Lefty voices don't think the Tea Party is Fox/Murdoch-sponsored: the belief if that Fox and the Tea Party itself are funded by corporations (that top 1% everyone's talking about.) The middle class wants a more responsible system that doesn't simply reward the rich by allowing them to get discounts based on their purchasing power, while the small startup or poor individual is forced into debt for not having the capital in the first place. Go watch Zeitgeist.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Now now, I believe there are many lefty voices who STILL accuse the Tea party of being Fox/Murdoch-sponsored.
Say what you will about Cain, but he's right on this: what do these people want? What do they want to achieve?
Sorry to poop in the punch bowl, but if you take any of these hippies and swap them with the guys in the skyscraper, they'll act exactly the same way and do the same exact things as the originals.

>> ^Sagemind:
This idiot thinks these protesters are organized as a scheme by a political party? - These protesters are a spontaneous uprising. They aren't uprising because they are jealous, they are protesting because they and the public were and are being shafted over and over by the elite wealthy without concern for those they step on.

>> ^Reefie:

>> ^Phreezdryd:
Lost me at the zeitgeist movement, and the movie that gets your interest by showing how all the religions of history are based on the same stuff, and works it's way towards globalization under the shadowy Illuminati, or were they lizard people. It's been a while since I watched it. Full of inaccuracies and high grade conspiracy sci-fi.

So, lost you right at the very end then?

Yeah, sort of. The last thing we need is to fight ignorance with conspiracy theories.

>> ^Phreezdryd:
Lost me at the zeitgeist movement, and the movie that gets your interest by showing how all the religions of history are based on the same stuff, and works it's way towards globalization under the shadowy Illuminati, or were they lizard people. It's been a while since I watched it. Full of inaccuracies and high grade conspiracy sci-fi.


So, lost you right at the very end then?

Lost me at the zeitgeist movement, and the movie that gets your interest by showing how all the religions of history are based on the same stuff, and works it's way towards globalization under the shadowy Illuminati, or were they lizard people. It's been a while since I watched it. Full of inaccuracies and high grade conspiracy sci-fi.

Here is the logical conclusion to this zeitgeist.

Peter Joseph was the creator of Zeitgeist.

Propaganda piece for Jacque Fresco's Venus Project. Peter Joseph does a good job at recognizing problems but a lousy job at offering solutions. The Zeitgeist movement is about sacrificing individual sovereignty for the sake of a one-world vision. Joseph assumes everyone will abandon their own self-interest in the name of some global interest.

I have 2 problems with the Zeitgeist movement: 1) Morally, altruism is incompatible with freedom and individual rights. Man is not some sacrificial animal here to serve the collective group. 2) It's completely unrealistic. Everyone is always motivated by their own self interest. It's part of our DNA. Changing that is impossible.

Now what I'm really curious about is if Joseph really believes this bunk or if he's serving a greater agenda. Wonder who funded this most recent film. From a cinematic standpoint, it's pretty good.

sorry, i may have read that out of context. i saw it as asking how one would resolve the issue of the resurrection deities and their similarities to Jesus, and gave my solution: which is to say theres nothing to resolve really as the "similarities" are made up at best and just wild distortions at worst. I could only presume you borrowed them from zeitgeist seeing as that is the exact premise of part i. in any event ........um......your face =P

really enjoying the dialogue here tho (a discussion such as this is not really something you could settle in a minute or two, so keep it coming. i'll try to keep my posts relevant =)

sighs..
/doublefacepalm
this is becoming....tiresome.
i came to the decision to stop being a snark towards shinyblurry because his tone had softened a bit and he appeared more willing to interact in a more human and engaging way.
since he stated he had been studying for years (specifically what he never states) i put forth a few questions.
i put a lot of thought in to those questions.
not to be an ass,or pull a gotcha nor even to be "right" but rather to hear his response.
the questions were really not that important but his answers would reveal much on how he viewed certain dilemmas facing todays evangelical christian.
and since he says he has studied for years i framed the questions with tidbits and items a first year seminarian would know and would have already dealt with.
i now suspect that when shinyblurry says he "has studied for years" he means personal study.
nothing wrong with that.
thats how i did it too for many years and then was blessed to meet one of the most amazing people who decided to mentor and teach me..dr paul.

@smooman
you totally missed the point of my post.
i was not attempting to prove the existence of these resurrection deities and by proxy disprove jesus.nor did i gank that from zeitgeist..so lets not get derailed.
the question was how does shinyblurry resolve this issue?
his answer was "satan did it".
now that answer from an evangelical perspective is expected but from an intellectual one it is weak.
i am NOT being an ass here,just pointing out what should be obvious.
"satan did it" is a cheap and lazy way out.

@shinyblurry
the questions i asked were conundrums.
you have to think your way through them...not dismiss out of hand.
you have focused on zoraorastrian.
posted links to pages.
may i just say up front that i am not interested in someones elses research nor their conclusions but rather very interested in yours.
my point bringing up zoraorastrian was to illuminate the fact that the bible has been influenced by MANY different and sometimes conflicting theologies,and written by many different authors.
thats why i mentioned gilgamesh.
does the fact that so many authored the bible take away from the its beauty?literature? wisdom?
not at all,but it does paint a picture that is far more human and i was curious how you resolved that issue being an evangelical.
you did answer.."satan"..(i really find that answer unsatisfactory btw)...but you did not say how you resolved that issue.unless "satan" is your true answer and in that case.ok..fair enough.

you never answered which school of theological thought you adhered to (you made me guess).
nor did you answer if you were a preterist.
which is just somebody who believes that messianic prophecy has already been fulfilled.(you wont find any these days.2000 yrs ago you would have though).
this question was in relation to how christianity has evolved over the centuries.
now my question concerning the nicean creed is actually a trick question because it has never been resolved.
325 a.d and the nicean creed was the third attempt and the council decided to stick with it but it never really resolves the trinity.because of this theological failure of the elder council millions over the years have perished and not a small reason chirtianity began to fracture in to smaller subsets...all gaining (and losing ) and gaining again prominence in the christian world.

the questions i asked would reveal if shinyblurry has limited his studies to the 66 books of the KJV or if he has expanded his studies.
again..not for a gotcha moment nor to belittle him, but rather so i would have an idea the parameters in our discussion.

i read the gospels far different than mainstream christianity.
i study origins.
i study the socio-economic and education of that period of time.
the cultural practices and institutions.
when you put all these factors together you gain a much more insightful and complete picture.
i guess i dont understand when someone ignores that very vital part of the equation.
hence my questions.
i wanted to know how shinyblurry dealt with these dilemmas or if he thought of them at all.

living in the bible belt i deal with evangelicals all the time.
in fact i spoke at a local baptist church a few weeks ago.
my sermon was "the mechanics of prayer".they were welcoming and responsive,conversely i have also been told by another group of evangelicals that i will burn in the pit of fire because my idea and understanding of scripture happened to be different from theirs.

i do not understand how some people conflate their religion as themselves.
as somehow they ARE their religion and if their religion comes under any criticism or scrutiny they react like it is THEY who are being personally attacked and lash out with violent intentions (disguised as righteousness).
religion is a system of doctrine and dogma with written scripture as a vehicle.
since scripture is the written word, it is tangible and therefore subject to scrutiny and/or criticism.
and thats how it SHOULD be.i do not know ONE theologian who would disagree with that statement but i have encountered hundreds who feel that ANY scrutiny of their holy text is tantamount to a personal attack upon them.

i was unsure if blurry was a troll or if he was even aware that he was coming across like one.
i am still not sure.
i was ok with making snarky remarks and match blurry tone for tone.until i realized i was behaving poorly and nothing positive would really come out of that form of interaction...maybe amusement for a time.
so i decided to take a different approach and all i got was more of the same.
sad..really.
what a wasted opportunity.
my expectations for this discussion have dwindled considerably.
religion is communal..
faith is personal.
i guess mine is so far removed from shinyblurry's that we are incapable of having a decent discussion with each other.

so there it is folks.as openly and as honestly as i am able.
with sincerity and humility i say this to you shinyblurry.
namaste.

hey look..you are poorly informed here..you said my response was very unsatisfying and also inaccurate to boot? you stated that zoroasterism is older than judiasm as if it were an undisputed fact; well sorry but that is not the prevailing viewpoint. there is a lot of misinformation out there on this subject. if you just want to look at the merits of the case the Zoroaster belief is primitive by comparison, if one could be identified as a crude copy, that would be it.

The Christ Conspiracy is the main source of information in Zeitgeist].
http://www.answeringinfidels.com/answering-skeptics/answering-acharya-s/a-refutation-of-archary-ss-book-the-christ-conspiracy-pt-1.html

Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/12/zeitgeist-of-zeitgeist-movie.html

The Death of the Mystery Gods and the Death of Jesus

The best way to evaluate the alleged dependence of early Christian beliefs about Christ's death and resurrection on the pagan myths of a dying and rising savior-god is to examine carefully the supposed parallels. The death of Jesus differs from the deaths of the pagan gods in at least six ways:

(1) None of the so-called savior-gods died for someone else. The notion of the Son of God dying in place of His creatures is unique to Christianity.[13]

(2) Only Jesus died for sin. As Gunter Wagner observes, to none of the pagan gods "has the intention of helping men been attributed. The sort of death that they died is quite different (hunting accident, self-emasculation, etc.)."[14]

(3) Jesus died once and for all (Heb. 7:27; 9:25-28; 10:10-14). In contrast, the mystery gods were vegetation deities whose repeated deaths and resuscitations depict the annual cycle of nature.

(4) Jesus' death was an actual event in history. The death of the mystery god appears in a mythical drama with no historical ties; its continued rehearsal celebrates the recurring death and rebirth of nature. The incontestable fact that the early church believed that its proclamation of Jesus' death and resurrection was grounded in an actual historical event makes absurd any attempt to derive this belief from the mythical, nonhistorical stories of the pagan cults.[15]

(5) Unlike the mystery gods, Jesus died voluntarily. Nothing like this appears even implicitly in the mysteries.

(6) And finally, Jesus' death was not a defeat but a triumph. Christianity stands entirely apart from the pagan mysteries in that its report of Jesus' death is a message of triumph. Even as Jesus was experiencing the pain and humiliation of the cross, He was the victor. The New Testament's mood of exultation contrasts sharply with that of the mystery religions, whose followers wept and mourned for the terrible fate that overtook their gods.[16]


>> ^enoch:
a whole page concerning zarathustra?
didnt you already answer this question?
and how does this page you link conflict with zoroastrian influence in the bible?
it confirms the influence on early biblical scribes.
/confused
and i notice still no answer on my other queries.
if you are unable to i understand.
again.i thank you for your prompt reply.

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/

a pretty thorough dismantling of zeitgeist. Theres quite a few out there on the internets but this one is the most thorough (that ive come across anyway)

@enoch (damn quote thing is buggin out on me)

"krishna,osiris,dionysus,mithra.
all were have purported to be the son of god.
to have began their ministry at an early age.
performed miracles.
persecuted and then executed.
dead for three days.
and on the third day were all resurrected."

wrong, wrong, and wrong. More fact checking/research, less Zeitgeist (unbelievably inaccurate "documentary" btw)

sorry to butt in, was just reading through and saw that......couldnt let that one slide =P

got drill in a few, i'll contribute to this convo when i get home this evening

fcuk I hope Nibiru is real... Nothing will ever change. Watched zeitgeist 3 last night... really positive stuff there, great ideas. But it will never happen... you fcukers shot john lennon

there are some interesting elements in the film, including cultural references, and impressionistic interpretations of the cultural zeitgeist that had been influenced by jazz and surrealism.

this is probably why this film was nominated for an Oscar in 1966

I wish this video actually presented some alternate views instead of just floating a bunch of counter-claims.

This is like Zeitgeist except without all the insightful research and information.

Most of the things said in this video have been pretty well shot down already, but there's one point I'd like to make which has only been hinted at so far:

There's no such thing as a "Climate Change Scientist". This idea that, if climate change is disproven, all these scientists will be out of work is ridiculous. Climatologists and meteorologists will keep right on collecting and studying the same exact data regardless.