@shinyblurry
yaaaay.a video argument.
well allow me to retort:




i always find it interesting when people assume that i get my information from zeitgeist.as if the idea that i studied under a biblical scholar is something to not even be considered.

as for defending the sabbath as being sunday. might i suggest that when you use a souce *cough* wikipedia *cough* that you may wish to read the article in its entirety.

achary s has sourced ALL her claims in zeigeist and provides it:
(ok ok.its from the you tube page.too lazy to link diving for all her sources)
The New ZEITGEIST Part 1 Sourcebook (2010) Transcript
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/zeitgeistsourcebook.pdf

Rebuttal to Dr. Chris Forbes concerning 'Zeitgeist, Part 1'
http://truthbeknown.com/chrisforbeszeitgeist.html

The Mythicist Position - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKW9sbJ3v2w

'The REAL Zeitgeist Challenge'
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/zeitgeist-challenge.html

9 September 2009 Listen to Acharya S on Peter Joseph's blogtalkradio. Show begins Wednesday September 9th at 3PM Eastern (12PM Pacific)
Acharya appears from 4PM Eastern (1PM Pacific)

This show is now ARCHIVED here:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Peter-Joseph

Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/christinegypt.html

Listen to Acharya on blogtalkradio - Truth or Fiction? Show April 4 2009: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/7hunder/2009/04/04/truth-or-fiction-with-very-sp...

Listen to Acharya talk about her new book on Gnostic Media - Podcast 21 March 9 2009: http://www.gnosticmedia.podomatic.com

31 July 2008 - Listen to the streaming radio interview with Acharya on Black Op Radio...Show #385 Part 1
http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2008.html - thank you Len

Cette vidéo avec des sous-titres français: http://tinyurl.com/594awz

The Companion Guide to ZEITGEIST, Part 1 is a 49-page ebook containing a scientific investigation of some of the facts from Part 1 of the ZEITGEIST movie, dealing with the comparisons of ancient religions and Christianity.
http://www.StellarHousePublishing.com/zeitgeist.html

http://www.TruthBeKnown.com

Acharya's blog post "Zeitgeist Part 1 Refuted? - NOT!" -
http://tbknews.blogspot.com/2008/04/zeitgeist-refuted-not.html

The sun/son issue was addressed long ago in Acharya's FAQ's:
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=4835#p4835

Zeitgeist Part 1 & the Supportive Evidence
http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2997

"Astrotheology of the Ancients"
http://truthbeknown.com/astrotheology.html

Special thanks go to Freethinkaluva22 for providing tremendous assistance with the research.

Was Krisyhna's mum, Devaki, a virgin?
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=1597

The Origins of Christianity
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/originsofchristianity.pdf

shiny.
you know i have no interest in changing how you believe or perceive the world around you.
your faith is your own but please put a tad bit more time into rebuttals when concerning my posts.
apply to boston university and get your degree.i hear their theology courses are top notch.
ooooor continue to play whack a mole with every post,comment or inference that challenges your world view based on limited religious and biblical understandings.
i am sorry if that offends or hurts you but i read your posts and it is painfully obvious that you dont know what you are talking about concerning religious history.

so.try seminary school.
graduate and then our arguments can become legendary!

oh.and another thing.scholars are still unsure of the exact date of resurrection.
just sayin....

Let the Ron Paul love-fest begin!. Love how when Paul loses votes its a conspiracy but when any of the other candidates do & Paul might stand to gain from it (although it has not happened yet) its a stand for liberty.

Wonder how many people in the Ron Paul camp also believe in the Zeitgeist movies claims about Money, 9/11 & other conspiracy like activity. Ron Paul is not the messiah and he has not won a SINGLE state all while being a candidate who's only policy is 'Let the states control you, rather than the federal government'.

despite the message, this is an awful documentary. it just bounces through a whole collage of clips ripped straight out of much better films like 'The Corporation', 'Zeitgeist', 'The Century of the Self' and 'War Made Easy' etc. whoever made it can go fuck themselves.

Holy cow this guy is annoying. Ridiculous strawmen, stupid vocal affectations, equivocation, eye-rolling hyperbole, some stuff that's so stupid it has to be at least disingenuous, and not even a vague pretense of balance.

To be clear: I think the pipeline will probably end up on a different route, and for valid reasons. And there's clearly downsides. But this decision doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's not like moving oil other ways is safe either, and it's not like building out production facilities somewhere closer to Alberta is environmentally neutral. There's a lot of factors to be balanced, and building this pipeline is, at very least, not crazy.

Yeah, it's big, but mostly it's special because it came at the wrong time; it's just the right time to get rolled up in the "we hate corporations"/"corporations are burning the planet" zeitgeist so it's getting a level of attention that would make much simpler decisions hard to sell.

Luckily for the people building this, people have short attention spans and this will (I think) get lost in the next Republican talking points battle.

I didn't like it.

It started off with fear mongering about psychopaths in positions of extreme power with harsh and annoying Zeitgeist-style editing, then shifted to the populace at large with a very tenuous connection between psychopathy and anti-depressants, then suddenly switched into "feel-good-movie-of-the-summer" mood based on how nice "most people" are according to one expert, concluding with the premise that if 5-6% of people are aware of this danger which was never clearly defined, that uhm, OK, no real plan, but, there's the piano music, so feel good, OK?

Or maybe I just don't have feelings.

>> ^lwi:

what documentary is this from?

Zeitgeist II

This clip is from a movie called Zeitgeist: Addendum. It’s the second movie in a 3 part series that outlines the corruption of the government, the corrupt and way in which money and markets work, and possible solutions to those issues. The director is a brillant minded person named Peter Joseph. There is so much quality information that comes out of his group of people at The Zeitgeist Movement. It’s well worth a thorough examination as his movies are only a very small portion of the overall content that is available from the movement.
See the movies at -> http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

Tags for this video have been changed from 'john perkins, confessions of an economic hitman, extended interview, ziegeist' to 'john perkins, confessions of an economic hitman, extended interview, zeitgeist' - edited by kulpims

In reply to this comment by Fade:
Peter Joseph was the creator of Zeitgeist.


your right.i was thinking kymatica.
see what happens when i post shit off the top of my head?
thanks man.

They seem to miss the point that it doesn't matter if god blessed Job more in his latter life, what matters is that a kind and loving god felt the need to prove something to the devil by letting the devil destroy that man's life. Who cares if god was right, it is a jerk thing to do, and not the actions of a god who loves his children.

God wasn't proving anything to Satan, He was acting as a Judge. Satan is like a prosecuting attorney in the court of God. Satan brought Job to trial by laying a false accusation against him, and Job was tested and tried and found innocent.

If that was a human dad who let some people in to destroy his children's lives they would condemn him, it is their dual standards. They let god get away with stuff they would find reprehensible in humans simply because some blokes thousands of years ago picked Jehovah out of a local pantheon and promoted him to the top spot. If they are young Earth creationists, they somehow ignore the part that says the Earth doesn't move and that the heavens move around it.

The problem with this analogy is that you're comparing God to a human being. God isn't like a human dad, he is God. He deals in matters of life and death, matters which extend to every human life. He is the sovereign King and Judge over this world. It is His job to bring judgement, and to decide the course of life. He is the only one who could.

I also see that you're misinterpreting I Chronicles 16:30. It's fairly clear it is saying that nothing is going to move the Earth off its course, not that it doesn't move.

Despite cultures being over 6,000 years old, trees being over 6,000 years old, not to mention stars billions of years away, somehow all that was put in place by God to full the wise and make the believers rely on faith... again a jerk move. It is like the dirty cop who plants evidence against an innocent man, but here it is god so it is okay.

This idea that God plants evidence is a myth, and the people who perpetrate it are the same kind of people who think that Satan rules in hell. No one has a handle on distant starlight; it is a problem with big bang cosmology, check out the "horizon problem". Tree ring dating, much like radiocarbon dating, is predicated on unprovable assumptions, such as a constant rate of growth. The specific trees you are talking about have been proven to grow multiple rings per year in drought conditions and in other circumstances. You say that there are cultures that go beyond 6000 years but its funny that written history only begins around 4000 years ago.

It is also funny that written history begins with advanced civilizations that suddenly spring into existence out of nowhere. You would think if we had been around for 100k years after evolving, there would be 100k years of history, cities, civilizations, etc..but it isn't there. It is much like the cambrian explosion where every major animal body type suddenly sprang into existence into the fossil record. All the major families, orders, classes, and phyla can all be found there, which turns darwinian theory on its head. Which is why they came up with "punctuated equilibrium", which is theory that explains that the reason there is no evidence for transitional forms in the fossil record is because reptiles laid eggs that would sometimes hatch birds. This is also known as the hopeful monster theory.

They ignore the documented evidence of copy errors made in the Bible while it was a written piece, let alone the errors that would have cropped up while it was a verbal tradition. Who cares if the story of the woman at the well doesn't appear in any copies of John, or the commentaries on it, for hundreds of years after the earliest copies of the book, it is there now, which means god wanted it there.

There is greater manuscript witness for the New Testament than any other historical document. The accuracy and integrity of the copies is proven, with over 24000 manuscripts for the NT alone. We can see from the earliest to the latest there is very little discrepency. The same is proven for the OT, when the dead sea scrolls were found. There was virtually no difference in copies with over thousand years between them. In regards to the woman at the well, I have failed to find any controversy about it.

And the hundreds of other biblical texts that were existed when the books of the bible were picked were not discarded for the social/political reasons they appear to have been ignored, but because the books that are there now are the only ones god wanted, and those guys were divinely led to pick just those ones... of course the Catholics or the Protestants have it wrong since their versions don't match. Still, it many cases, save for the King James only crowd, it is okay to use newly found, more reliable texts in modern translations, but still ignore other texts found at the same time.

There isn't any conspiracy. The texts you are referring to were either written by pagans, the gnostics, or were always known to be heretical. Feel free to bring up any examples and I will show you works that have been thoroughly discredited from the outset.

I look at shame during my blind faith period. I would point out all the typical talking points, and get angry at those who challenged what I perceived as the truth. I was never a young earth creationist, but would still point out the stupid things even old earth creationists like pointing out, not caring that those points have been disproved over and over again. I went from Republican to Libertarian and would get mad at the lazy out of work people on welfare and the poor for believing the lies of the liberals and the Democrats, thinking if only they would educate themselves on the truth, they would see the Republicans and Libertarians were their best hope.

It sounds like you were raised in the faith and only believed because of what other people told you. Then, when your faith was challenged by the unbelieving secular world, you fell away because you had no foundation.

Then I did something, I opened my mind. I started watching the sources of information. They said in church and on right wing media that the Constitution doesn't say "separation of church and state" and that comes from a letter by Thomas Jefferson, true enough, but then they said that if you actually read that letter, you'll see that he was talking about keeping the government out of church affairs not the other way around. And I repeated that for years. Then, during my awakening, I actually read the letter in full context, I read the original drafts, and I realized they lied. He clearly was talking about keeping the church out of government. I also read the bible critically for the first time, not just accepting the traditional meaning. I saw Jesus as a man who hung out with the sinners, and cared about the poor and sick, and keeping what belonged to god just to god and what belonged to the government with the government.

Even the most unkind and biased analysis of the founders intentions will be forced to conclude that they intended to found this nation on biblical principles. Do you think our freedoms being based on unalienable rights granted by our Creator are just mere words? Or are they the foundation?

this nation was founded not by religionists, but by christians, not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ

Patrick Henry

You are correct about one thing. The church is completely apostate, and has strayed far from the teachings of our Lord. You cannot frame Jesus as a mere man, however. He claimed to be God, the judge of the living and the dead, and the Savior of this world.

All things 100% opposite of what the church, the Republicans and Libertarians seemed to be promoting. I noticed how the bible in Genesis call god...well, god, and then in Psalms, the exact same word is suddenly translated as Angels, because it talks about how god lifted us up to be level with him, and that won't do, we are below god and with the angels... and more and more I noticed that while we are not Jesus, we are equal heirs, and equal children, which doesn't take away any of the majesty, but again pointed to deception on the part of the church leadership. I then noticed other biblical contradictions, and started studying the origins of Christianity and how similar it was to much older religions.

Perhaps you missed these passages?:

Romans 8:17

And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Galatians 4:7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.

No, we are not Jesus, but we are co-heirs and sons. Again, there isn't any conspiracy. As far as the translation of Elohim, this has led to many errors. Check out http://www.gci.org/God/Elohim2

How the Israelites, while in captivity in Babylon, would have known about the Babylonian god of the harvest who sacrificed himself and resurrected... and boy this seems to be a reoccurring theme among ancient pre-Christian religions, a god, sometimes mono-theistic, sacrificing himself for mankind...

Sounds like you've seen Zeitgeist, which is filled with actual bald faced, blatant lies. For example, it makes a connection between Jesus and the various sun gods by drawing a parallel between the word "son" and "sun". The problem with this connection is that they are only similiar words in the English langauge, and not in the langauges of the time. The connection between Jesus and the so-called dying and rising gods in paganism has been thoroughly debunked. Watch:



I went to a pagan service with an open mind and had the same deep, spiritual, emotional connection that I had at the most charismatic of Christian churches... and things started clicking, this whole thing... is fake.

It's no wonder that you had the same spiritual experience in charismatic churches as you did at pagan rituals. That's because they're fueled by the same spirit, which is *not* from God:



I read more, became more educated, and realized the deep and purposeful misleading of the faithful, and my switch became complete. Now I get angry at the Republicans and Libertarians and the religious leaders who keep their flocks in ignorance, while making them think they are free thinking people by controlling the information and encouraging a wrong view of the information that is there..

Even if by some miracle I came to have faith in god again, I could never go back to church again. The lies and nonacceptance of potent truth is just too much. They don't even believe what Jesus himself taught, which was love and compassion, the modern day church is the Pharisees that he campaigned against

Friend, what you never realized is how true this verse is:

Revelation 12:9

And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

Just as 2+2 has an innumerable number of wrong answers, there are uncountable lies and deceptions, half-truths and myths about Jesus Christ. They are in the church and they are outside the church. All you've done is just go to the other extreme but you still have no idea who Jesus really is.

What you've missed is that to know Jesus is God is to know Him personally. It isn't merely believe what the bible says, it is to invite Him into your heart, to mold you, to change you, and to accept His Lordship over your entire life.

You're right about one thing. To be restored to faith in God would be a miracle, because faith is a gift from God. If you want to know the truth, then ask Him. Pray to Jesus, invite Him into your life, and ask Him to show what the truth really is. Once you know He is everything that He claimed to be, the rest will sort itself out.

>> ^RFlagg:believe what Jesus himself taught, which was love and compassion, the modern day church is the Pharisees that he campaigned against.
</preaching to the choir time

>> ^00Scud00:

I heard in my environmental science class once that if resources were divided equally amongst everyone in the world we would all be living like people in third world countries, no wonder it's such a hard sell.
The clip of Jacque - Fresco Money is good but I don't buy the idea that currency invented bribery and corruption, it all happened before, just with horses, slaves, land, or whatever else was of value.


So, the argument I am hearing you make is that millions should be dying so that we can bask in luxury...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Patriotism, Nationalism, War' to 'Patriotism, Nationalism, War, zeitgeist, addendum' - edited by enoch

Holy shit! Thank you sir.

In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
Yep.
*promote

>> ^chilaxe:

@NetRunner said: "What about the needs of people who have no money? Is helping them literally worthless? Are you a better servant of humanity if you make diamond jewelry than you are if you work for a public school in an underprivileged neighborhood?"
Salary is a reasonable measure of societal contribution, but it's not a perfect measure, so there are of course exceptions to the rule. That being said, all lines of evidence point to that teaching in underprivileged neighborhoods is an ineffective form of philanthropy, even though it's heart-warming.

@NetRunner said: "And "advocating careerism" isn't particularly useful if what you really mean is you like to yell "get a job" at homeless people."
One of the best things we can do for society is to argue against the flaws in the zeitgeist. If those flaws predictably create poverty, showing people there's another path that their opinion leaders and teachers have strangely never exposed them to should be a high priority.
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^chilaxe:
The 'jobless economic recovery' we've experienced means all those people who don't like to read weren't contributing much to the economy.
That sounds like nonsense to me. Are you saying that the only reason why unemployment ever was low in the first place was because corporations hired people whose labor they couldn't profit from out of charity? What changed in 2007-2008 that made them all stop being charitable simultaneously?
>> ^chilaxe:
Netrunner said: "Also, it's not really healthy to define your self-worth and the worthiness of others solely on the basis of their salary. I doubt your "friends" would care much for you referring to them as mediocre or lazy, either."
1. Salary is a reasonable measure of how much we're contributing to humankind. If society values something, it will be willing to pay for it.
2. Advocating careerism is humanistic and good for the world.
Ahh, so you do think markets are perfectly moral systems. What about the needs of people who have no money? Is helping them literally worthless? Are you a better servant of humanity if you make diamond jewelry than you are if you work for a public school in an underprivileged neighborhood?
And "advocating careerism" isn't particularly useful if what you really mean is you like to yell "get a job" at homeless people.



Can you please describe the other path you speak of? So far all I've identified from the OWS message is a general upset with wealth disparity, but no coherent or unified solution. It'd be great to hear what they are advocating for. It's the required next step from rallying against something, or this will all go either no where, or somewhere much worse.

@NetRunner said: "What about the needs of people who have no money? Is helping them literally worthless? Are you a better servant of humanity if you make diamond jewelry than you are if you work for a public school in an underprivileged neighborhood?"

Salary is a reasonable measure of societal contribution, but it's not a perfect measure, so there are of course exceptions to the rule. That being said, all lines of evidence point to that teaching in underprivileged neighborhoods is an ineffective form of philanthropy, even though it's heart-warming.



@NetRunner said: "And "advocating careerism" isn't particularly useful if what you really mean is you like to yell "get a job" at homeless people."

One of the best things we can do for society is to argue against the flaws in the zeitgeist. If those flaws predictably create poverty, showing people there's another path that their opinion leaders and teachers have strangely never exposed them to should be a high priority.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^chilaxe:
The 'jobless economic recovery' we've experienced means all those people who don't like to read weren't contributing much to the economy.
That sounds like nonsense to me. Are you saying that the only reason why unemployment ever was low in the first place was because corporations hired people whose labor they couldn't profit from out of charity? What changed in 2007-2008 that made them all stop being charitable simultaneously?
>> ^chilaxe:
Netrunner said: "Also, it's not really healthy to define your self-worth and the worthiness of others solely on the basis of their salary. I doubt your "friends" would care much for you referring to them as mediocre or lazy, either."
1. Salary is a reasonable measure of how much we're contributing to humankind. If society values something, it will be willing to pay for it.
2. Advocating careerism is humanistic and good for the world.
Ahh, so you do think markets are perfectly moral systems. What about the needs of people who have no money? Is helping them literally worthless? Are you a better servant of humanity if you make diamond jewelry than you are if you work for a public school in an underprivileged neighborhood?
And "advocating careerism" isn't particularly useful if what you really mean is you like to yell "get a job" at homeless people.