Zeitgeist Totally Refuted! (Do not post Zeitgeist BS ever again)

I don't have time to read all the replies nor the inclination to watch the vids you have posted.

I do have time to ask you a couple of questions for you consideration.

Who "peed" in your oatmeal?

Or, maybe you have forgotten how to change the page on your browser?

I have even heard people sound as though they lost the "off button" on the TV remote.

My point being; it is very hard to get people to change thier mind set or point of view by beating them over the head with a club. There is an old saying, " you can catch more flies with honey than with vinager ". While I am not trying to say your rant would be bad enough to draw flies. I do think a policy of tolerance with all your fellow man will get far better results than confrontation.

So much of religious belief is rooted in personal opinion and you know what they say about opinions.

To remind you.

" Opinions are like arse holes -- everybody has one, but it only works for the one who has it ".

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
Also, Based on your title of this thread, and the very poor videos, nothing I have seen from you has been proof? All the opinions on this thread against the Zeitgeist films have been just that, opinions. i have yet to see irrefutable evidence to support your claims?

The purpose of the thread is to ask you, the people that believe in Zeitgeist, to provide the evidence to prove this video wrong. The video has already provided evidence of its own. As it is a debunk video and not making any other claims, it must only prove the other sides evidence is not correct, which I believe it has done. The question now is, does the other side have any evidence to refute the evidence and claims provided in this video? Or can you explain why the evidence presented in the video should be thrown out?

reply to post by kingofmd


That is a very telling example of obvious efforts by the professional xylophone player, peter joseph, or rather, his new age influences, to shoot an arrow into a wall and paint a target around it at all costs.

I feel like I am watching a train wreck. I wish that this topic been posted by an atheist so the topic at hand would really be the topic at hand.. I have studies ALOT of religion.. I have a full library of everything from Hinduism, Buddhism, Gnosticism, Aliestar Crowley, Judaism and Christianity... 200 plus books... I think Zeitgeist makes some valid points but it's section on religion makes me blush. I think one can make an argument for sun worship in many religions, which is what the defenders are saying, but the movie is coming to conclusions by stating information that is very very creative at best.. The Buddha is the Buddha, no 12 disciples (he had many more), no virgin birth (it would be a bit besides the point in proving that he was also lost in the throws of Karma and like every ordinary man had to use his own sweat to break free..) So I feel that what would have been a good thread has gotten sidetracked by religious disputes... I think it is a bit sad that people think Zeitgeist has made them free when they swallow every statement it makes verbatim... You want to know about Sun Worship? Study Thelema and Masonic and Egyptian Rights.. You want to know about the origins of Christianity? Study Gnostic texts (in addition to for a wider perspective...) Really.... You can be anything you want, but be it by research... I have no problem with the philosophy of Zeitgeist, but this thread should have been about the fact that some of the so called facts about religion are not true... This was also derailed by the enthusiasm of the OP to discredit all of the movie, thereby missing his mark and not realizing that you can still believe in the movies' basic message even while not believing the facts...

Here are links to a website debunking videos 1, 2 and 3

As I said on the main page, some things are true, such as that the zodiac exists and that Horus was an Egyptian god, so I will not touch things like this. I should note that just because it contains grains of fact, does not make the movie factual.

Its a pity this thread is so heated as Im interested in the topic but a reasonable discussion is difficult in such an atmosphere.

My take on it is this:

While some of the details regarding Christianity in Zeitgeist weren't entirely accuate, the basic thrust of its argument - that Christianity and the Christ figure was essentially a local incarnation of a story that appears in many religions and mythologies that predate Christianity - IS accurate.

Finding a few innacuacies doesn't change this fundamental truth.

Even if Christians ignore or disregard other sources which indicate this, they still have to acknowledge that even early Christian writers were aware of this and openly admitted it the blatant similarities between their religion and religions and mythologies which predated Christianity.

Originally posted by EmpathicBandit
The messiah figure WAS stolen from past tales.. have you even looked into your own theistic beliefs or do you just follow the scripture that's in front of you?

Zeitgeist, though it does (as another member said) take on some creative journalism, points out very blatant similarities between many theistic belief systems. It organizes it in a way that even the stupidest citizen of the global community can understand what they are trying to get across, not EVERYone is as astute an observer as you are

There are many great points made and there are many again that could be argued for hours, but the point is that they presented a discussion in a limited amount of time and made it easy to understand for the masses who need to hear it, and thats that, plain and simple. we could sit here for hours and type till our fingers bleed about the minor details and misconceptions that you, i, or the creators of the video have, but facts are facts and myths are myths, so before you go making absolute claims (which i realize you have taken back) you should do some research and use that noggin on top of your shoulders once in a while instead of blindly following what is to someone else a Heathen religion.

I am not religious and i dont intend to offend your beliefs, but if you are going to make an argument in a place like this about a thing like this, then i suggest you come prepared, and MAYBE just MAYBE like again another member mentioned, if you DONT want to hear or talk about it, then.. keep it to yourself? dont click on them if it upsets you? just like following a religion or not, we all have a choice, sometimes the best choice is to NOT do something.

if you are as smart as you make yourself sound then you'll probably just walk away from this thread now and let the mods deal with it.

regards..

ok, I will point out the part that I saw from the first time I saw zeitgeist.
It refers to all the similarities but assumes that Yahshaya was copied from them.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
This is evidence that the "myths" all came from one source.
It's called prophecy and all these posers were working from the same script.
What script do we have that predates them all?
The Mazzaroth.
It is said to be comprised By Adam Seth and Enoch.
It is the gospel story written in the sky and told to people frome hence forward.
So it is not a deecision if Yahashaya is a copy of those before Him.
You have to decide if He is just another poser like the other FAILED Messiah's
M A Z Z A R O T H
is a Hebrew word which means in general
"The Constellations of the Zodiac."
The book of Job, which is thought to be the oldest book in the Bible,
goes back to approximately 2,150 B.C.,
which is 650 years before Moses came upon the scene around 1,500 B.C.
to write the Pentateuch.
www.mazzaroth.com...
www.watchmanbiblestudy.com...
www.mazzaroth.com...

Originally posted by Malcram
Finding a few innacuacies doesn't change this fundamental truth.

If the sources and evidence are not correct, then we can't know if what they claim is the fundamental truth. That's the problem for people trying to find out the truth. They need evidence that pans out. If you know of any sources that prove Zeitgeist correct please provide them so we can know what the fundamental truth.

Originally posted by Malcram
Its a pity this thread is so heated as Im interested in the topic but a reasonable discussion is difficult in such an atmosphere.

My take on it is this:

While some of the details regarding Christianity in Zeitgeist weren't entirely accuate, the basic thrust of its argument - that Christianity and the Christ figure was essentially a local incarnation of a story that appears in many religions and mythologies that predate Christianity - IS accurate.

Finding a few innacuacies doesn't change this fundamental truth.

Even if Christians ignore or disregard other sources which indicate this, they still have to acknowledge that even early Christian writers were aware of this and openly admitted it the blatant similarities between their religion and religions and mythologies which predated Christianity.

This is where I feel in depth study yields better results.. Yes a case can be made for the zodiac symbolism in the bible... All the relations between Jesus and other Gods being born Dec. 25, crucified... blah blah are untrue! At least until some new historical document is found that backs it up... In (some not all) of the Gnostic Texts, Jehovah was evil and the universe was created by a false creator, Jesus came to redeem the world from the False Creator Jehovah.. This suppressed form of Christianity believed all matter to be evil as the universe was false (including the sun and the stars!) and also believed Judaism was evil. So, if you remove the facts that aren't true in Zeitgeist you are left with a hole. If you study all the tons of info that Zeitgeist does not give you, you can see early Christians who were the exact opposite of Sun Worshippers... And persecuted heavily by the early church.. That being said, the only, only one similarity is between Horus and Jesus... But a general way with none of the specifics like born Dec 25, taught in the temple at 12... All that is made up..!

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by zerbot565

 

if it can be backed up where are the references to scholar material (not wiki)

Again. Watch the video, it had no lack of reference or validity in the references or the reputation of the scholars quoted.

all i saw in the first video was quotes from scholars saying they ve debunked the original video but no references to what they debunked , its just hearsay as far as im concerned , and yes while the video tries to re tell the tales of the stories they do it with out references ,

its like me saying i ve debunked X but i show no evidence of what ive debunked and you just have to take my word for it,

edit

got a book today in the mail by joseph campbell called " the hero with a thousand faces" which scratches the surface of monomyths
monomyth

reply to post by AudioOne


Jesus was not born dec.25. He might have been concieved on this date, but he was not born on this date.

There is a big difference in the zodiac and the mazzoroth which you find in scripture.
For one the Mazzaroth starts with Virgo and ends with Leo, or the maiden and the hero.
The zodiac which is from occult means starts at 180* from this showing the same M.O. from the first deception to man in the Garden.

This is the hey to the Sphinx or to say the sphinx is the key to reading the mazzaroth.
The head of the maiden and the body of the lion.

reply to post by tinfoilman


But ALL of the claims made in Zeitgeist regarding Christianity are not untrue, only some. Enough remain to make a compelling case. You cant point out a few inaccuracies and claim it refutes the whole argument. It simply doesn't.

But in a way, this is besides the point.

Both you and the other poster who responded to me ignored the most important and troublesome evidence presented in Zeitgeist for Christians - the admission by the early Church that its religion was virtually identical to much older religions and mythologies.

Why are you both totally avoiding that issue?

Originally posted by kallisti36

the sun never ever rises in the southern cross constellation ever

I just Stellarium'd that.
Turns out, it never does. ever.

Try it for yourself

Click here for more information.

reply to post by manna2


I never said that Jesus was born on that day, just stating the inaccuracies in Zeitgeist.. That said, even with my extensive studies, many know much more than I do. What you are saying is interesting, food for thought.. Thanks..

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by tinfoilman

 

But ALL of the claims made in Zeitgeist regarding Christianity anre not untrue, only some. Enough to make a decent case. You cant point out a few inaccuracies and claim it refutes the who argument. It simply doesn't.

But in a way, this is besides the point.

Both you and the other poster who responded to me ignored the most important and troublesome evidence presented in Zeitgeist for Christians - the admission by the early Church that its religion was virtually identical to much older religions and mythologies.

Why are you both totally avoiding that issue?

This thread is about Zeitgeist. Please provide evidence that Zeitgeist's evidence is correct. You say that not ALL Zeitgeist's claims regarding Christianity are unture? Fine, please post the claims that Zeitgeist gets right and post the evidence to support those claims. Then show us how we can use that evidence to reach Zeitgeist's final conclusion. That Jesus never existed.

Ignore the most important evidence? Now, you're making claims that are different than the Zeitgeist movie. If you wish to discuss similarities between Christianity and other religions, that's fine. You may be right. I'm not disagreeing with you.

But THIS thread focuses on Zeitgeist. The only issue at hand right now, does Zeitgeist have errors or can you provide evidence that the OP's video is incorrect?

reply to post by tinfoilman


No this thread focuses on religion in zeitgeist, not zeitgeist, which is a very unimportant part of the movie, you've made no valid points that I've read, just stupid BS.

reply to post by kallisti36


Totally refuted? That certainly is a bold statement with little or no references or backing.

It seems that your sensibilities were definitely offended by Zeitgeist, however, I think you need to do some studying into religion and its origins before you decide to totally discredit something that you don't understand.

I'm sorry that you were hurt, which is clearly the case, but, the nature of what you worship is quite different than what you are thinking. Consequently, God doesn't need your defense or your backing. Spend more time getting to know yourself instead of defending something that hasn't defended you.

God is real. The Universe is real...Religion is a fairy tale specifically made to control and confuse you.

reply to post by tinfoilman


The evidence from early Church writers was referenced in Zeitgeist.

You have watched it, I presume? Or are you not that familiar with Zeitgeist? If not, tell me and I will present this evidence again.

Thus the evidence from the early Church supports the premise of Zeitgeist, that Christianity is a local incarnation of a widespread nonChristian mythology.

It's hard to believe that Zeitgeist actually needed refuting but so many people are prone to believe either anything that's on the internet and/or supports a belief they already had. The religious portion of Zeitgeist can easily be dismantled by either a good christian apologist or anyone specializing in academic biblical research. The rest of the first movie is generic conspiracy theory garbage that could be dismantled by simply researching the topics in places other than where conspiracy theorists frequent. Anyone who believed the claims of Zeitgeist at face value should really take the time to investigate the actual truth and accuracy of the presentation.