in the film as the truth, but find out for themselves, for truth is not told, it is realized.

Thank You

[cf24]

Seen it the other day, cant say I learnt anything new but good to e-mail to family and freinds who love Jesus:D

I agree, great one to introduce people to this kind of thing.....

[brotherapostate]

I have seen this one, very good.

Did anybody hear Eric John Phelps (author, 'Vatican Assassins') try to
attack this documentary on radio a few weeks ago?

For anybody who doesn't know Phelps, he is a Born Againer and I remember hearing him myself say some crazy things i.e. 'Check your Bible, God promised the land to the Jews!' and his latest classic 'All these 'saviors' were the work of the devil!

In other words, Phelps is defending Christianity the same way as the early church fathers did, by saying that all these stunning similarities were the work of the Devil coming before Christ and making Mithras, Horus, Dionysus etc himself!

I have the MP3 right here. Personally I think he has some interesting info regarding Vatican Assassins but his latest rubbish about how Alex Jones is a Jesuit conspirator is nonsense.

[vienna]

Zeitgeist was created as a non-profit filmiac expression to inspire people to start looking at the world
from a more critical perspective and to understand that very often things are not what the
population at large think they are. The information in Zeitgeist was established over a year long period
of research and the current Source page on this site lists the basic sources used / referenced.
Soon, an Interactive Transcript will be online with detailed footnotes and links so exact sources
and further research can be relayed.

Now, it's important to point out that there is a tendency to simply disbelieve things that are
counter to our understanding, without the necessary research performed.
For example, some information contained in Part 1 and Part 3, specifically, is not obtained
by simple keyword searches on the Internet. You have to dig deeper. For instance,
very often people who look up "Horus" or "The Federal Reserve" on the Internet
draw their conclusions from very general or biased sources. Online encyclopedias or text book
Encyclopedias often do not contain the information contained in Zeitgeist. However, if one takes
the time to read the sources provided, they will find that what is being presented is
based on documented evidence. Any corrections, clarifications & further points regarding the film
are found on the Clarifications page.

That being said, It is my hope that people will not take what is said
in the film as the truth, but find out for themselves, for truth is not told, it is realized.

Thank You


Part 3 is outstanding - the federal reserve and microchipping agenda

the Russo quote is worth noting too

[woghd]

The problem with zeitgeist is that it has SO many inaccuracies, especially in the first third of the movie, that it cannot be trusted. I won't get into them, as others have broken them down elsewhere, but some of my favorites are the errors in the story of Horus, Krishna, and the derivatives of certain words such as "Horizon" and "Sunset", which appear to have been completely made up on the spot. It's so bad that it's embarrassing. So no, as much as I agree with much of the movie, I cannot recommend it to anyone, especially an educated person, for fear of embarrassing myself as well.

Archangel

[brotherapostate]

Please could you link to the thread where you broke those points down? As you are probably aware, most of the 1st part based on AstroTheology is taken from the works of Jordan Maxwell aka Russell Pine and of course, Acharya S. Actually they both borrowed from Gerald Massey and some from Manly P Hall.

Personally I couldn't trust much of what Maxwell comes out with, but Manly P Hall was a genius of epic proportions.

[woghd]

First, I said "others" had broken it down.

However, I would challenge anyone interested to do the following.
1. Take the list Zeitgeist provides of all the myths the movie claims the story of Jesus is based on.
2. Google those other religions, and read the stories.
3. Pay special attention to the major points states in Zeitgeist, ie., "born on Dec 25", "virgin mother", "crucified", "12 desciples", etc., etc.
4. Compare the true stories of these other religious figures to Zeitgeist.

You will find they are all completely wrong. For some reason, Zeitgeist either purposely lied, or was GROSSLY mistaken. Either way, the truth is so completely different from the Zeitgeist version, that the rest of the movie cannot be trusted.

This is a shame, because I actually like the movie, but I cannot trust anything new I learn from it. Nor could I ever recommend it.

Archangel

[bicycle]

Nor could I ever recommend it.

Archangel


Then why post it here then:confused:

[brotherapostate]

I will check those points out further.

It is undeniable however that there were carvings and images of 'gods' before Christ who died on the cross, and that the Virgin mother is all based on Isis. It doesn't take Zeitgeist to prove this; it is already a widely held belief by theologians.

A good book worth a mention is called 'The Jesus Mysteries' by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy; this book delves into all of this.

[woghd]

Bicycle, i didn't post zeitgeist.

Let me recap:

However, I would challenge anyone interested to do the following.
1. Take the list Zeitgeist provides of all the myths the movie claims the story of Jesus is based on.
2. Google those other religions, and read the stories.
3. Pay special attention to the major points states in Zeitgeist, ie., "born on Dec 25", "virgin mother", "crucified", "12 desciples", etc., etc.
4. Compare the true stories of these other religious figures to Zeitgeist.

You will find they are all completely wrong. For some reason, Zeitgeist either purposely lied, or was GROSSLY mistaken. Either way, the truth is so completely different from the Zeitgeist version, that the rest of the movie cannot be trusted.

This is a shame, because I actually like the movie, but I cannot trust anything new I learn from it. Nor could I ever recommend it.

Archangel

EDIT: If I misunderstood something, let me know bro.

[bicycle]

Bicycle, i didn't post zeitgeist.

.

Ooops, sorry my mistake:o

[william_mac]

The problem with zeitgeist is that it has SO many inaccuracies, especially in the first third of the movie, that it cannot be trusted. I won't get into them, as others have broken them down elsewhere, but some of my favorites are the errors in the story of Horus, Krishna, and the derivatives of certain words such as "Horizon" and "Sunset", which appear to have been completely made up on the spot. It's so bad that it's embarrassing. So no, as much as I agree with much of the movie, I cannot recommend it to anyone, especially an educated person, for fear of embarrassing myself as well.

Archangel


I've personally researched in-depth and without bias all sources cited, and all sources cited by the sources cited. I took it upon myself to go over and beyond that of the internet and rent a few books, and purchase others. Through my research of incredibly reputable and respected authors as compared to the information presented on Zeitgeist, there are very few inaccuracies, and nearly every single one of those small and minimal inaccuracies were corrected in the "clarifications" section of the website itself.



-William
www.William-Mac.com

[william_mac]

Bicycle, i didn't post zeitgeist.

Let me recap:



Archangel

EDIT: If I misunderstood something, let me know bro.

For the life of me, I cannot undestand how you arrived at such conclusions. I know the Bible back and front, as I was once a christian who was actually being trained up to be the youth pastor of one of the largest churches in the South East. However, upon my own personal study at the time of not only the misstranslations of original Hebrew texts of the bible by the church and its leaders, but also the understanding that almost every single major and well-known religion in the world is connected by the same stories.

Furthermore, as my research grew over the years (I began at 17 when I left the church, and am now 21... so I've had a bit of time) I found lesser known religions or creationist beliefs that coincided almost exactly with each of the major religions. And when you get down to the real kickers like the Sumerian Tablets that confirm this EVEN more, then I don't see how you can literally say that you've somehow read these other religious texts and somehow arrived to the conclusion that they are in fact not almost exactly the same.

Not only that, but Dyonises, Shiva, Horus, Krishna... etc is undeniably the almost same exact stories found with Jesus. I just... I'm baffled here, because I can go right now and get you the information. I'm not sure if I'm not understanding what your points are or not... or if you're talking about something else... but as far as I can tell, you're the one who hasn't done the necessary research both on the internet and and off.



-William
www.William-Mac.com

[chris]

First, I said "others" had broken it down.

However, I would challenge anyone interested to do the following.
1. Take the list Zeitgeist provides of all the myths the movie claims the story of Jesus is based on.
2. Google those other religions, and read the stories.
3. Pay special attention to the major points states in Zeitgeist, ie., "born on Dec 25", "virgin mother", "crucified", "12 desciples", etc., etc.
4. Compare the true stories of these other religious figures to Zeitgeist.

You will find they are all completely wrong. For some reason, Zeitgeist either purposely lied, or was GROSSLY mistaken. Either way, the truth is so completely different from the Zeitgeist version, that the rest of the movie cannot be trusted.

This is a shame, because I actually like the movie, but I cannot trust anything new I learn from it. Nor could I ever recommend it.

Archangel

Zeitgeist's first 1/3 is worse than the entire loose change 1st edition. I agree, Christianity was the 'newage' of the day, a mish mash of religions but what this guy is saying so easily debunked it kind of acts like a strawman for Christians to knock down.

Just go out on the morning of december the 25th and follow the three kings to Sirius to the birth of the sun...Oh, you can't find it right? Oh, that's because it is below the horizon...I have checked and nowhere since the supposed birth of Christ did sirius align with the three kings and the sunrise on the 25th, not in the northen hemisphere and not in the southern hemisphere.

I knew from the start of reading one of David Ickes books that he was absolutely wrong about many of his facts when it came to Krishna (who dissapeared when he was 128 years old), Buddha, Osiris (the real sacrificial diety) and Horus (sky god, not sun).

I don't get why the guy needed to have bulllshit in his film...It could have gone with much more backed up details that is fascinating but he didn't and made a strawman's argument waiting to be debunked.

[brotherapostate]

William Mac, sounds to me like we had slightly similar experiences. I was raised a Jehovah's Witness until I was 20, I am 25 now. I was a fundamentalist that believed in the Bible as the inspired word of God, gave over 75 public talks (I started when I was just 7) and now look at me, I have read book after book of 'apostate' material - completely against what I was taught.

But then, what I was taught and what I learned to see was different - somehow, the light of truth guided me here

[kblood]

I know a priest here in my country who has come to the very same conclussion after many years as a faithfull priest. I like to think he still is, since he keeps following his beliefs. He is now beginning to teach theology at a University. He believes in just about all of what we are writing about here on this forum it seems.

Is that not something? A person like him at a university. Makes me think we arent all that hopeless as Icke might have thought, when he wrote his books. Hmmm... that is even wrong, because it seems Icke already knew that things would change, and probably for the better. We will awaken, we will get back alot that we have lost, and we will have more freedom than before, and therefore also more responsibility. I bet this priest person I know, might even have read or at least heard of David Icke. I guess I should look into this.

I know his mother and she surely is a person who is very good at showing how the world is quite a bit more than it seems. She uses massage and healing as part of her therapy. She did this before quantum touch healing was known here in my country. Guess it simply is the next logical step for therapy of broken souls :) I think she recently heard about quantum touch healing, and was quite surprised that it seemed the exact same that she was doing. Maybe it is a subtle hint to her that we do share our knowledge on a greater scale than we think.

[woghd]

Zeitgeist's first 1/3 is worse than the entire loose change 1st edition. I agree, Christianity was the 'newage' of the day, a mish mash of religions but what this guy is saying so easily debunked it kind of acts like a strawman for Christians to knock down.

Just go out on the morning of december the 25th and follow the three kings to Sirius to the birth of the sun...Oh, you can't find it right? Oh, that's because it is below the horizon...I have checked and nowhere since the supposed birth of Christ did sirius align with the three kings and the sunrise on the 25th, not in the northen hemisphere and not in the southern hemisphere.

I knew from the start of reading one of David Ickes books that he was absolutely wrong about many of his facts when it came to Krishna (who dissapeared when he was 128 years old), Buddha, Osiris (the real sacrificial diety) and Horus (sky god, not sun).

I don't get why the guy needed to have bulllshit in his film...It could have gone with much more backed up details that is fascinating but he didn't and made a strawman's argument waiting to be debunked.

It really *is* a shame that for some reason the producer of Zeitgeist, for whatever reason, basically sabotaged his own film. It's too easy for anyone to google the real stories of these various religions and compare them to the zeitgeist bs. I mean MAJOR errors, like saying Krishna was born on Dec 25, when it was actually in the middle of JUNE. There are HUNDREDS of these errors/lies in that first third of the movie, and for the life of me I cannot understand why he would do such a thing, knowing what scrutiny the statements would undergo.

If you ask me, the whole movie is disinformation, designed to discredit the true facts presented in the other two thirds of the movie.

Archangel

[william_mac]

William Mac, sounds to me like we had slightly similar experiences. I was raised a Jehovah's Witness until I was 20, I am 25 now. I was a fundamentalist that believed in the Bible as the inspired word of God, gave over 75 public talks (I started when I was just 7) and now look at me, I have read book after book of 'apostate' material - completely against what I was taught.

But then, what I was taught and what I learned to see was different - somehow, the light of truth guided me here


Yeah, I gave talks and got plenty of people "saved" for the kingdom and all that jazz. Hah. I taught people as a leader, and I discipled people. Yet, I don't think that, if I had not of gotten into that and had not of experienced it, I would have ever of gotten to where I am today. So, in a way, it was necessary.



-William
www.William-Mac.com

[william_mac]

It really *is* a shame that for some reason the producer of Zeitgeist, for whatever reason, basically sabotaged his own film. It's too easy for anyone to google the real stories of these various religions and compare them to the zeitgeist bs. I mean MAJOR errors, like saying Krishna was born on Dec 25, when it was actually in the middle of JUNE. There are HUNDREDS of these errors/lies in that first third of the movie, and for the life of me I cannot understand why he would do such a thing, knowing what scrutiny the statements would undergo.

If you ask me, the whole movie is disinformation, designed to discredit the true facts presented in the other two thirds of the movie.

Archangel


HELLO!!!! They did not say that Krishna was born on December 25 in the film. They got their facts straight. The only one they didn't get right was Horus, because that was December 21, not 25.

You two are not doing the alternate research that is needed. Besides, Jesus birth is pure speculation, the only reason they figured Jesus' birth was on 25th was due to the vast amount of other similar gods born on December 25th, yet many people speculate Jesus was born in spring... but no one knows... probably because he was never born.

As far as Sirius and the three kings are concerned... prove it wrong. I would like someone to show me the writing. Because i sure as hell haven't found anything debunking it.

Silly. People do hours upon hours of research and cite credible and reputable sources, and then it's just automatically debunked without any sources cited on your part. That, I do not understand. I mean... I would like just some kind of credible reason for this allegation. I reaspect and listen to nearly everyone, as long as they have actual facts under their belt.



-William
www.William-Mac.com

[bigus_dickus]

alright,
here are some articles/discussions that i found (don't have time to conduct my own right now, but i am providing a link with a relevant post of mine below). definitely worth a read and research.

---snip---

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=98970
Zeitgeist the new “truth” movie being promoted by its makers on conspiracy message boards around the internet has been thoroughly debunked. It is disgusting to think the makers would try to sell it as a “truth movie” considering that it has dozens (over 50) easily provable factual errors. This is a slap in the face to the people who have died and will continue to do so in this patriot movement, we would expect nothing less than 100% accuracy of any movie in the 911 truth realm. We are talking about specific false claims that have been debunked for years, yet because this is the first time its been put into a form of a movie It has new life. This is not about a defense of a religion, it is about the integrity of information and our right not to be lied to by people claiming to be “truthers”
Lets take a look at the references the makers of this movie list as their sources for this information on their website: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/sources.htm

You will notice that they don’t site one single original source for the Jesus similarities they claim exist, you would think if it was true that the ancient texts showed such similarities, they would simply site these ancient texts. They don’t because they do not exist, Its quite simple, They instead offer books from authors such as Tim Leedom, Massey, Acharya, Doherty. This is laughable as a resource list if you have looked in to these claims. It’s the equivalent as me referencing Glenn Beck to prove there is no 911 conspiracy. I know its hard to believe that Tsarion or Alan Watt have been quoting known disinfo in their dissemination of this idea, but look for yourself, The numerous claims made by this movie concerning Jesus’s many similarities are either true or false. Before I move on here are the links to various debunkings of the “Christ myth”

Here is a great look at the ridiculous claims of most of the authors on that list (how they get away with this stuff is beyond rational thought)
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/copycathub.html
This is another that site handles the major deities and does so with tremendous references.
http://www.thedevineevidence.com/jesus_similarities.html
I like the next site because no stone is left unturned in his search for more and more "Christ myths deities" to debunk, he has about 80 claims looked in to here:
http://kingdavid8.com/Copycat/Home.html
Because this movie spent so much time claiming the similarities of hours and Jesus here is a specific debunking to show how clearly uninformed in mythology and how easily duped the makers of this film are in making this claim.
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html
Now for Leedoms "Virishna" I wish there was more information to go on, but there is no such deity, at least in our earth's currently verifiable history. he apparently didn't bother with fact checking. Here is one account of the hunt for Virishna from an earlier source:
http://kingdavid8.com/Copycat/JesusVirishna.html

This movie also tries to make the claim that the Catholic churches pagan ideals, symbolism ,and rituals are somehow proof that Christianity itself is a part of this, nothing could be further from the truth. Lets take December 25th mentioned at least a dozen times in the film. The date of December 25th, which was officially proclaimed by the church fathers in A.D. 440, was actually a vestige of the Roman holiday of Saturnalia, observed near the winter solstice, which itself was among the many pagan traditions inherited from the earlier Babylonian priesthood. Any person that doesn’t drool on themselves will tell you that nowhere in the bible is this date mentioned or inferred in ANY way. It is ludicrous to say that and pagan rituals involving this date can be linked to Christianity before the catholic church got a hold of the idea, that is, ALMOST 500 YEARS LATER. This illustrates that the Vatican has very little to do with true Christianity except for the obvious problem that they themselves always claim that they ARE Christianity.
Ill put it this way:

I know, the catholic church very well may be terribly evil, It stands to reason that that is where evil would want to set up shop. but lets please stop using its pagan based rituals to prove anything about Christianities founder. Yes, the "church" does seem to be used as a control mechanism…TO CONTROL YOUR PERCEPTION OF CHRISTIANITY. It seems so obvious. Jesus was actually one of the most anti-religious people that ever walked the earth He had compassion for every low down person he came into contact with, except for the "clergy" of his day. They were the only people he ever spoke a harsh word to..maby a few money changers too. The guy in the new testament would be freaking furious with an organization that claims the kind of things the Vatican claims.


Now, on to one of my favorite subjects, the Zodiac, or the Mazzaroth. This movie’s half truths and outright lies about the zodiac are sickening. The unfortunate thing is that you have to know a good deal about science, history, mythology, astronomy, and physics in order to start to even understand what is at play with this system. It is not as simple as many are led to think And because of a lack of diligent study and an overabundance of half assed research, people swallow what they are told without questioning or learning anything further.
I warn you, if you REALLY want to know what the zodiac is, if you want to know why the illuminated groups venerate the “as above so below” maxim, it wont be easy, and you will have to go to “school”, the long and the short of it is that the system, and its use and history, have been perverted to show and do things are believed only because of what you are NOT told. it is a matter of withholding information as much or more that mis-information. The truth is stranger than the half truth.
I will put some links here for those who wish to look into this, I encourage everyone who cares to do so:
http://www.ldolphin.org/zodiac/
http://server.firefighters.org/catalog/1998/00452.mp3
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2018284938536095474
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1809393878728948984

You can argue with me about a lot of things here (and Im sure you will) but that this movie has a great deal of factual errors is not up for debate, as I said most of these claims were debunked 100 years ago. I am very worried about the future of this truth movement of which I am proudly a part of, I know that a division on dogmatic grounds is coming, and that all the great work we have done exposing and fighting this New World Order will be undone, by design. Be careful the ones proving the most stuff are often the ones to watch out for, they do this because they know that certain truths are coming out they know that they cant stop the awakening that’s coming. so they try to temper it by supplying us with the best real information through their agents and having them only lie about key elements, It is very insidious and very evil. We must be alert and challenge EVERYTHING even if you wanted to hear everything this movie had to say it does not make it true.

One more thing, As this movie suggest, I too believe we are at the end of an age. An astronomical age and a spiritual age, the precession of the equinoxes is a real thing,
They have tried to tell you that this impending change is a non-christian Idea, This IS the Idea! It is clearly described in the bible we will indeed change, as will this world, and why it must do so. but they are keeping you from seeing the origin of the warning! The bible has been 100% accurate in its writing history in advance, this is how has validated itself. Challenge this claim It is your duty, All the multidimensional beings around us know this too, they are not always to be trusted we do NOT know their motives.

P.S. I discuss what method the coming division might take here:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread289468/pg1

---snip---

Ok everyone! My father, professor of ancient and biblical history, has no come forth with many ideas regarding part 1 of Zeitgeist! (note, this is part of a letter he wrote to the Zeitgeist team)

He even makes note of what time in the movie he is referring to.

Everyone is welcome to debate over his thoughts

__________________________________________________ ________

11:50--The narrator states that "The Sun...was personified as a
representative of the unseen Creator or God." The early cultures
believed that the Sun WAS a god, and they did personify the Sun. But I
know of none that believed that there was an unseen God that the Sun
REPRESENTED, or that there was a God who owned the Sun. So it is not
clear how you then jump to conclusion that this is "God's Sun," and
there is no explanation of how you concluded that the Sun was somehow
"the Savior of Humankind." Do you mean because it helped the crops to
grow?

12:12--I'm afraid this section has quite a number of inaccuracies in
it. The narrator states that Horus was of 3000 BC. Horus was a god
worshipped in Egypt for a long time, not just in 3000. Moreover, there
are many version of Horus. I think you mean that an early story of the
battle between Horus and Set comes from around 3000. But that story is
about Horus the Elder, who was not the sun god, but the sky god. The
sun was considered one of his eyes and the moon the other. The Horus
who was represented as the winged sun disk was Horus of Behdet
(sometimes called simply Behdety). There are stories of his battles
with Set too, so I think this is the Horus you mean. You should take
out the date 3000, though, and I would recommend giving his full name
(Horus of Behdet) at least once.

I can find no evidence in any of the Egyptian records that Isis was a
virgin or that Horus was born without contribution from a father. Isis
was married to Osiris. After Osiris is killed, Isis puts him back
together again (he was hacked into 14 pieces) except for his penis
which was tossed in a river or a lake. Iris fashions a substitute penis
for him, humps him and here comes Horus. There is nothing virginal
about that. Perhaps people think this because the penis was fake?? But
the fact that she had to use the penis to get pregnant suggests that it
had something to do with the pregnancy. So maybe you should leave the
virgin part out. (I know this will be hard, since you want to have as
many similarities as possible with Jesus, but you have to be fair
here.)

I do not think there is any evidence that there was a Star from the
East that guided the three visitors to the baby Horus. Where did you
get this from? If you cannot verify it from actual Egyptian records,
then you should leave it out. Please see the following website for a
discussion of the evidence for this:

http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/carri...inscription.htm

There is no indication that Horus was "a prodigal child teacher" when
he was 12. And Horus was never baptized in any of the Horus stories.
According to the Horus accounts, Horus had four semi-gods that were
followers. There is some indication of 16 human followers and an
unknown number of blacksmiths that went into battle with him. Horus
did not have 12 disciples. And he was not crucified.

I would recommend using only the birth date (all sun gods, of course,
are born at that time of year), the miracles, and the titles (though I
don't think "the Lamb of God" was used of him). I know this is not as
good, but you have to be historically accurate.

You may also use the death and resurrection parallel, except you should
make it clear that this was originally about Horus' father Osiris, but
later, when Horus and his father became equated, Horus became known as
the resurrected Osiris. I know of no myth that says he was resurrected
3 days later.

14:00--Regarding Attis, the daughter of the god of the Sangarius river
conceived Attis not by sexual intercourse, but by taking the fruit of
an almond tree that had grown up from the sexual organ of Agdistis,
which the gods had cut off. But, as you can see, a penis was still
involved (as in the case of Isis). Perhaps it would be best to change
the wording on all of these from "born of a virgin" to "born without
sexual intercourse" or something like that.

Attis was not crucified. And there is no myth of which I am aware that
says he was buried for 3 days.

14:10--I don't know much about Krishna, but I would suggest you check
your facts to be sure of this. I heard that he was born to the princess
Devaki and her husband Vasudeva. I don't know of any "Star in the East"
myth associated with him and have never heard of a death and
resurrection story for him either.

14:20--Regarding Dionysus, he is the son of Zeus and Semele in some
myths and the son of Zeus and Persephone in others. I know of no virgin
birth story, though there are some versions that have him born from two
mothers and one father. I also know of no evidence that he was born on
Dec. 25. His festival was in March.

14:40--Regarding Mithra, I think you are confusing him with Mithras,
whose cult resembles Christianity in some ways. Mithra was a Persian
deity that has little resemblance to Jesus. Mithras was a Roman deity
that does. I don't know about any myths that have him buried for 3
days. And more importantly, Mithraism was contemporaneous with
Christianity.

16:30--In this section you conflate two traditions, the biblical story
with later Roman interpretation of that story. Your discussion here is
about the latter (and it is valid), but you make it seem as if it's how
the story was originally written. December 25th and the 3 "Kings" are
not in the Bible (the Magi are not kings).

16:48--Regarding the "M" for the constellation Virgo, you assume that
the symbol for it (the Greek letter Mu) influenced the names of virgin
goddesses, but the constellation has been associated with nearly every
prominent goddess, including Ishtar, Isis, Cybele, Mary, and Athena,
the names of which do not all start with M. You also assume that
Buddhists used the letter "M" for this constellation. Why would they
have used a Greek letter?

17:25--Here you seem to be suggesting that Bethelehem is a made-up
place, a reference to something "not on earth." But it was a town that
actually existed. We have archaeological remains. If you are suggesting
that the name of this place was chosen for the story because it
corresponded with the name of the constellation, then say so.

17:30-19:25--All the stuff about the sun dying for three days and the
spring equinox is good.

19:50--To say that the Bible has "more to do with astrology than
anything else" is too much of an exaggeration. That's one mighty large
book, and it talks about a great many things. Plus, many of the
astrological associations in Christianity are post-biblical.

20:00--All the stuff about the cross is fine.

21:05--Of course, you are entitled to your interpretation, but the
"crown of thorns" analogy is a stretch, because it occurs in a context
not related to Jesus' being in the sky.

22:15--You don't explain why you start counting the ages from 4300 BC.
This date will seem arbitrary if you do not explain why. You also
should explain why you start with Taurus.

26:30--The section on the wall at Luxor is a stretch. You are, of
course, entitled to your interpretation, but most Egyptologists (even
atheists) would not take it seriously, I'm afraid. There is no
depiction of any immaculate conception, and no way of telling what is
being said by any of the characters, if they are saying anything at
all.

27:15--I cannot verify all the items in this list, because I couldn't
read it. I have a feeling you didn't verify them all either. But the
image is effective.

27:33--The epic of Gilgamesh was not written in 2600 BC. Some old
episodes about Gilgamesh began to be recorded then, but the epic as we
have it today is from the 8th century BC. The part of it concerning the
flood probably predates the Bible, but it is impossible to determine
exactly how old it is.

28:15--The Sargon legend comes from several centuries after Sargon, so
you have the date wrong here too. With regard to both the epic of
Gilgamesh, the legend of Sargon, and the Bible, scholars say it is more
likely that there was a common tradition that all three drew from than
that the Bible copied directly from the other two works.

29:00--There is no etymological relationship between the three "M"
names. You are really stretching here. The similarities are
superficial.

29:14--This part is very weak because it seems to be ignoring the fact
that the laws of many nations are similar, not because they were
copying from each other, but because in order for a community to
function, there are going to be laws that have to be made. I mean, what
society can function without laws against murder and stealing? They ALL
have them! Communities thousands of miles apart and with no
communication between each other are still going to have laws against
stealing, murder, etc. It has nothing to do with copying. It's part of
civilization.

29:30--Again, you need to delete "virgin birth." And where do you get
"ark of the covenant" and "communion" and "passover" from? I am not
aware of these, and you did not explain them previously.

32:50--Since when does the quantity of sentences within a historian's
work establish whether a person is historical or not. If "Christus" is
mentioned, then the writers obviously believed there was a Christus.
These Roman writers were talking about him in the context of
Christianity, so there is no way to make Christus be anybody else
except the founder of the Christian sect.

33:07--To be fair, the subject of how much of Josephus' reference to
Jesus is original and how much is a forgery is still the subject of
controversy today, even among non-Christians. Most scholars think that
Josephus did refer to Jesus, but that the text was later embellished.

Why not leave open the possibility that there was a man Jesus, but that
the numerous legends about him are fabrications?

34:12--Here you assume that Gnostic Christians came first. But there
were "historical" gospels written before the Gnostic ones. Gnosticism
is not the original form of Christianity. It is just one of its many
branches.

35:12--You just got through demonstrating that Christianity was based
on phenomena of the natural world and then here say that Christianity
"serves to detach the species from the natural world." It seems
contradictory. Do you mean later Christianity?

I also think it is important for you to distinguish between "religion"
and "theism." The former has caused a lot more problems than the
latter, which is merely a belief.

33:55--Here we hear someone say, "We want to be factual" and
"acedemically correct." I urge you to live up to this and make the film
even stronger by eliminating the errors and adjusting the wording.

---snip---

my take on this so far, commenting on Jordan Maxwell:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=39190&postcount=24

[woghd]

I think we can say that Zeitgeist has been thoroughly debunked at this point.

I still think that the movie was disinfo designed to make people doubt the facts laid out in the second 2/3 of the movie, so if anyone questions 9-11 (for example) people will think "Oh yeah, that was in Zeitgeist, that crack-pot conspiracy movie".

That movie has done more damage for the truth movement than any number of corrupt politicians could have hoped for.

Archangel

[pumma]

Nice post bigus_dickus > thank you for this... it makes sence

For those who missed it, this was debated (and exposed) here ...
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8265

[william_mac]

alright,
here are some articles/discussions that i found (don't have time to conduct my own right now, but i am providing a link with a relevant post of mine below). definitely worth a read and research.

---snip---

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=98970
Zeitgeist the new “truth” movie being promoted by its makers on conspiracy message boards around the internet has been thoroughly debunked. It is disgusting to think the makers would try to sell it as a “truth movie” considering that it has dozens (over 50) easily provable factual errors. This is a slap in the face to the people who have died and will continue to do so in this patriot movement, we would expect nothing less than 100% accuracy of any movie in the 911 truth realm. We are talking about specific false claims that have been debunked for years, yet because this is the first time its been put into a form of a movie It has new life. This is not about a defense of a religion, it is about the integrity of information and our right not to be lied to by people claiming to be “truthers”
Lets take a look at the references the makers of this movie list as their sources for this information on their website: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/sources.htm

You will notice that they don’t site one single original source for the Jesus similarities they claim exist, you would think if it was true that the ancient texts showed such similarities, they would simply site these ancient texts. They don’t because they do not exist, Its quite simple, They instead offer books from authors such as Tim Leedom, Massey, Acharya, Doherty. This is laughable as a resource list if you have looked in to these claims. It’s the equivalent as me referencing Glenn Beck to prove there is no 911 conspiracy. I know its hard to believe that Tsarion or Alan Watt have been quoting known disinfo in their dissemination of this idea, but look for yourself, The numerous claims made by this movie concerning Jesus’s many similarities are either true or false. Before I move on here are the links to various debunkings of the “Christ myth”

Here is a great look at the ridiculous claims of most of the authors on that list (how they get away with this stuff is beyond rational thought)
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/copycathub.html
This is another that site handles the major deities and does so with tremendous references.
http://www.thedevineevidence.com/jesus_similarities.html
I like the next site because no stone is left unturned in his search for more and more "Christ myths deities" to debunk, he has about 80 claims looked in to here:
http://kingdavid8.com/Copycat/Home.html
Because this movie spent so much time claiming the similarities of hours and Jesus here is a specific debunking to show how clearly uninformed in mythology and how easily duped the makers of this film are in making this claim.
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html
Now for Leedoms "Virishna" I wish there was more information to go on, but there is no such deity, at least in our earth's currently verifiable history. he apparently didn't bother with fact checking. Here is one account of the hunt for Virishna from an earlier source:
http://kingdavid8.com/Copycat/JesusVirishna.html

This movie also tries to make the claim that the Catholic churches pagan ideals, symbolism ,and rituals are somehow proof that Christianity itself is a part of this, nothing could be further from the truth. Lets take December 25th mentioned at least a dozen times in the film. The date of December 25th, which was officially proclaimed by the church fathers in A.D. 440, was actually a vestige of the Roman holiday of Saturnalia, observed near the winter solstice, which itself was among the many pagan traditions inherited from the earlier Babylonian priesthood. Any person that doesn’t drool on themselves will tell you that nowhere in the bible is this date mentioned or inferred in ANY way. It is ludicrous to say that and pagan rituals involving this date can be linked to Christianity before the catholic church got a hold of the idea, that is, ALMOST 500 YEARS LATER. This illustrates that the Vatican has very little to do with true Christianity except for the obvious problem that they themselves always claim that they ARE Christianity.
Ill put it this way:

I know, the catholic church very well may be terribly evil, It stands to reason that that is where evil would want to set up shop. but lets please stop using its pagan based rituals to prove anything about Christianities founder. Yes, the "church" does seem to be used as a control mechanism…TO CONTROL YOUR PERCEPTION OF CHRISTIANITY. It seems so obvious. Jesus was actually one of the most anti-religious people that ever walked the earth He had compassion for every low down person he came into contact with, except for the "clergy" of his day. They were the only people he ever spoke a harsh word to..maby a few money changers too. The guy in the new testament would be freaking furious with an organization that claims the kind of things the Vatican claims.


Now, on to one of my favorite subjects, the Zodiac, or the Mazzaroth. This movie’s half truths and outright lies about the zodiac are sickening. The unfortunate thing is that you have to know a good deal about science, history, mythology, astronomy, and physics in order to start to even understand what is at play with this system. It is not as simple as many are led to think And because of a lack of diligent study and an overabundance of half assed research, people swallow what they are told without questioning or learning anything further.
I warn you, if you REALLY want to know what the zodiac is, if you want to know why the illuminated groups venerate the “as above so below” maxim, it wont be easy, and you will have to go to “school”, the long and the short of it is that the system, and its use and history, have been perverted to show and do things are believed only because of what you are NOT told. it is a matter of withholding information as much or more that mis-information. The truth is stranger than the half truth.
I will put some links here for those who wish to look into this, I encourage everyone who cares to do so:
http://www.ldolphin.org/zodiac/
http://server.firefighters.org/catalog/1998/00452.mp3
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2018284938536095474
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1809393878728948984

You can argue with me about a lot of things here (and Im sure you will) but that this movie has a great deal of factual errors is not up for debate, as I said most of these claims were debunked 100 years ago. I am very worried about the future of this truth movement of which I am proudly a part of, I know that a division on dogmatic grounds is coming, and that all the great work we have done exposing and fighting this New World Order will be undone, by design. Be careful the ones proving the most stuff are often the ones to watch out for, they do this because they know that certain truths are coming out they know that they cant stop the awakening that’s coming. so they try to temper it by supplying us with the best real information through their agents and having them only lie about key elements, It is very insidious and very evil. We must be alert and challenge EVERYTHING even if you wanted to hear everything this movie had to say it does not make it true.

One more thing, As this movie suggest, I too believe we are at the end of an age. An astronomical age and a spiritual age, the precession of the equinoxes is a real thing,
They have tried to tell you that this impending change is a non-christian Idea, This IS the Idea! It is clearly described in the bible we will indeed change, as will this world, and why it must do so. but they are keeping you from seeing the origin of the warning! The bible has been 100% accurate in its writing history in advance, this is how has validated itself. Challenge this claim It is your duty, All the multidimensional beings around us know this too, they are not always to be trusted we do NOT know their motives.

P.S. I discuss what method the coming division might take here:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread289468/pg1

---snip---

Ok everyone! My father, professor of ancient and biblical history, has no come forth with many ideas regarding part 1 of Zeitgeist! (note, this is part of a letter he wrote to the Zeitgeist team)

He even makes note of what time in the movie he is referring to.

Everyone is welcome to debate over his thoughts

__________________________________________________ ________

11:50--The narrator states that "The Sun...was personified as a
representative of the unseen Creator or God." The early cultures
believed that the Sun WAS a god, and they did personify the Sun. But I
know of none that believed that there was an unseen God that the Sun
REPRESENTED, or that there was a God who owned the Sun. So it is not
clear how you then jump to conclusion that this is "God's Sun," and
there is no explanation of how you concluded that the Sun was somehow
"the Savior of Humankind." Do you mean because it helped the crops to
grow?

12:12--I'm afraid this section has quite a number of inaccuracies in
it. The narrator states that Horus was of 3000 BC. Horus was a god
worshipped in Egypt for a long time, not just in 3000. Moreover, there
are many version of Horus. I think you mean that an early story of the
battle between Horus and Set comes from around 3000. But that story is
about Horus the Elder, who was not the sun god, but the sky god. The
sun was considered one of his eyes and the moon the other. The Horus
who was represented as the winged sun disk was Horus of Behdet
(sometimes called simply Behdety). There are stories of his battles
with Set too, so I think this is the Horus you mean. You should take
out the date 3000, though, and I would recommend giving his full name
(Horus of Behdet) at least once.

I can find no evidence in any of the Egyptian records that Isis was a
virgin or that Horus was born without contribution from a father. Isis
was married to Osiris. After Osiris is killed, Isis puts him back
together again (he was hacked into 14 pieces) except for his penis
which was tossed in a river or a lake. Iris fashions a substitute penis
for him, humps him and here comes Horus. There is nothing virginal
about that. Perhaps people think this because the penis was fake?? But
the fact that she had to use the penis to get pregnant suggests that it
had something to do with the pregnancy. So maybe you should leave the
virgin part out. (I know this will be hard, since you want to have as
many similarities as possible with Jesus, but you have to be fair
here.)

I do not think there is any evidence that there was a Star from the
East that guided the three visitors to the baby Horus. Where did you
get this from? If you cannot verify it from actual Egyptian records,
then you should leave it out. Please see the following website for a
discussion of the evidence for this:

http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/carri...inscription.htm

There is no indication that Horus was "a prodigal child teacher" when
he was 12. And Horus was never baptized in any of the Horus stories.
According to the Horus accounts, Horus had four semi-gods that were
followers. There is some indication of 16 human followers and an
unknown number of blacksmiths that went into battle with him. Horus
did not have 12 disciples. And he was not crucified.

I would recommend using only the birth date (all sun gods, of course,
are born at that time of year), the miracles, and the titles (though I
don't think "the Lamb of God" was used of him). I know this is not as
good, but you have to be historically accurate.

You may also use the death and resurrection parallel, except you should
make it clear that this was originally about Horus' father Osiris, but
later, when Horus and his father became equated, Horus became known as
the resurrected Osiris. I know of no myth that says he was resurrected
3 days later.

14:00--Regarding Attis, the daughter of the god of the Sangarius river
conceived Attis not by sexual intercourse, but by taking the fruit of
an almond tree that had grown up from the sexual organ of Agdistis,
which the gods had cut off. But, as you can see, a penis was still
involved (as in the case of Isis). Perhaps it would be best to change
the wording on all of these from "born of a virgin" to "born without
sexual intercourse" or something like that.

Attis was not crucified. And there is no myth of which I am aware that
says he was buried for 3 days.

14:10--I don't know much about Krishna, but I would suggest you check
your facts to be sure of this. I heard that he was born to the princess
Devaki and her husband Vasudeva. I don't know of any "Star in the East"
myth associated with him and have never heard of a death and
resurrection story for him either.

14:20--Regarding Dionysus, he is the son of Zeus and Semele in some
myths and the son of Zeus and Persephone in others. I know of no virgin
birth story, though there are some versions that have him born from two
mothers and one father. I also know of no evidence that he was born on
Dec. 25. His festival was in March.

14:40--Regarding Mithra, I think you are confusing him with Mithras,
whose cult resembles Christianity in some ways. Mithra was a Persian
deity that has little resemblance to Jesus. Mithras was a Roman deity
that does. I don't know about any myths that have him buried for 3
days. And more importantly, Mithraism was contemporaneous with
Christianity.

16:30--In this section you conflate two traditions, the biblical story
with later Roman interpretation of that story. Your discussion here is
about the latter (and it is valid), but you make it seem as if it's how
the story was originally written. December 25th and the 3 "Kings" are
not in the Bible (the Magi are not kings).

16:48--Regarding the "M" for the constellation Virgo, you assume that
the symbol for it (the Greek letter Mu) influenced the names of virgin
goddesses, but the constellation has been associated with nearly every
prominent goddess, including Ishtar, Isis, Cybele, Mary, and Athena,
the names of which do not all start with M. You also assume that
Buddhists used the letter "M" for this constellation. Why would they
have used a Greek letter?

17:25--Here you seem to be suggesting that Bethelehem is a made-up
place, a reference to something "not on earth." But it was a town that
actually existed. We have archaeological remains. If you are suggesting
that the name of this place was chosen for the story because it
corresponded with the name of the constellation, then say so.

17:30-19:25--All the stuff about the sun dying for three days and the
spring equinox is good.

19:50--To say that the Bible has "more to do with astrology than
anything else" is too much of an exaggeration. That's one mighty large
book, and it talks about a great many things. Plus, many of the
astrological associations in Christianity are post-biblical.

20:00--All the stuff about the cross is fine.

21:05--Of course, you are entitled to your interpretation, but the
"crown of thorns" analogy is a stretch, because it occurs in a context
not related to Jesus' being in the sky.

22:15--You don't explain why you start counting the ages from 4300 BC.
This date will seem arbitrary if you do not explain why. You also
should explain why you start with Taurus.

26:30--The section on the wall at Luxor is a stretch. You are, of
course, entitled to your interpretation, but most Egyptologists (even
atheists) would not take it seriously, I'm afraid. There is no
depiction of any immaculate conception, and no way of telling what is
being said by any of the characters, if they are saying anything at
all.

27:15--I cannot verify all the items in this list, because I couldn't
read it. I have a feeling you didn't verify them all either. But the
image is effective.

27:33--The epic of Gilgamesh was not written in 2600 BC. Some old
episodes about Gilgamesh began to be recorded then, but the epic as we
have it today is from the 8th century BC. The part of it concerning the
flood probably predates the Bible, but it is impossible to determine
exactly how old it is.

28:15--The Sargon legend comes from several centuries after Sargon, so
you have the date wrong here too. With regard to both the epic of
Gilgamesh, the legend of Sargon, and the Bible, scholars say it is more
likely that there was a common tradition that all three drew from than
that the Bible copied directly from the other two works.

29:00--There is no etymological relationship between the three "M"
names. You are really stretching here. The similarities are
superficial.

29:14--This part is very weak because it seems to be ignoring the fact
that the laws of many nations are similar, not because they were
copying from each other, but because in order for a community to
function, there are going to be laws that have to be made. I mean, what
society can function without laws against murder and stealing? They ALL
have them! Communities thousands of miles apart and with no
communication between each other are still going to have laws against
stealing, murder, etc. It has nothing to do with copying. It's part of
civilization.

29:30--Again, you need to delete "virgin birth." And where do you get
"ark of the covenant" and "communion" and "passover" from? I am not
aware of these, and you did not explain them previously.

32:50--Since when does the quantity of sentences within a historian's
work establish whether a person is historical or not. If "Christus" is
mentioned, then the writers obviously believed there was a Christus.
These Roman writers were talking about him in the context of
Christianity, so there is no way to make Christus be anybody else
except the founder of the Christian sect.

33:07--To be fair, the subject of how much of Josephus' reference to
Jesus is original and how much is a forgery is still the subject of
controversy today, even among non-Christians. Most scholars think that
Josephus did refer to Jesus, but that the text was later embellished.

Why not leave open the possibility that there was a man Jesus, but that
the numerous legends about him are fabrications?

34:12--Here you assume that Gnostic Christians came first. But there
were "historical" gospels written before the Gnostic ones. Gnosticism
is not the original form of Christianity. It is just one of its many
branches.

35:12--You just got through demonstrating that Christianity was based
on phenomena of the natural world and then here say that Christianity
"serves to detach the species from the natural world." It seems
contradictory. Do you mean later Christianity?

I also think it is important for you to distinguish between "religion"
and "theism." The former has caused a lot more problems than the
latter, which is merely a belief.

33:55--Here we hear someone say, "We want to be factual" and
"acedemically correct." I urge you to live up to this and make the film
even stronger by eliminating the errors and adjusting the wording.

---snip---

my take on this so far, commenting on Jordan Maxwell:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=39190&postcount=24

Yeesh. That is a lot of information to comment on. I have skimmed through almost everything very quickly, and already marked down on paper the sources I will site and the facts that debunk most of what was said. But, right now, I've been procrastinating all day on 10 articles about Reverse Mortgages, and I need to write them now, along with a few other projects (won't be to bed until... 4 AM at the least).

Give me a day or two. I would love to actually sit down and comment on all the major aspects of these things. A lot of this information is bias, I can tell (not all of it). People who are sympathetic or biblical scholors or Christians in general defending the religion. I was a Christian, I was a big Christian... so I know how they think. They try to find any snippet of information they can to cast off a perfectly well-researched allegation against their religion, which is a lot of what I've read here. Not only that, but as a paid, published, and full time journalist, I know how words can influence people. The thing that I joke about all the time is that I can actually get away with writing things that make absolutely no sense, or are absolutely insane, but as long as I use the right wording and writing tone... people will believe it immediately. In the case of Zeitgeist, they weren't trying to do this. I do, however, wish they would have not stated their own personal opinions about christianity, even if it was seemingly subtle. Because, when I first watched it, I was thinking "that's not a good idea, just tell the facts and let people decide for themselves, no need to go any further". But, media people have to throw in drama somewhere.

Those are my real fast initial observations, I'll reply to all major claims tomorrow night or the afternoon after.

One really quick thing I can debunk right now is the recurring theme that Krishna was not born of a virgin because of 8 siblings. This is largely misstranslated, and zeitgeist got it a tad-bit wrong. Krishna was not born of a virgin, but Krisna was also not born of natural sexual means... so that is where the missunderstanding comes from.

It was believed that Krishna was born not from a sexual connection between Devaki and Vasudeva, but was transferred to Devaki's womb. After he realised that Krishna had escaped alive, Kamsa released Devaki and Vasudeva, and they lived in Mathura.

Krishna was a reincarnation and was born without sexual intercourse; however, he was not born of a virgin. The similarity is still there, especially when reading over his life. People seemed to concern themselves in this writings moreover with the birthing and name aspect instead of with the life aspect.

Another quick thing is that they say that the December 25 born-on connection is false because the bible does not talk about Jesus' birth date. That's true, however, even when I was in church my pastors claimed that Jesus was born on December 25 due to historians and scholars estimating that as the most logical day to be born on, or somewhere around that area. However, that isn't true. The truth is no one really knows when Jesus was born, because nothing talks about it, and scholars, as far as i've read, believe it was more near spring time. However, the date remains December 25 in which we celebrate his birth. You have to bare in mind, that Jesus is not actually proven to of existed, and we need to go back and do a little digging as to why he is actually thought to be born on December 25 and how that myth came to be perpetuated, as well as the time of his death and resurrection. I have information on this, and I will post it in the later reply.

One of the things that I failed to understand during this skimming through of information was the repeated debunking of the pagan and christian parralells "myth" by saying that these things have no real connection with Christianity, but the information was wording it as if these former gods (predating christianity) were indeed not taken from the Christian belief. Yet, I'm sitting here thinking "of course they weren't taken from the Christian beliefe.... they were before Christianity".

Again, this was a fast skim through the information. I'll get on it when I have some free time over the next couple of days.

I think it is important to realize that facts are going to be proven false or proven true by a variety of sources. However, none of these "facts" can really be 100% proven either way. We can't be absolutely sure; no one can. Yet, the overwhelming synchronicity between gods, creation stories, and religions between seemingly un-connected cultures seperated by not only borders and miles, but oceans, is undeniable. And, even the most skeptical person cannot deny the bazaarity of every culture having the same depiction and story of the dragon, yet the mainstream historians and scholars seen on TV do not attempt to speak of it. Just like Christians in church do not speak of the passage in Genesis stating that the angels in heaven found the women on earth to be very beautiful, so they swooped down and took them up to heaven and had children with them.

So, we see already some of the seemingly unexplainable phenomina that rival so completely with man's beliefs on creation, religion, or how the world began so vehemently, that man would just as soon not speak of think about it than try to figure it out any way possible.

So, just like the dragon, all creation stories are not only similar, but almost exactly the same, and all ancient cultures that tell the story of creation are more reliable than the mirroring texts of later generations, because it's always simple to get lost in translation. And, when the oldest known civilzation's (Sumerians) writings are found (Sumerian Tablets) and they speak entirely of what the Old Testimate and Babylonian scripts state, as well as many other stories of creation by ancient cultures, yet the writings detail these events without the use of a god figure, but instead an extraterrestrial race from another planet (the planets of which were documented down to the last degree) that came to earth and interbred with humans and/or created them artificially.... then I start to see that this whole god thing is false in general, and all of the ensuing "holy texts" are just knowledge continueing to be lost over the years, and regurgitated wrongly.

As far as the new testimate is concerned, when we see that Jesus (and Joseph of the old testimate, and a similar character in Sumerian Tablets) are almost completely similar to hundreds of other gods, and stories from religious texts all the way down to similar birth sequences, life sequences, and death sequences... then it becomes fairly obvious that it had to start somewhere, and that it certainly didn't start with Jesus.

To actually quote Solomon from Ecclesiasties "There is nothing new under the sun", and Jesus, and the bible, and the story therein is certainly not new either.

As far as Zeitgeist's minor mistakes, adamant opposition towards Christianity, and so on... the fact is, that the movie gets people thinking differently... or at least considering differently. And, they did a damn good job, and I think that people, on their own, will be able to search further for the truth... but a spark is always needed, and I think Zeitgeist is a fucking good spark.



More later.



-William
www.William-Mac.com

[william_mac]

I think we can say that Zeitgeist has been thoroughly debunked at this point.

I still think that the movie was disinfo designed to make people doubt the facts laid out in the second 2/3 of the movie, so if anyone questions 9-11 (for example) people will think "Oh yeah, that was in Zeitgeist, that crack-pot conspiracy movie".

That movie has done more damage for the truth movement than any number of corrupt politicians could have hoped for.

Archangel

Well, I already posted a few dubunkings of the Zeitgeist movie... uh... debunkings, and said I would post more. But, I was considering making copies of Zeitgeist and passing them out along with some information I had written coming up here on 9/11, but I told my producer Jon that I wanted to take out Part 1. All in all, I believe it to be unecessary. It just doesn't fit in, it's just an attack, no matter how true or false the claims may be.

And, I think it would turn a lot of people off to watch this movie and suffer through the religion part. Because, if anything, this section should have been included at the very end... or as a seperate video that promotes discussion. It should not have been put first, and I for one will be taking it out and only passing out parts 2-3. Because, regardless of the argument with religion... I think we're living here and now, and we are humans and we want peace and we want freedom. So, the more important information is to snap people out of not caring about world events, and not thinking outside of the box concerning world events, and that comes with a few much needed questions about 9/11, the central banking system, and wars throughout the last century being asked... and to have them put together a nice convenient and entertaining video is ideal, because people can sit back and watch it, and perhaps be prompted to prod further into the subject.

I really don't think the whole religion thing should be in it, and if they were to keep it, I would say put it at the end... because in all reality, it doesn't fit with the rest of the film. I mean, Part 2 and 3 flow really nicely... but Part 1 doesn't fit. If they're going to do that, they need to make a seperate film about it, and make it longer, and with more cited sources, research, interviews, yadda-yadda, so that it is more explained.



-William
www.William-Mac.com

[woghd]

I agree, the first third has nothing to do with the second two-thirds. All it does, with it's bias and it's errors, is bring into question the validity of the rest of the movie.

Archangel

[bigus_dickus]

the thing is, this film is being shared as "the truth" by users of this forum. every few days, there is someone sending the link, i have seen it more than 10 times in here.

well, how can it be "the truth" when there are so many lies and inaccuracies contained in it? i don't care about defending christianity, because i don't think christianity needs any defending, these guys are not a threat or anything. but, how come this is passed as truth, i don't understand. i can take all points made in the first part one by one and show you, like other people have done, but is it really worth it?

i understand that certain people don't like religions and think that religious people have "destroyed" the world, but this is not true, deception and lies have done the job. moreover, this first part is not about religions, but about christianity alone. that is, if we consider christianity to be just Roman Catholicism and only just one book, with absolutely no philosophy and tradition behind it. then you get the rest of the movie, in which i assume it is about conspiracies (i haven't watched it all yet), so what do we have at the end? that christianity is behind all conspiracies? that's absurd..

if there are devious manipulators in this world, these are not the christians. they can't be, not because i don't believe that they aren't, but because it doesn't add up. this tells me that these people have an agenda in which they want christianity to cease to exist and something else put in its place. i can't really think that they are that stupid so that i can consider it to be a big mistake or a misunderstanding. and, by doing that, they clearly intend to promote astrology and the rest of the jargon.

if someone wants to present "the truth" to fellow people, there are no mistakes allowed. you can't have "the truth" with a few lies, or have researched only half of the story, the one that atheists (his sources) represent. you have to include everything if you want to be politically correct, understand the philosophy and esoteric meanings, include all other religions and all other versions of christianity, or simply leave it out if you don't know enough about it. you don't just present false assumptions and substitute a religion with another. this guy is clearly giving the message, that christians believe something else than they really believe, which is false.

and astrology.. i mean connecting dots in the sky and calling it constellations, where the sun "houses" having so much significance in our lives and calling it religion.. please. apart from all that, i don't think that christianity should be made a religion, but an esoteric philosophy and a way of life for people, a guidance. making a religion out of christianity is wrong, jesus never asked people to worship him and pray in his name.. people erroneously understand that "following" him, means make a statue of his image and bow to it constantly, but that's just nonsense, he would never agree with something like that, in fact he was always against that kind of behavior.

[chris]

As far as Sirius and the three kings are concerned... prove it wrong. I would like someone to show me the writing. Because i sure as hell haven't found anything debunking it.

Silly. People do hours upon hours of research and cite credible and reputable sources, and then it's just automatically debunked without any sources cited on your part. That, I do not understand. I mean... I would like just some kind of credible reason for this allegation. I reaspect and listen to nearly everyone, as long as they have actual facts under their belt.



-William
www.William-Mac.com

You are right to say this as I have not added any sources at all because I didn't add any (i'm lazy)...I was giving more of my point of view rather than trying to give a sensible debunk and influence peoples minds. I couldn't care less what they think...This is the thing I don't understand about Zeitgeist, Christians (sensible ones) are the most anti nwo group out there we don't need to rock the boat with them. Its the sheeple we need to wake up and Zeitgeist is a bit of a stab at the core of the resistance so at very least it could give out good information to them. Otherwise it will just make an internal battle within us that we don't need.

Over my time reseaching, I've had so much stuff debunked its crazy, things I'd bet my life on was true have been proven false...It's a learning experience and will refine your discernment.

When it came to Krishna, I got into the nwo mostly through spirituality and I especially found Hinduism to be interesting...I had a lot of dreams about Krsna and wanted to find out more about him...I was taught that he dissapeared when he was 128 and didn't come back. There are many sects of hinduism and so many different accounts of his life (just like christianity), many believe he was shot by an arrow and died at 125. There is always a little difference however they usually agree that he dissapeared and there are a lot of pictures of his wife looking sad when Krsna left so there are many different legends but the first time I heard that he was crucified was while reading one of Ickes books and he sited the reference '16 crucified saviours which is where I believe the producer got his research for Zeitgeist.

You don’t have to look hard for references on Krishna, it’s not like I am making a difficult, controversial claim…Wiki will surfice, if not just try google and you’ll easily find some mainstream hindu websites with his life history.

Krishna - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

photo of Krsna’s fit Mrs…
http://vrinda.vaisnava.hu/radhe/fotos/galeria/grandes/radha.jpg

As for the three kings…It is not like I am looking up in a book that they don’t line up with the birth of the sun as you can debate words all day. It’s from direct knowledge. I can’t be bothered to prove this to you as it takes many screen shots but if you download stellarium, you can prove this for yourself…This is a well respected program used in planetariums and the like, I have used it personally and find it very accurate.

I did however take a screenshot of the southern cross on the morning of Dec 25th from sunrise for arguments purposes in Cairo (but I’ve checked all around).

So where is the Southern cross at this precise time? Surprise surprise, it’s in the south!

The reason that I didn’t take a screen shot of the three kings is that they are so far out of alignment that it would be hard to piece two screenshots together and make them easy to see...


http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/9307/southencrossad2.png

I have checked as far back even before Christ and no where do these line up in the way they say it does…

The reason why I don’t understand Zeitgeist is that it could have been great…He has more than enough factual material to make a great theosophic film but he just wanted to attack Christianity.

[chicken_little]

Man...this thread is so frustrating to me.

I admit that when I saw Zeitgeist I assumed that it was worthy of my trust and that the people who made it were at least pretty close in their claims. To see a thread like this pointing out so many inconsistencies is both disappointing and sort of a blow to my own search for the truth.

Before I watched part 1 of Zeitgeist I was already having doubts about Christianity, which, up until a few months ago, I considered myself a part of. However, thanks in part to reading things on this and other forums, as well as reading many websites, the confidence I felt in my doubts began to grow. The nice thing about Zeitgeist was that it put a lot of what I had been reading and wondering about into a nice, concise package that was easy to follow. For those reasons, to see it debunked, is somewhat hard to swallow. However, I've also learned that there is not much I read anymore, whether it be online or in books, that I feel I can trust.

I really hope that this thread continues to be a source of good information that debates the accuracy of the movie. I doubt I'm the only one reading this forum who is very, very hungry for truth about religion and spirituality. I know some might be compelled to tell me something about reptilians or that we live in some matrix or something, and I respect that. But not all of us are ready to accept that. We need to start with what we are familiar with and go from there. For me personally, that point would be to learn, without a doubt, that my faith in Christianity was indeed the product of false information. I think, as was pointed out, that Zeitgeist can at least be given some credit in that it does (for some people) trigger some unconventional thinking. If I hadn't seen part 1 I might still be half-heartedly doubting my religious beliefs. But now I am pretty sure that I'm headed in the right direction because the movie did in fact spark my curiosity.

I encourage those of you who have been posting the results of your research to continue. I can definitely understand that for those of you going back and forth over the details of the movie this thread might seem like a debate over the legitimacy of the "facts" shared in the movie. But know that this thread is also a spot where people can come to hopefully get closer to the truth.

Thanks for the time and effort many of you have put into this thread. Keep it up! Your work is very much appreciated.

To go in a slightly different direction... Is there anything in part 1 of Zeitgeist that was actually correct? Is Christianity definitely a hodge-podge of parts from other, older religions? Is there any relationship between the zodiac, the equinoxes, and the Christmas and Easter holidays? (I personally do find it a little peculiar that those two holiday happen to fall on the equinoxes.) Do Christians, through some strange twists and results of evolution and combination of older religions, actually worship the sun? Do ANY religions which predate Christianity carry the parallels pointed out in part 1?

Those are the questions I have now that part 1 appears to have some flaws in it. I understand that some of the supposed facts they share in the movie may not be correct. However, I guess I would like to know what people's thoughts are on those questions, as they get to the meat of the subject that I feel part 1 delves into.

Thanks again. Really...I appreciate the fact that people are willing to share your time and knowledge on here. Thank you.

[john white]

Zeitgeist's first 1/3 is worse than the entire loose change 1st edition. I agree, Christianity was the 'newage' of the day, a mish mash of religions but what this guy is saying so easily debunked it kind of acts like a strawman for Christians to knock down.


Beautifully percieved Chris!

Aries into Pisces, re-envisioning of spirituality, Pisces into Aquarius, re-envisioning of spirituality...

The Matrix does love its patterns!

[woghd]

the thing is, this film is being shared as "the truth" by users of this forum. every few days, there is someone sending the link, i have seen it more than 10 times in here.

well, how can it be "the truth" when there are so many lies and inaccuracies contained in it? i don't care about defending christianity, because i don't think christianity needs any defending, these guys are not a threat or anything. but, how come this is passed as truth, i don't understand. i can take all points made in the first part one by one and show you, like other people have done, but is it really worth it?

i understand that certain people don't like religions and think that religious people have "destroyed" the world, but this is not true, deception and lies have done the job. moreover, this first part is not about religions, but about christianity alone. that is, if we consider christianity to be just Roman Catholicism and only just one book, with absolutely no philosophy and tradition behind it. then you get the rest of the movie, in which i assume it is about conspiracies (i haven't watched it all yet), so what do we have at the end? that christianity is behind all conspiracies? that's absurd..

if there are devious manipulators in this world, these are not the christians. they can't be, not because i don't believe that they aren't, but because it doesn't add up. this tells me that these people have an agenda in which they want christianity to cease to exist and something else put in its place. i can't really think that they are that stupid so that i can consider it to be a big mistake or a misunderstanding. and, by doing that, they clearly intend to promote astrology and the rest of the jargon.

if someone wants to present "the truth" to fellow people, there are no mistakes allowed. you can't have "the truth" with a few lies, or have researched only half of the story, the one that atheists (his sources) represent. you have to include everything if you want to be politically correct, understand the philosophy and esoteric meanings, include all other religions and all other versions of christianity, or simply leave it out if you don't know enough about it. you don't just present false assumptions and substitute a religion with another. this guy is clearly giving the message, that christians believe something else than they really believe, which is false.

and astrology.. i mean connecting dots in the sky and calling it constellations, where the sun "houses" having so much significance in our lives and calling it religion.. please. apart from all that, i don't think that christianity should be made a religion, but an esoteric philosophy and a way of life for people, a guidance. making a religion out of christianity is wrong, jesus never asked people to worship him and pray in his name.. people erroneously understand that "following" him, means make a statue of his image and bow to it constantly, but that's just nonsense, he would never agree with something like that, in fact he was always against that kind of behavior.

I couldn't say this better.
Rock on Big D!

Archangel

[woghd]

You are right to say this as I have not added any sources at all because I didn't add any (i'm lazy)...I was giving more of my point of view rather than trying to give a sensible debunk and influence peoples minds. I couldn't care less what they think...This is the thing I don't understand about Zeitgeist, Christians (sensible ones) are the most anti nwo group out there we don't need to rock the boat with them. Its the sheeple we need to wake up and Zeitgeist is a bit of a stab at the core of the resistance so at very least it could give out good information to them. Otherwise it will just make an internal battle within us that we don't need.


This is why I think Zeitgeist is intentional misinformation placed by the NWO crowd.

Archangel

[william_mac]

the thing is, this film is being shared as "the truth" by users of this forum. every few days, there is someone sending the link, i have seen it more than 10 times in here.

well, how can it be "the truth" when there are so many lies and inaccuracies contained in it? i don't care about defending christianity, because i don't think christianity needs any defending, these guys are not a threat or anything. but, how come this is passed as truth, i don't understand. i can take all points made in the first part one by one and show you, like other people have done, but is it really worth it?

i understand that certain people don't like religions and think that religious people have "destroyed" the world, but this is not true, deception and lies have done the job. moreover, this first part is not about religions, but about christianity alone. that is, if we consider christianity to be just Roman Catholicism and only just one book, with absolutely no philosophy and tradition behind it. then you get the rest of the movie, in which i assume it is about conspiracies (i haven't watched it all yet), so what do we have at the end? that christianity is behind all conspiracies? that's absurd..

if there are devious manipulators in this world, these are not the christians. they can't be, not because i don't believe that they aren't, but because it doesn't add up. this tells me that these people have an agenda in which they want christianity to cease to exist and something else put in its place. i can't really think that they are that stupid so that i can consider it to be a big mistake or a misunderstanding. and, by doing that, they clearly intend to promote astrology and the rest of the jargon.

if someone wants to present "the truth" to fellow people, there are no mistakes allowed. you can't have "the truth" with a few lies, or have researched only half of the story, the one that atheists (his sources) represent. you have to include everything if you want to be politically correct, understand the philosophy and esoteric meanings, include all other religions and all other versions of christianity, or simply leave it out if you don't know enough about it. you don't just present false assumptions and substitute a religion with another. this guy is clearly giving the message, that christians believe something else than they really believe, which is false.

and astrology.. i mean connecting dots in the sky and calling it constellations, where the sun "houses" having so much significance in our lives and calling it religion.. please. apart from all that, i don't think that christianity should be made a religion, but an esoteric philosophy and a way of life for people, a guidance. making a religion out of christianity is wrong, jesus never asked people to worship him and pray in his name.. people erroneously understand that "following" him, means make a statue of his image and bow to it constantly, but that's just nonsense, he would never agree with something like that, in fact he was always against that kind of behavior.

Bah, fuck it, you know? I just don't think it's worth it, you're right. I mean, I just don't have the energy or time, and I don't think anyone else does, and I don't think the part should be in there anyway. I mean... religion is the stupidest thing to debate or argue or whatever about, and I hate it. I spent a time in religion, debating for it and then debating against it, and now I don't care becaue there are a lot of other more important things to do. And if a few people feel happy, or get off drugs, or find solace in religion or something like that, then good for them.

Psh, you're totally right, it just doesn't matter. And, well, I don't feel like it, hah hah.



-William

[william_mac]

You are right to say this as I have not added any sources at all because I didn't add any (i'm lazy)...I was giving more of my point of view rather than trying to give a sensible debunk and influence peoples minds. I couldn't care less what they think...This is the thing I don't understand about Zeitgeist, Christians (sensible ones) are the most anti nwo group out there we don't need to rock the boat with them. Its the sheeple we need to wake up and Zeitgeist is a bit of a stab at the core of the resistance so at very least it could give out good information to them. Otherwise it will just make an internal battle within us that we don't need.

Over my time reseaching, I've had so much stuff debunked its crazy, things I'd bet my life on was true have been proven false...It's a learning experience and will refine your discernment.

When it came to Krishna, I got into the nwo mostly through spirituality and I especially found Hinduism to be interesting...I had a lot of dreams about Krsna and wanted to find out more about him...I was taught that he dissapeared when he was 128 and didn't come back. There are many sects of hinduism and so many different accounts of his life (just like christianity), many believe he was shot by an arrow and died at 125. There is always a little difference however they usually agree that he dissapeared and there are a lot of pictures of his wife looking sad when Krsna left so there are many different legends but the first time I heard that he was crucified was while reading one of Ickes books and he sited the reference '16 crucified saviours which is where I believe the producer got his research for Zeitgeist.

You don’t have to look hard for references on Krishna, it’s not like I am making a difficult, controversial claim…Wiki will surfice, if not just try google and you’ll easily find some mainstream hindu websites with his life history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna

photo of Krsna’s fit Mrs…
http://vrinda.vaisnava.hu/radhe/fotos/galeria/grandes/radha.jpg

As for the three kings…It is not like I am looking up in a book that they don’t line up with the birth of the sun as you can debate words all day. It’s from direct knowledge. I can’t be bothered to prove this to you as it takes many screen shots but if you download stellarium, you can prove this for yourself…This is a well respected program used in planetariums and the like, I have used it personally and find it very accurate.

I did however take a screenshot of the southern cross on the morning of Dec 25th from sunrise for arguments purposes in Cairo (but I’ve checked all around).

So where is the Southern cross at this precise time? Surprise surprise, it’s in the south!

The reason that I didn’t take a screen shot of the three kings is that they are so far out of alignment that it would be hard to piece two screenshots together and make them easy to see...


http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/9307/southencrossad2.png

I have checked as far back even before Christ and no where do these line up in the way they say it does…

The reason why I don’t understand Zeitgeist is that it could have been great…He has more than enough factual material to make a great theosophic film but he just wanted to attack Christianity.

You're absolutely right, he wanted to attack Christianity. That is exactly what I though, but for some reason since I'm still so grounded... or... had spent so much time in the religion, I find myself very bitter towards it. And, i try as hard as I can sometimes when the issue comes up to just do the same attacking, sometimes I catch myself and stop myself, other times my anger gets the best of me.

I just don't want people saying that "Jesus said" or whoever else said whatever and that we should live by it, and that they are basing their actions off of it... whatever. I just can't STAND it. It's like a horrible anger that gets me... and so in this conversation I just got that weird mentality back and started getting angry and trying to disprove or approve or whatever.

I'm calmed down now. It just doesn't matter, it's too exhausting. And I originally thought that the Part 1 was not necessary, and I want to pass out the video and I had decided if I were to pass it out (and this was decided months ago) that i would take out Part 1 because it will turn a lot of people off.

I just hate religion so much, really I do. As much as I try to respect and be alright with it. I mean... I really hate it. It's just such a bad thing for so many people, and ruins them and they don't do a goddamned thing with their lives, but they think they are, and I almost want them to believe Zeitgeist so they go and leave the church. It's that bad. hah hah.



-William

[sunyatta60]

I mean MAJOR errors, like saying Krishna was born on Dec 25, when it was actually in the middle of JUNE.


Hi I think you have somewhat missed the point, the point being that all these deities are no more than Myths at best, frauds at worst. And everything is to do with Sun Worship. The 25th of December is The Winter Solstice signifying the death then rebirth of the Solar Deity.


"The Christian religion and Masonry have one and the same common origin: Both are derived from the worship of the Sun. The difference between their origin is, that the Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun."
Thomas Paine

[chris]

You're absolutely right, he wanted to attack Christianity. That is exactly what I though, but for some reason since I'm still so grounded... or... had spent so much time in the religion, I find myself very bitter towards it. And, i try as hard as I can sometimes when the issue comes up to just do the same attacking, sometimes I catch myself and stop myself, other times my anger gets the best of me.

I just don't want people saying that "Jesus said" or whoever else said whatever and that we should live by it, and that they are basing their actions off of it... whatever. I just can't STAND it. It's like a horrible anger that gets me... and so in this conversation I just got that weird mentality back and started getting angry and trying to disprove or approve or whatever.

I'm calmed down now. It just doesn't matter, it's too exhausting. And I originally thought that the Part 1 was not necessary, and I want to pass out the video and I had decided if I were to pass it out (and this was decided months ago) that i would take out Part 1 because it will turn a lot of people off.

I just hate religion so much, really I do. As much as I try to respect and be alright with it. I mean... I really hate it. It's just such a bad thing for so many people, and ruins them and they don't do a goddamned thing with their lives, but they think they are, and I almost want them to believe Zeitgeist so they go and leave the church. It's that bad. hah hah.



-William

I know what you mean and forcing someone to believe something leaves a very bitter taste in the mouth of that person. Now when it comes to the nwo I don't care about forcing it down people’s throats because it means my freedom at stake but there is always a better way at doing it without the bitter taste and faster waking up potential.

There are many types of Christians, many good and many not so good. I really have no beef with them, I come from an occult background and it’s a joke that they blame the occult and they don’t seem to remember the inquisition. This irony aside, I love these people are they are going to be packing the rifles when the shit does hit the fan so they have my total respect.

This is where the disinfo come in...Its all divide and conquer even though the nwo can't divide us very much, they do try and this has more of a slowing effect but still, we aren't that stupid. Diehard beliefs can be divisive and they will just keep playing this on us. I feel a bit sorry for the Christians as they get attacked a lot but they don’t realise that they do have a lot of good info potentially.

The producer of Zeitgeist isn't to blame, this (dis)info has been around for a long time and it seems to be the Icke, Tsarson and Maxwell crowd that have took the bait.

What's funny is that these researchers don't want to hear from a real occultist what meanings and their symbolism means because they can't accept that it is quite average rather than the scare stories they love to hear from researchers who simply make their own assumptions to what it means and call people like me naive for understanding thousands of years worth of teachings.

There are two different worlds out there, the conspiracy world and then the real world...The goal of the researcher is to push the line of the real world without crossing onto 'conspiracy theories' however it's easily done. I've fallen for so much disinfo over the years its crazy but the problem with most people is that they are scared to be gullible so they don't like to use critical thinking. The thing is that you need to be a sucker before you refine your discernment...Even now I bet I am falling for disinfo somewhere (Shayler taught me that).

[woghd]

Very well said. I'm a Christian, but don't close your ears off just yet, let me finish. I believe there is a God, and I believe there was a real person named Jesus. I understand that my religion assimilated many of the symbols and stories from religions that preceeded it, and I'm ok with that. Jesus, in my opinion, was one of many people blessed by God, (Or the great universal power, or whatever you choose to call the supreme force) and we should listen to his wisdom just as we would listen to the wisdom of Budda, Krishna, Mohammad, or any other enlightened human who tried to express the real truth the best way they knew how.

There is nothing wrong with religion unless you get yourself too bogged down in dogma. The NWO wants us all to have a One-World Religion, placing THEMSELVES as the enlightened, and THAT is the real enemy! Stop listening to dis-info and pull together folks!

WAKE UP WE ARE BEING MANIPULATED

Archangel

[synergy777]

jesus never asked people to worship him and pray in his name.. people erroneously understand that "following" him, means make a statue of his image and bow to it constantly, but that's just nonsense, he would never agree with something like that, in fact he was always against that kind of behavior.

bigus, so true, now why don't people know this?

[synergy777]

chris where you get the krishna stuff, can you post on the krishna jerusalem hill of tara thread, please. thats heavyweight, especially the star chart.

[chris]

chris where you get the krishna stuff, can you post on the krishna jerusalem hill of tara thread, please. thats heavyweight, especially the star chart.

I'll copy and paste if you give me the link...

[william_mac]

bigus, so true, now why don't people know this?

Because they take shit like "I am the son of god" and "the only way to the father is through me" and "I am the truth and the life" and "I am the light of the world" and "in the name of christ we can heal the sick, cast out demons, and trample over snakes" and all of that other shit as a means to worship.

They don't translate things like "Jesus came to conquer the ultimate fear, which is death" and "be as Christ was" and "the greatest commandment is to love god with your whole heart, mind, soul and strength, and the second greatest is to love your neighbor as you love yourself" and "follow me" and all of that other shit correctly.

And they forget that Jesus ate dinner with the tax man, as was considered sinful and blasphemous, and encouraged equality when he saved the prostitute from being stoned by saying "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone" and debunked not working on Sundays when he told the Pharisees something to the effect of "if your sheep is stuck in a brier patch on the Sabboth, will you not go and rescue it? If your friend is sick and needs aid on the sabboth, will you not go and tend to him?". And they forget that Jesus was a revolutionary that went against the current governmental system at the time, and according to the story was crucified in order for them to save their asses and the people were mislead by the politicians just like the fucking people of the world are now by... the politicians or "NWO".

They don't read it right, they listen to the common weird interpretations perpetuated by the church over the years, and they need to chill the fuck out. I don't believe Jesus existed, I don't believe the Bible is largely truth, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a fable, and a fable is a story that teaches a lesson that can/should be applied to our everyday lives.



-William