Zeitgeist as a propaganda tool for a New World Order

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Not being allowed to own the land, air, water, forests, etc., is the natural state of man in relation to Earth. The idea of ownership of it is the aberration. You just dont recognize it as such because you are so used to it. But let some yahoo stick a jar over your head and start charging you for access to "his" air, and you will realize immediately how truly barbaric resource ownership is.

Ahhhhh - ya see - - we can agree on some things

Originally posted by meeneecat
I checked out your links, and the first one, provides no citations, no specific examples, and no data.

Well, you apparently didn't check it out very well, as he has footnotes throughout, which link to his sources page here.

The second link regarding the wise men is grasping at straws, for example it makes a point that we don't really know how many actual wise men there were, there could have been 10 or 3

The second link has nothing to do with the movie -- I cited it as an example of rudimentary Christian knowledge that differs from what Murdock claims in Zeitgeist.

Secondly, the link it refers to actually does provide a wealth of data, one being "Acharya S's "The Companion Guide to ZEITGEIST, Part 1" Which given that you haven't made any references to the claims made in the movie, I'm assuming you have not read. I suggest you do.

Of course I've read it. The original draft of the OP had a lengthy discourse on the failings of Murdock's claims, but my copy editor noted, and I agreed, that it changed the focus of the article away from the propaganda angle, which is what I wanted to focus on. However, here is a bit of the original text:


The premise of Part One of Zeitgeist is that Christianity is a plagiarized faith which simply took notions from prior existing pagan religions, and incorporated them into the Jewish ethnic culture to create a new "super religion", which has been used to control the masses ever since. A variety of claims are made, including numerous prior religious figures being born on 25 December, born of a virgin, crucified, resurrected, and so forth.

There is no need for a point by point refutation of the claims of Zeitgeist (if one is so inclined, there are a number of sources on the Internet which do so,) because all one need do is to look at the sources used for these claims. Following widespread criticism of the movie, a source document was produced, which you may read here: www.stellarhousepublishing.com...

The first thing that one notes from that document is that it is credited to the filmmaker responsible for Zeitgeist, Peter Joseph, and another person, D.M. Murdock, and one quickly realizes that Murdock is the primary (perhaps sole) author, not Joseph. Who is Murdock? An author of a series of self-published books on this very subject, written under the pen name "Acharya S", Murdock has a Bachelor's Degree in Classical Studies -- she is not an archaeologist, historian or linguist.

But the sourcebook isn't about Murdock, but rather her sources. The preface to the sourcebook quickly lists credible sources -- Oxford and Cambridge University presses, Yale, Cornell, University of Chicago, and so forth. Indeed, as we read through the sourcebook, these sources are present throughout. However, a curious pattern emerges -- the credible sources are used to present information which is of a mundane nature: Egyptology, astrology, Christian history, and so forth. But the parts that tie the disparate pieces together seem to have a common thread -- the books of Murdock, herself.

There is nothing wrong with that -- a single source is not uncommon for a controversial subject, and so long as the conventional sources don't contradict it, one person's work can be of the same value as another. So the question becomes "if the claims of Zeitgeist centre on the claims of D.M. Murdock, what is the basis for her claims?"

In her book "Zeitgeist Companion Guide", there are three of note, one only appears once, but is notable, while the other two are the bulk of her sources on controversial topics (again, citing a known Egyptian archaeologist for facts that have nothing to do with the controversial side of her equation does not make the controversial claims more credible.)

First, the person who is cited once, Kersey Graves. Graves was a 19th century atheist and skeptic who is best known for a work entitled The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors, a 2001 edition of which contains a foreword written by Murdock, and which is used extensively as a source for Murdock's own work, The Christ Conspiracy. It may seem odd that his works would have such a minor impact on Zeitgeist, when Murdock clearly used them in the past and would be in agreement, but there is a simple reason for it.

Graves is a fraud. His works cite no reliable sources, his conclusions are logically invalid, and few take him seriously. He is considered such a fraud by proponents of the "Jesus Myth" that his liability likely inspired Richard Carrier to write this refutation in 2003. So, in the period between Murdock's promotion and inclusion of Graves and Zeitgeist, he was publicly vilified by the people that Zeitgeist would look to for support.

Of the other two most commonly cited sources, E.A. Wallis Budge is a scholar of note, whose work on Egyptian religion is controversial, but largely orthodox. Budge, however, was an adherent of Liberal Theology (and thus likely keen on the notion of an historical Jesus) and made no direct claim of plagiarism on the part of Christianity, nor the odd parallels that Murdock names as evidence of it.

The other source is Gerald Massey, who becomes the "Kersey Graves" problem all over again. A 19th century poet and amateur Egyptologist, Massey became convinced that parallels existed between the Egyptian god Osiris and Christ, citing nine similarities, such as being born of a virgin on 25 December, having 12 disciples and being crucified. One might recognize these from their appearance in Zeitgeist, implying Massey is the source, but once again we run into a problem. Massey cites no sources himself and he is not taken seriously as an Egyptologist because his claims are contrary to evidence.

So, we wind up this part with a summation. Zeitgeist's claims in Part One are mostly a result of the writings of D.M. Murdock, and the writings of Murdock are mostly a result of the writings of the 19th century authors Graves and Massey, neither of whom is considered to be a credible source, even by those who would concur with their findings.

There was another thread that I looked at, and the author made some good points regarding the first part, as well as in reference to this companion guide. Instead of reinventing the wheel, I'm just going to quote from this thread, and then I will link so you can read the whole in it's entirety.

Originally posted by lucifer777Peter Joseph who produced Zeitgeist is not really a scholar of religion and has made a few claims which seem not to be verifiable, however to jump to the conclusion that "all" his claims must therefore be unverifiable is simply unfair....Further critques of Acharya S's work should be based on Acharya S's writings and not on Peter Joseph's attempt to summarise Acharya S's thesis.

Yes, unfortunately, Murdock is not a scholar, either. Her background is not in the areas that she claims to have expertise, her motives are questionable, and the conclusions that she arrives are at so laughingly wrong that only the most glassy eyed follower accepts that they are all correct and supported.

Want to hate Christianity? Well, here's Murdock and her ridiculous claims to give you a basis. But I say cut out the middle man and hate Christianity of its own accord if you need to -- there are plenty of reasons that most atheists can cite without resorting to easily refutable garbage.

I say to the OP (and others who agree with him) that you need to back up you assertions with facts. That's all I'm asking here.

Well, the OP isn't really about Murdock in general, but rather about the use of Zeitgeist as deceptive propaganda, but I've added some facts here, and if you'd have bothered to read the first web page that I cited, you'd have seen that he had plenty of sources, and if you took two minutes to google Refuting Zeitgeist Part One you'd have come across, among other resources, this index page of online rebuttals. An index page, for pete's sakes.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
What I will argue against is your conclusion. You seem to be arguing the only way a resource based economy could work is a Marxist one. And I know thats not true. There have been many cultures who did not consider ownership of the land, air, water, etc., possible. And I have enough exposure to that idea not to find it the horror you are making it out to be.

Who owns the resources, then? Who manages them, determines who gets what? If it's a central authority, it is communism, no matter what word you'd like to spin instead.

And how are you going to get from here to there? Private ownership is not merely pervasive, it is endemic. You will need to take away from pretty much everyone, never mind that those who have the most to lose also have the means to fight the hardest against having them taken away.

Put those two together, and you've totalitarian communism -- need we go down that path again, no matter who is the utopian this go around? Even setting aside the dishonesty or ineptitude on the part of whoever thought that Zeitgeist, the Movie, was a good idea.

I just wanted to point out two things.

One, a resource based economy and private ownership/capitalism are not mutually exclusive.

Two, most of the information concerning "religion" in zeitgeist is really just a summary of well documented history.

Originally posted by Jezus
I just wanted to point out two things.

One, a resource based economy and private ownership/capitalism are not mutually exclusive.

Feel free to explain that.

Two, most of the information concerning "religion" in zeitgeist is really just a summary of well documented history.

This, too. "Well documented" is a fairly bold statement, so let's see the sources (which are not D.M. Murdock, her sources, or sources which point back to her.) I have tried, and I cannot find reputable sources that back up the claims made in Zeitgeist which are not either Murdock or circular sources associated with her.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Jezus
I just wanted to point out two things.

One, a resource based economy and private ownership/capitalism are not mutually exclusive.

Feel free to explain that.

They are simply two different levels of interaction.

The allocation of raw physical resources does not have to remove the market for consumer goods from private ownership.

Originally posted by adjensen

Two, most of the information concerning "religion" in zeitgeist is really just a summary of well documented history.

This, too. "Well documented" is a fairly bold statement, so let's see the sources (which are not D.M. Murdock, her sources, or sources which point back to her.) I have tried, and I cannot find reputable sources that back up the claims made in Zeitgeist which are not either Murdock or circular sources associated with her.

"her sources"

Don't you think you are removing quite a lot of information from the pool when you discount anything she has sourced?

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Jezus
I just wanted to point out two things.

One, a resource based economy and private ownership/capitalism are not mutually exclusive.

Feel free to explain that.

They are simply two different levels of interaction.

The allocation of raw physical resources does not have to remove the market for consumer goods from private ownership.

To the best of my understanding, consumer goods are seen as one of the fundamental problems that a resource based economy is intended to solve -- the unequal distribution of resources. If you want to say that we can all own our iPods, I would counter that there is no way that everyone will have iPods, so what difference does it make?

"her sources"

Don't you think you are removing quite a lot of information from the pool when you discount anything she has sourced?

As I wrote above, her sources come down to conventional ones, which provide mundane background information, and unconventional ones, which bring the pieces together. Her sources are not credible, so by saying "it's well documented" and citing her illegitimate sources, you demonstrate nothing. Citing her demonstrates nothing. Citing those who cite her demonstrates nothing.

"Well documented", as you put it, I would equate with large amounts of scholarly and peer reviewed research, published in reputable journals. There are hundreds of Religious Studies professors in America that deal with "publish or perish" in their academic careers, so if there was legitimate research to be done, where is it?

As you declared that her claims are well documented, I assume that you've compiled such a list of credible sources, so that's all I'm asking to see.

Originally posted by adjensen

Who owns the resources, then? Who manages them, determines who gets what?

Who owns the air? The sea? The rain?

Originally posted by adjensen
If it's a central authority, it is communism, no matter what word you'd like to spin instead.

Society would probably have to move away from our current trend of big collectives of people with distant unresponsive government back to a model more like the one we arose from. Smaller groups in constant negotiation with one another.

Not owning land doesnt mean no responsibility for it. In Hawaii, for instance, you were given responsibility for a plot of land to work. But if you abused it, or neglected it, you could have it revoked, and it would be redistributed. It wasnt really communism, but the best interests of the group was a priority. It was a balancing.

Originally posted by adjensen
And how are you going to get from here to there? Private ownership is not merely pervasive, it is endemic. You will need to take away from pretty much everyone, never mind that those who have the most to lose also have the means to fight the hardest against having them taken away.

Well, how did we get from there to here? There was a lot of violence and theft of land and claiming, and still is, I will remind you. War, brutality, lying, cheating. Its hard to imagine greater brutality than the collecting up of all the "property" into the hands of a few. Should we flinch if there will be some bloodshed going the other way?

It may require some of that to get back to greater fairness and a more humane way of living.

Originally posted by adjensen
Put those two together, and you've totalitarian communism -- need we go down that path again, no matter who is the utopian this go around? Even setting aside the dishonesty or ineptitude on the part of whoever thought that Zeitgeist, the Movie, was a good idea.

No you dont. I havent seen the movie yet, but the choices are not "what we have now" and "communism." Anyone who is not being emotional can see that there is boundless possibility in between. There have been many people who have envisioned various ways of dealing with social and economic justice. Its just that those who like the system we have now go straight to the boogeyman of communism to set up a false dichotomy and end the discussion.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by adjensen

Who owns the resources, then? Who manages them, determines who gets what?

Who owns the air? The sea? The rain?

That's not answering the question. I own land in western North Dakota with oil reserves. Who is going to own my land and/or my oil? How am I going to be compensated for my loss? What happens if I refuse to go along with the appropriation of my property?

Should we flinch if there will be some bloodshed going the other way?

Oh, okay. You'll kill me for it. Hardly the best way to start a utopia, is it?

Its just that those who like the system we have now go straight to the boogeyman of communism to set up a false dichotomy and end the discussion.

And it's those who don't like the system that we have now who seem to believe that the answer is to steal the assets of those who currently own them, regardless of how that came about and regardless of the consequences. Atlas Shrugged is a tediously overlong novel, but the core message of the value of the producer is, so far as I'm concerned, absolutely correct, and has been shown to be correct time and time again.

As infamous commie-pinko Rogers Waters once exclaimed, "Get Your Filthy Hands Off My Desert".

Originally posted by adjensen
To the best of my understanding, consumer goods are seen as one of the fundamental problems that a resource based economy is intended to solve -- the unequal distribution of resources.

Obviously our consumer markets would be dramatically influenced by efficiently allocating resources, but this doesn't mean we can't still interact on an individual level in a capitalist system.

Originally posted by adjensen
Her sources are not credible

It seems that this opinion is only based on the nature of the information.

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by adjensen
Her sources are not credible

It seems that this opinion is only based on the nature of the information.

I have documented in this thread why her sources are not credible; fellow "Christ as myth" believers, who should agree with Murdock wholeheartedly, have documented why her sources are not credible; a large number of other persons (remember that index page I referenced earlier) have documented why her sources are no credible.

But somehow, it's only a matter of opinion?

Seems to me that the "opinion based on the nature of the information" in question is yours, not the rest of the world's.

Originally posted by adjensen

That's not answering the question. I own land in western North Dakota with oil reserves. Who is going to own my land and/or my oil? How am I going to be compensated for my loss? What happens if I refuse to go along with the appropriation of my property?

Not surpirising. Like I said, those who are benefiting from what we have now will refuse to see another way.
And asking who owns the air, sea, etc, is answering your question. We manage dont we?

Originally posted by adjensen

Oh, okay. You'll kill me for it. Hardly the best way to start a utopia, is it?

People were slaughtered so that you could "own" what you have now. Why should you be exempt? You are benefiting from the fact that someone used violence to kill someone or displace them, why would you cry foul if the exact same thing happened to you? Oh, because someone was clever enough to make a "rule" after their theft and brutality making further theft and brutality "illegal." Pretty self serving, dont you think?

And I personally did not say anything about a utopia. All human societies will be competitive, because natural selection is the game all life on Earth is playing. We are not going to "all live in perfect harmony" but we can restore the system to something more like what nature or God designed so that it works as intended.

The system of resource ownership is designed to thwart natural selection not promote it. It is designed to convey any benefit achieved by one human down to his heirs regardless of their own merit or worthiness. Understandable, but not what nature intended.

Originally posted by adjensen
And it's those who don't like the system that we have now who seem to believe that the answer is to steal the assets of those who currently own them, regardless of how that came about and regardless of the consequences.

Im interested in whats best for humanity. And this system is not it. It benefits the few, and not by allowing the fittest to rise to the top, but by ensuring that those whose ancestors were most criminal and brutal maintain their advantage for ever.

Besides, you are not safe just because this system currently benefits you. Unless you are big stuff, your property can always be seized by someone bigger than you are if they really want it. Thats what the eminent domain law that allows someone the right to take your land if you arent using it for the greatest economic benefit was about.

If you arent exploiting that oil efficiently enough, you could still lose everything in the very system you support.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by meeneecat
I checked out your links, and the first one, provides no citations, no specific examples, and no data.

Well, you apparently didn't check it out very well, as he has footnotes throughout, which link to his sources page here.

When I clicked on the link I read the article that appeared, I assumed this is what you wanted me to read, you should have made it more clear that you were actually referring to a particular section of the site. (i.e. something like, please see the additional articles on the left hand navigation bar)

The second link has nothing to do with the movie -- I cited it as an example of rudimentary Christian knowledge that differs from what Murdock claims in Zeitgeist.

Again, you should have made that more clear since you say "the most simple minded Christian can refute it", and I assume "it" was making reference to the movie (at lease it certainly does sound that way when you read the whole paragraph)

Want to hate Christianity? Well, here's Murdock and her ridiculous claims to give you a basis. But I say cut out the middle man and hate Christianity of its own accord if you need to -- there are plenty of reasons that most atheists can cite without resorting to easily refutable garbage.

Who is hating on Christianity? I just thought it was common knowledge that many religions of the time all have quite a lot of similarities in that many of them were sun and/or resurrection cults. I thought it was common knowledge that Christianity stole much from pagan religions. How is that "hating on Christianity"

Well, the OP isn't really about Murdock in general, but rather about the use of Zeitgeist as deceptive propaganda, but I've added some facts here, and if you'd have bothered to read the first web page that I cited, you'd have seen that he had plenty of sources, and if you took two minutes to google Refuting Zeitgeist Part One you'd have come across, among other resources, this index page of online rebuttals. An index page, for pete's sakes.

Yes well you get the "dickhead of the day award" for explaining to me how to "google"...did it ever occur to you, that googling "refuting zeitgeist" is going to come up with a lot of biased sites whose sole objective is to "refute zeitgeist" many of which are probably Christian or religious in nature...I didn't want to do this, but I was actually hoping you would do something like what Lucifer777 had done, but you know, that would take work I guess *sigh*...very simply, take the quote from the movie and research for that particular data (not on specifically how to "debunk" something, more on that later, but research what the facts say, using original source when possible, whether or not it's true). Here is what he did, with my notes added to it (link to thread):

Originally posted by Lucifer777

The Sun
This is the sun. As far back as 10 thousand BC., history is abundant with carvings and writings reflecting peoples respect and adoration for this object. And it is simple to understand why as every morning the sun would rise, bringing vision, warmth, and security, saving man from the cold, blind, predator-filled darkness of night. Without it, the cultures understood, the crops would not grow, and life on the planet would not survive. These realities made the sun the most adorned object of all time. Likewise, they were also very aware of the stars. The tracking of the stars allowed them to recognize and anticipate events which occurred over long periods of time, such as eclipses and full moons. They in turn cataloged celestial groups into what we know today as constellations."

The Zodiac
This is the cross of the Zodiac, one of the oldest conceptual images in human history. It reflects the sun as it figuratively passes through the 12 major constellations over the course of a year. It also reflects the 12 months of the year, the 4 seasons, and the solstices and equinoxes . The term Zodiac relates to the fact that constellations were anthropomorphized, or personified, as figures, or animals.

Horus
This is Horus. He is the Sun God of Egypt of around 3000 BC. He is the sun, anthropomorphized, and his life is a series of allegorical myths involving the sun's movement in the sky. From the ancient hieroglyphics in Egypt, we know much about this solar messiah. For instance, Horus, being the sun, or the light, had an enemy known as Set and Set was the personification of the darkness or night. And, metaphorically speaking, every morning Horus would win the battle against Set - while in the evening, Set would conquer Horus and send him into the underworld. It is important to note that "dark vs. light" or "good vs. evil" is one of the most ubiquitous mythological dualities ever known and is still expressed on many levels to this day.

Actually Horus was a sky god, he is said to contain the sun and the moon. The sun being his right eye, and the moon being his left. I found a couple sources talking about the battle with set that seems to confirm it is an allegory of the night vs. the light...for the most part however, the battle does occur as it is talked about in the movie "trans versing across the sky" "light vs darkness". The source also talks about how for this battle, the god Thoth transformed Horus into a "sun disc with splendid outstretched wings". So it seems that there are many connections between Horus and the sun. It's also interesting to note that at the end of the battle it is sometimes said that Set may have been transformed into a snake and gone to the underground...so again this seems to be another parallel to Christianity with the snake representing the "underground" "darkness" or "evil".
And something else to consider:
www.religioustolerance.org...

One of the more controversial theories -- sometimes called the "copycat thesis" -- suggests that many of the miracles, other life events, and beliefs about the supernatural status of Horus, an ancient Egyptian God, were incorporated into stories about Jesus as recorded in Gospels and other books in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament). The copycat thesis is strongly rejected by the vast majority of Christians but accepted by many skeptics. bullet Most conservative Christians look upon the Bible as a "top-down" document: one revealed by God to humans. Since fraud, deceit, and lying are not attributes normally associated with God, they believe that the Bible -- as God's Word -- is truthful and accurate. bullet Many skeptics view the Bible as a "bottom-up" document: one written by human authors to promote their religious and spiritual beliefs. Such authors are quite capable of adopting religious concepts of other cultures and incorporating them into their literary works.

Originally posted by Lucifer777 Broadly speaking, the story of Horus is as follows: Horus was born on December 25th of the virgin Isis-Meri. His birth was accompanied by a star in the east, which in turn, three kings followed to locate and adorn the new-born savior. At the age of 12, he was a prodigal child teacher, and at the age of 30 he was baptized by a figure known as Anup and thus began his ministry. Horus had 12 disciples he traveled about with, performing miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water. Horus was known by many gestural names such as The Truth, The Light, God's Anointed Son, The Good Shepherd, The Lamb of God, and many others. After being betrayed by Typhon, Horus was crucified, buried for 3 days, and thus, resurrected."

I can find no evidence that Horus was born on Dec. 25th. His mother was not certainly "not" a virgin; she allegedly impregnated herself with Osiris' (her dead husband) penis, though this was certainly a miraculous conception. Neither was Horus crucified, though he does appear in Egyptian art on a cross. With regards to the "star in the east," the "three kings," the "new-born savior," "teacher when he was 12 years old," "baptized at age 30," "walked on water," and "12 disciples," I cannot find a historical source for any of the above. Perhaps others here could research the matter and find sources.

Here's what I found: It is unknown as to whether or not Isis was a virgin it only says that she was married to Osiris. However I did find reference to the Dec. 25th birthday: "Horus was given three different birthdates in mythology, one of which does correspond to December 25th" however it has never been known the date of Christ's birthday, Christian celebrate the birthday on the 25th so it is often assumed that this was the day he was born, however it cannot be proven.

In the Book of the Dead Horus says this:

"I have clothed the naked. I have sailed up the river to Abydos. I have performed the ceremonies of Hu and Sa. I have entered the house of Astes. I have made supplication to the Khati gods and to Sekhmet in the temple of Net (Neith), or the Aged Ones. I have entered Ra-stau. I have made myself invisible. I have found the frontier. I have approached Nerutef. I have clothed the naked. I have sailed up the river to Abydos. I have performed the ceremonies of Hu and Sa. I have received. I have risen like a king crowned. I fill my seat on the throne in the place of my father, the God Who was at the beginning. I have praised the Meskhen of Ta-tchesert. My mouth is full of Maat (Truth). I have overwhelmed the Akhekhau serpents"

I am no expert, however it does seem that some of these things can be considered "miracles" others "ministry" there could be similarities to what Christ did in his teachings, there may not. I would need someone with an expertise in Egyptology to translate this further. However, it does seem to confirm that Horus had "risen" and defeated "evil" (serpents)...so it seems there are some similarities.
Egyptian Book of the Dead

Regarding the wise men and the gifts, it has already been established that the number of wise men is unknown, just that they brought gifts. Again from the Book of the Dead:

"He (Horus) whose transformations are many hath had offerings made unto him at the moment, and he hath made an end of the storm which is in the face of the Osiris, Auf-ankh, whose word is truth. Verily, he cometh, and he is Ra in journeying, and he is the four celestial gods in the heavens above."

So it makes reference to "offerings", a reference to Ra "journeying" and a reference to the "four celestial gods in heavens above".

Again, to me this seems similar, but we would need an egyptologist to translate exactly what this all refers to.

Originally posted by Lucifer777 Attis
Attis, of Phyrigia, born of the virgin Nana on December 25th, crucified, placed in a tomb and after 3 days, was resurrected.

I can't find a source for this.

Here's what I found:

"Nana who was a daughter of the river-god Sangarius picked an almond and laid it in her bosom. The almond disappeared, and she became pregnant." (wikipedia)

Seems it was a virgin birth

Attis was not crucified, it is unknown how he died, some myths say he was killed by a boar, another says he self-mutilated himself. The source I found says that both versions are aetiological in origin--a case in which the ritual comes first and the myth is developed at a later period to explain the rites. Thus we cannot say for certain how he died.

However Attis was resurrected (wikipedia) and the myth says that he came back as a pine tree (interestingly a common christian/christmas symbol) Interestingly I also found this quote from the previous source:

"His annual birth, death, and resurrection not only symbolized, but actually realized, for ancient man the recurrent cycle of the seasons"

Which does fits with the astrological, sun worship theme pointed out in the movie.

Originally posted by Lucifer777 Krishna
Krishna, of India, born of the virgin Devaki with a star in the east signaling his coming, performed miracles with his disciples, and upon his death was resurrected.

I cannot find a source for star in the East

Here's what I found:
the Srimad Bhagavatam (SB) speaking to Devaki, calling her chaste -

SB 10.3.43: "O supremely chaste mother ..... "

The very end of SB 10.3.17 "You never entered the womb of Devaki; rather, You existed there already."

source

Reference to crucifiction comes from:
Bhagavad Gita and Brahminical traditions," states that the body of Krishna: "was suspended to the branches of a tree by his murderer, that it might become the prey of the vultures...[Later] the mortal frame of the Redeemer had disappeared--no doubt it had regained the celestial abodes..."

Regarding resurection (aside from the above), there is reference to "many births" from the Bhagavad Gita

"The Personality of Godhead said: Many, many births both you and I have passed. I can remember all of them, but you cannot, O subduer of the enemy! (4.5)
Although I am unborn and My transcendental body never deteriorates, and although I am the Lord of all living entities, I still appear in every millennium in My original transcendental form.(4.6).
Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion—at that time I descend Myself.(4.7)
To deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I Myself appear, millennium after millennium.(4.8)"

So yes, some correlations fit, others don't (can't find anything about the star). However, there still are many observations made by authors and researchers over the years including:
Krishna is the second person of the Hindu Trinity. He is considered to be one of the incarnations of the God Vishnu (son of god).
Jesus and Krishna were both said to have been placed in a manger basket after birth.
among others (sourcewith links to sources)



I am not going to go on and do the whole thing...I have already spent several hours on this, which, I really wish you would have done yourself, as it is your thread that you started and you are the one who is trying to "refute zietgiest". You can find the rest of the text over at Lucifer777's thread (already gave you the link, above) if you so desire to do the research yourself. But it's not that hard, already I learned quite a bit, and from the pattern emerging, it does seem that the theory of Christianity being based on a sun worshiping cult is sound, as was already said, just because a few details are wrong, doesn't mean you throw out the whole book (which seems what you and many others try to do).

And in case you haven't seen this, here's something on "debunking" of which I consider this to be a "debunking" thread, or as you say "refuting"...and I have to say I totally agree with what Stanton has to say in "debunking the debunkers"
video.abovetopsecret.com...
He gives four basic rules for debunkers:
"1. what the public doesn't know, I'm not going to tell them
2. Don't bother me with the facts, my mind's already made up
3. If you can't attack the data, attack the people, it's easier
4. Do your "research" by proclamation because research is too much trouble."

-Peace

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Thank you for demonstrating, so openly and adroitly, why the Zeitgeist mentality is such a dangerous one, never mind the dishonesty and incompetence of its leaders.

Originally posted by meeneecat

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by meeneecat
I checked out your links, and the first one, provides no citations, no specific examples, and no data.

Well, you apparently didn't check it out very well, as he has footnotes throughout, which link to his sources page here.

When I clicked on the link I read the article that appeared, I assumed this is what you wanted me to read, you should have made it more clear that you were actually referring to a particular section of the site. (i.e. something like, please see the additional articles on the left hand navigation bar)

So, you want to claim that you read what I linked to, but you didn't happen to notice the bold text telling you specifically to use the index?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8752b8256c26.jpg[/atsimg]

I'm doubting the veracity of your claim to have read anything linked to in the OP, sorry.

I just thought it was common knowledge that many religions of the time all have quite a lot of similarities in that many of them were sun and/or resurrection cults.

No, it is not.

Yes well you get the "dickhead of the day award" for explaining to me how to "google"...

It's called a "joke". Lighten up, Francis.

did it ever occur to you, that googling "refuting zeitgeist" is going to come up with a lot of biased sites whose sole objective is to "refute zeitgeist" many of which are probably Christian or religious in nature...

Of course it occurred to me -- I would be rather surprised if Murdock's critics weren't exclusively Christians with an axe to grind. Oh, wait, they're not all. Witness atheist Richard Carrier, who also had a few words to say about the whole Osiris business.

Ergo, just because someone has a potential bias doesn't mean that they do, so to claim that you're not interested in the responses of Christians, the obvious defenders of their own faith, to Murdock is an indication that you are the one with the biased position.

Christian celebrate the birthday on the 25th so it is often assumed that this was the day he was born, however it cannot be proven.

Actually, only people with a limited knowledge of Christianity think that he was born on 25 December -- mostly children and atheists. (That means another joke.) Christmas is a festival, not a birthday party, and it's held on the day that it is not because anyone thought he was born on that day, but because of the existing pagan festivals associated with the Winter Solstice. Not for any nefarious reasons, but because if you're trying to get people to stop doing something (in this case, going to pagan festivals,) it's easier if you give them something else to do, instead.

Finding disparate pieces of "evidence" on wikipedia is not particularly credible. I suggest, as I did to another posted in this thread that, if you want to come up with something that has value, locate scholarly and peer reviewed research, published in reputable journals. There are hundreds of Religious Studies professors in America that deal with "publish or perish" in their academic careers, so if there was legitimate research to be done, where is it?

I am not going to go on and do the whole thing...I have already spent several hours on this, which, I really wish you would have done yourself, as it is your thread that you started and you are the one who is trying to "refute zietgiest".

As I have said several times, this thread is about Zeitgeist as a propaganda tool for a New World Order with the Zeitgeist crowd in charge, not about refuting Murdock and her claims. There are plenty of other places that do a fine job of that.

Originally posted by adjensen
But somehow, it's only a matter of opinion?

It is an opinion that is fueled by an emotional response to the nature of the information.

It has nothing to do with the credibility of the sources.

reply to post by adjensen


Why, you are welcome. I did not know I had a Zeitgeist mentality, but if there is a movement I would blend well with, perhaps I should get myself a card. Do they have punch and pie does anyone know?

See you in the jungle.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by adjensen

 

Why, you are welcome. I did not know I had a Zeitgeist mentality, but if there is a movement I would blend well with, perhaps I should get myself a card. Do they have punch and pie does anyone know?

See you in the jungle.

I'm with you - - sign me up.

We can then have lunch and discuss our other "issues"

Zeitgeist is NWO Propaganda.
No doubt in my mind.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
Zeitgeist is NWO Propaganda.
No doubt in my mind.

There is a huge difference between the conspiratorial NWO - - - and logical progression of a healthy controlled design of a one world government.

You ever watched Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot"?

We are pretty insignificant in the whole scope of things. Working together intelligently is the only logical progression.

AND religion is personal - - - and has no place beyond that.