# Lifestyles & Discussion > Family, Parenting & Education > Books & Literature >  A Book for the "Zeitgeisters"

## Theocrat

Since the movie _Zeitgeist_ has been produced and thousands, if not millions, of viewers have watched this movie on the Internet, there have been several questions stirred up about the origins of Christianity, the historical reality of Jesus Christ, and the integrity of the teachings of the Bible. As a result, many non-Christians have been duped into believing lies and myths about Christianity which are simply not founded on any historical scholarship and Biblical exegesis.

This book does a great job of dealing with the accusations against Christianity presented in Part 1 of the _Zeitgeist_ movie on religion. It is a great read for anyone wanting to know the truth of Christianity, as well as exposing the lies about Christianity in _Zeitgeist_. Don't let the "New World Order" fool you into believing that Christianity is based on falsehoods because that's exactly what proponents of the NWO want you to believe in order to eradicate all religion (except their own, of course).

----------


## dirknb@hotmail.com

Here is a good video in response to that book:

"Zeitgeist, Part 1" Debunked? - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_9ZyddjaM4

----------


## mlmvh

> Here is a good video in response to that book:
> 
> "Zeitgeist, Part 1" Debunked? - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_9ZyddjaM4


Thanks, Dirk!

----------


## LibertyEagle

Has this forum turned into a Christian-bashing, anti-Constitution, anti-Founding Fathers, America-hating, forum?

Just wondering, because this seems to be quite different than what Ron Paul espoused and what he has worked for all of his life.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Has this forum turned into a Christian-bashing, anti-Constitution, anti-Founding Fathers, America-hating, forum?
> 
> Just wondering, because this seems to be quite different than what Ron Paul espoused and what he has worked for all of his life.


Sad isn't it?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Has this forum turned into a Christian-bashing, anti-Constitution, anti-Founding Fathers, America-hating, forum?
> 
> Just wondering, because this seems to be quite different than what Ron Paul espoused and what he has worked for all of his life.


More like pro-liberty, anti-Hamiltonian, Statism-hating forum (IMHO).  I think RP worked (and works) for freedom of speech too-even speech he doesn't like.   We've got our share of wackos, but that's to be expected from any group of individuals. lol

----------


## dannno

That's funny, I've watched Zeitgeist a boatload of times and do not once remember hearing them say that they disproved Christianity.

Why is it that Christians keep complaining that Zeitgeist attempts to disprove Christianity when it ultimately does nothing of the sort? All it does is show how that there are no records of any historians around during the time of Jesus to record his words or his story. Maybe the records did exist and they were destroyed by governments and entities controlled by the elite because they don't want certain truths to get out. Maybe true Christianity has existed throughout time and in various cultures around the world and is eventually perverted by all cultures into the mish mash of similar Pagan beliefs that they present in the film. Maybe that is why Pagan religions have so many common elements shared with each other as well as Christianity. Maybe that's why gold plates from South America were found with writings prophesying Jesus' virgin birth, resurrection and visitation (see The Book of Mormon, LDS)

There are patterns everywhere. I think they are important.

----------


## WRellim

> That's funny, I've watched Zeitgeist a boatload of times and do not once remember hearing them say that they disproved Christianity.
> 
> Why is it that Christians keep complaining that Zeitgeist attempts to disprove Christianity when it ultimately does nothing of the sort? All it does is show how that there are no records of any historians around during the time of Jesus to record his words or his story. Maybe the records did exist and they were destroyed by governments and entities controlled by the elite because they don't want certain truths to get out. Maybe true Christianity has existed throughout time and in various cultures around the world and is eventually perverted by all cultures into the mish mash of similar Pagan beliefs that they present in the film. Maybe that is why Pagan religions have so many common elements shared with each other as well as Christianity. Maybe that's why gold plates from South America were found with writings prophesying Jesus' virgin birth, resurrection and visitation (see The Book of Mormon, LDS)
> 
> There are patterns everywhere. I think they are important.



*Actually, Zeitgeist lies about nearly everything... INCLUDING pagan beliefs.*

Anyone who knows anything about Egyptian mythology (or has bothered to even take say 5 minutes of time on wikipedia to look up anything about it) will come to the same conclusion -- the guy who made the "zeitgeist" _doesn't give a $#@! about whether what he is pushing is a total fiction_ -- he knows that as long as propaganda goes along with peoples' predisposed opinions ("proving" what they want to believe anyway) then he can sucker them into buying a host of other bull$#@! he's slinging.

*To me the film DOES serve a purpose; it is a valuable touchstone on just how gullible and ignorant someone is* -- if they "buy into" the film, like it, and push int onto other -- then it confirms that they have ZERO discernment (or intellectual honesty, OR research skills). Ergo they will fall for _anything_ (especially if it is properly "packaged up" to play on their prejudices).

----------


## dannno

> *Actually, Zeitgeist lies about nearly everything... INCLUDING pagan beliefs.*
> 
> Anyone who knows anything about Egyptian mythology (or has bothered to even take say 5 minutes of time on wikipedia to look up anything about it) will come to the same conclusion -- the guy who made the "zeitgeist" _doesn't give a $#@! about whether what he is pushing is a total fiction_ -- he knows that as long as propaganda goes along with peoples' predisposed opinions ("proving" what they want to believe anyway) then he can sucker them into buying a host of other bull$#@! he's slinging.
> 
> *To me the film DOES serve a purpose; it is a valuable touchstone on just how gullible and ignorant someone is* -- if they "buy into" the film, like it, and push int onto other -- then it confirms that they have ZERO discernment (or intellectual honesty, OR research skills). Ergo they will fall for _anything_ (especially if it is properly "packaged up" to play on their prejudices).


I don't buy this at all. You think you know everything about Egyptian mythology, and because of this you miss the entire point of the film. This stuff is thousands of years old, and you claim that there are certain truths to be known about the beliefs of people from thousands of years ago, you claim that their beliefs are static which is complete insanity, and that these ultimate truths some how clash with the film? Give me a break. Seriously.

EVERYTHING in Zeitgeist is referenced to a published work. You should at least be honest and say that they are using works that have been discredited by the mainstream Egyptian Industrial Mythology Complex and that you buy everything that the Egyptian Industrial Mythology Complex says because you are a tool. Honesty is very important.

----------


## WRellim

> I don't buy this at all. You think you know everything about Egyptian mythology, and because of this you miss the entire point of the film. This stuff is thousands of years old, and you claim that there are certain truths to be known about the beliefs of people from thousands of years ago, you claim that their beliefs are static which is complete insanity, and that these ultimate truths some how clash with the film? Give me a break. Seriously.
> 
> EVERYTHING in Zeitgeist is referenced to a published work. You should at least be honest and say that they are using works that have been discredited by the mainstream Egyptian Industrial Mythology Complex and that you buy everything that the Egyptian Industrial Mythology Complex says because you are a tool. Honesty is very important.


*Actually NOTHING in the "zeitgeist" thingee is reference to ANY published work.*

It's all pure bull$#@! from start to finish.

People buy into it because they WANT to, it "confirms" what they have "always thought was true" -- pure confirmation bias.

----------


## dannno

> *Actually NOTHING in the "zeitgeist" thingee is reference to ANY published work.*
> 
> It's all pure bull$#@! from start to finish.
> 
> People buy into it because they WANT to, it "confirms" what they have "always thought was true" -- pure confirmation bias.


Wrong. 

I have debated this with people on here who claim to be Egyptologists of some sort, and as soon as I come up with the reference in question, they act like Bill O'Reilly sluffing off a New York Times article.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

IMHO,

Zeitgeist is not at all a serious documentary or academic probe into the matter it covers.  It's just an opinion piece that the producers made.  

However, the producer does provide a bibliography on his site (well, he did a few years ago when I first saw it).  I haven't had a chance to dig into it yet, but it might be interesting.

----------


## ForLiberty-RonPaul

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_9ZyddjaM4&eurl

----------


## dannno

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_9ZyddjaM4&eurl


Debunkers of Zeitgeist Part 1 be PWNed.

----------


## raiha

Danno well refuted!!

Why are people so threatened by the content of the film? It seems to whip up an antagonistic lather directly disproportionate to the message. There is such alot of *CERTAINTY* abounding IMHO which is rather disappointing as it eliminates any potential for reflection, exploration, fascination, discussion. It is almost as though peoples' very identity becomes threatened by alternative views.

----------


## BeFranklin

> *Actually, Zeitgeist lies about nearly everything... INCLUDING pagan beliefs.*
> 
> Anyone who knows anything about Egyptian mythology (or has bothered to even take say 5 minutes of time on wikipedia to look up anything about it) will come to the same conclusion -- the guy who made the "zeitgeist" _doesn't give a $#@! about whether what he is pushing is a total fiction_ -- he knows that as long as propaganda goes along with peoples' predisposed opinions ("proving" what they want to believe anyway) then he can sucker them into buying a host of other bull$#@! he's slinging.
> 
> *To me the film DOES serve a purpose; it is a valuable touchstone on just how gullible and ignorant someone is* -- if they "buy into" the film, like it, and push int onto other -- then it confirms that they have ZERO discernment (or intellectual honesty, OR research skills). Ergo they will fall for _anything_ (especially if it is properly "packaged up" to play on their prejudices).


Yes, its pretty bad.

Jesus was probably not born on dec 25th, it isn't in the bible.  There were no wise men at his birth - thats just how people set up their decorations, and there were 12 disciples because there were 12 tribes of israel, so its all made up.

I tried to explain to someone how bad this movie was who was pushing it, and was told that if I wanted to continue to believe in fairy tales I could.

Yes, I'm sick of it

----------


## H Roark

People who watch Zeitgeist need to ask themselves why the narrator thinks it is necessary for those that follow any of the Abrahamic religions must renounce them in order to bring on this utopia he envisions?  What is it specifically about these religions and in particular Christianity that prevents followers from accepting a technocracy?  

*I believe the answer to that question will expose the true agenda behind the Venus Project.*

This is why people in the RP movement really need to refrain from alienating Christians.  There were many other religions that were abound during the Roman Empire, but it was Christianity that was specifically targeted because their supreme allegiance belonged to the Lord, not the state (emperor).  

I found a debate with Mark Dice vs. Peter Joseph of Zeitgeist that revolved around Chapter 1 of the first Zeitgeist.  Although, I wished Mark Dice would of been better prepared...

I know a few people that have seen Zeitgeist and fancy themselves as politically savvy and in-the-know just because they've seen this $#@!ty movie!  I have to admit however, that it is probably the best produced piece of alternative media propaganda, which is what makes it especially dangerous.  It plants the seeds of technocractic government into the minds of people who would otherwise be apathetic.

----------


## ForLiberty-RonPaul

The attack against dogmas as such, therefore, strongly resembles the struggle against the general legal foundations of a state, and , as the latter would end in a total anarchy of the state, the former would end in a worthless religious nihilism.

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others.

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine.

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

----------


## dannno

> Yes, its pretty bad.
> 
> Jesus was probably not born on dec 25th, it isn't in the bible.  There were no wise men at his birth - thats just how people set up their decorations, and there were 12 disciples because there were 12 tribes of israel, so its all made up.
> 
> I tried to explain to someone how bad this movie was who was pushing it, and was told that if I wanted to continue to believe in fairy tales I could.
> 
> Yes, I'm sick of it


Will you please watch this, it refutes EVERY point you just mentioned and it was right in front of your post. Ridiculous. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_9ZyddjaM4&eurl

----------


## dannno

> People who watch Zeitgeist need to ask themselves why the narrator thinks it is necessary for those that follow any of the Abrahamic religions must renounce them in order to bring on this utopia he envisions?  What is it specifically about these religions and in particular Christianity that prevents followers from accepting a technocracy?  
> 
> *I believe the answer to that question will expose the true agenda behind the Venus Project.*
> 
> This is why people in the RP movement really need to refrain from alienating Christians.  There were many other religions that were abound during the Roman Empire, but it was Christianity that was specifically targeted because their supreme allegiance belonged to the Lord, not the state (emperor).  
> 
> I found a debate with Mark Dice vs. Peter Joseph of Zeitgeist that revolved around Chapter 1 of the first Zeitgeist.  Although, I wished Mark Dice would of been better prepared...
> 
> I know a few people that have seen Zeitgeist and fancy themselves as politically savvy and in-the-know just because they've seen this $#@!ty movie!  I have to admit however, that it is probably the best produced piece of alternative media propaganda, which is what makes it especially dangerous.  It plants the seeds of technocractic government into the minds of people who would otherwise be apathetic.


Zeitgeist 1 is great, it is well documented and truthfully gives a lot of important information. Zeitgeist 2 does the same, except for the proposed (false) solution.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Has this forum turned into a Christian-bashing, anti-Constitution, anti-Founding Fathers, America-hating, forum?
> 
> Just wondering, because this seems to be quite different than what Ron Paul espoused and what he has worked for all of his life.


Nope. 

I may be Christianity-bashing or bashing to certain Christians, but other than that I am pro-liberty , anti-government (not anti-Constitution), pro-founding fathers (especially for their racism and violence) and America-loving (for people and culture, not government).

----------


## BeFranklin

> Will you please watch this, it refutes EVERY point you just mentioned and it was right in front of your post. Ridiculous. 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_9ZyddjaM4&eurl


I watched Zeitgeist.  

There weren't wise men at Jesus's birth - that is in the bible.  The wise men appeared after he was an infant, sometime before being two years old.

The 12 apostles were chosen to represent the 12 tribes of Israel - thats from the bible, and the 12 tribes existed a long time before Jesus came.

Jesus was probably not born on dec 25th, that is not from the bible, and that date of his celebration is a relatively recent adoption.  
Instead, they use to celebrate the* feast of adam and eve*.

The movie is made up history by someone that has never studied history or opened a bible.

----------


## BeFranklin

> Will you please watch this, it refutes EVERY point you just mentioned and it was right in front of your post. Ridiculous. 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_9ZyddjaM4&eurl


I just watched this as well, it was a total waste of time, and now I'll never forgive you 

It didn't address all my points, which is basicaly that by not even looking at the pagan sources - which are also doubtful, it is alleging the 
bible says things it doesn't say.  I thought it wasn't even going to address any of the points I made, but after six minutes into it
I found something.

The first 3 minutes, she says absolutely nothing.

At 3:30 minutes, she basically said I made up the pagan sources, and they disagree with everyone else, but really I know because I reconstructed it.

At 5:00 is a pitch to buy my books if you want sources 

At 5:30 christians burned it all up, so there are no sources (and so I made it up!)

At 6:15 minutes she claims ok, Christians really started celebrating Christmas in the 4th century, so its part of the "tradition" even if its not in the bible.

First, this is completely wrong.  There were no widespread Christmas celebrations until the middle ages.  And what we call Christmas is part of 
the Adam and Eve festival  of the early middle ages.  *Look it up, thats why there is a christmas tree.* 

This is why the Puritans could so easily ban Christmas.  And also, I am a puritan type, so if its a tradition and not in the bible, it goes.

7:00 She addresses the number of wise men not being in the bible.  

I missed that.  I meant they weren't at his birth, the wise men appeared later when he was an infant somewhere under two.  
She does not address they weren't even at his birth.

So I add to my list of ojections, there weren't _3_ wise men in the bible either.  There were just _wise men_ in the bible.  Its just a late day pop-culture addition.

8:00  more attacking

etc.

The information I wanted took up less than a minute.  She probably spent as much time talking about buying her books 

-----------------------------------------------------

This type of information is not new to me at all, because my beliefs are puritan / reform type beliefs.  There are countless books written on traditions not in the bible and that should not be in the church from a Christian perspective, and this reformers tradition goes back four hundred and more years.   If you have studied it, it is pretty easy to separate what is in the bible from what is not.  Zit is just blurring the lines between what is actually biblical and what non-Christians might believe about it. 

Here is an example of an old popular work on traditions that aren't in the bible.   "The Two Babylons, 1853".  It has many flaws, but compared to zit its still better".  

http://philologos.org/__eb-ttb/

Separation of pagan practices from the bible isn't an atheist undertaking, its puritan, and requires much reading of the bible.   Christmas trees for instance aren't biblical, which is why I know that the celebration of it originally wasn't "christ's birth" but the adam and eve festival.

----------


## BeFranklin

This isn't that bad.  I though the makers of Zit were new-agers after seeing it.  It has a certain new-age fortune teller aspect to it.

The theosophists also influenced the nazis.




> People who watch Zeitgeist need to ask themselves why the narrator thinks it is necessary for those that follow any of the Abrahamic religions must renounce them in order to bring on this utopia he envisions?  What is it specifically about these religions and in particular Christianity that prevents followers from accepting a technocracy?  
> 
> *I believe the answer to that question will expose the true agenda behind the Venus Project.*
> 
> This is why people in the RP movement really need to refrain from alienating Christians.  There were many other religions that were abound during the Roman Empire, but it was Christianity that was specifically targeted because their supreme allegiance belonged to the Lord, not the state (emperor).  
> ..
> I know a few people that have seen Zeitgeist and fancy themselves as politically savvy and in-the-know just because they've seen this $#@!ty movie!  I have to admit however, that it is probably the best produced piece of alternative media propaganda, which is what makes it especially dangerous.  It plants the seeds of technocractic government into the minds of people who would otherwise be apathetic.

----------


## BeFranklin

This is what bible believing Christians actually believe ie what’s actually in the bible. I didn't get this from anyone else, this is what anyone that regularly reads the bible is going to see right from the start when watching this movie. You're pretty much going to look like you're ignorant or malicious if you quote that as truth - (perhaps the intention of that part of the movie - to cause dispute.) 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The twelve tribes of Israel come from Jacob, who was called Israel after he wrestled with God, more then 3,500 years ago (Genesis 32:24-30).  The twelve tribes of Israel predate the time that Jesus called people out of the twelve tribes of Israel by a considerable extent - 1,500 years. 




> *Matthew 10*
> 1 And when *he had called unto him his twelve disciples*, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. 2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. 5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6 *But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel*.





> *Matthew 19:27*
> 19:27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, *ye also shall sit upon  twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.* 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. 19:30 But many [that are] first shall be last; and the last [shall be] first.





> *Luke 22:24-30*
> 24And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. 25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. 26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. 27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth. 28 Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations. 29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; 30 *That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.*



Three kings were only popularized since the song "we three kings" written by Rev. John Henry Hopkins in 1857. That they were at the manager has only been popularized even more recently by lazy people putting them together with manager scenes in Christmas decorations.

Here is the actual scripture from the bible.  It doesn't say how many wise men there were, it only says a plural of wise men.  It doesn't call them kings.  And it doesn't say they were there when Jesus was born in a manger.  It says Jesus was a young child in a house, and that Herod thought he must be under two after he carefully inquired of the wise men when they first saw the star appear.




> *Matthew 2:1-13*
> 1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, *there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem*, 2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. 3 When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. 
> 
> 5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, 6 And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel. *7 Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared*. 8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also. 
> 
> 9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. 10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. 11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. 12And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way. 
> 
> 13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. 14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: 15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. 
> 
> 16 *Then Herod,* when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and *slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men*. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, 18 In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.


The date is also not in the bible. The December 25th date has never been a widespread celebration of the actual date of Jesus’ birth until the middle ages, which is why the puritans had good reason to want to remove it. The date is actually part of the Adam and Eve feast in the early middle ages, and the Christmas tree was the Adam and Eve tree with euchrist wafers placed on it. Christmas also doesn't mean Christbirth, it means Christ Mass, with the eucharist created of Jesus’ death for the forgiveness of sins. (Note specifically the word created, not remembered since this is the roman catholic church, and Jesus is 'really in the bread and wine' according to the roman catholic church.)

----------


## tribute_13

Zeitgeist is bull$#@!. Religion is bull$#@!. I rest my case.

----------


## Conservative Christian

This video is comprised of eight 10-minute parts, so be sure to watch all of them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiU7b...x=0&playnext=1


.

----------


## Conza88

> Zeitgeist is bull$#@!. Religion is bull$#@!. I rest my case.


I agree with this actually.




> Don't let the "New World Order" fool you into believing that Christianity is based on falsehoods because that's exactly what proponents of the NWO want you to believe in order to eradicate all religion (except their own, of course).


Although I am partial to this somewhat. 

After watching Addendum, just like they always have - it is blatantly obvious that marxist and statist's attack religion, because they want you to worship the state instead of some god.

But, just as the church fulfilled the role of the state many, many years ago. They are now surpassing it.. They are tearing down their OWN strawman so to speak, and ERECTING another of their choosing.

Both are bull$#@!. Although seeing the insane ending of Addendum, which ROFLMAO is more faith based than any $#@! I've seen in a LONG time... it makes me partial to lessen up on the pro defense of sanity, or athiesm. (I'm an agnostic athiest btw)... after going to Catholic school, church most my early life.

Whatever.. don't give a fck what you believe in, just don't push your beliefs on me. All happy  

But the producers of this film are using it as a paradigm, just like the false LEFT / RIGHT paradigm... you get stuck in a box, god, no god? IT AIN'T THE ISSUE PEOPLE.

Wake up folks.

----------


## Isaac Bickerstaff

The subject matter of the first third of Zeitgeist cannot be studied in the same fashion as the rest of the material. It did the movie a great disservice to attempt such a thing. The result is that anyone with a weak bull$#@! sensor will either accept the whole thing at face value or dismiss the whole presentation because they disagree with a few points.

Judging by the discussion that has taken place, I would have to conclude that Zeitgeist was created to discredit the anti-globalist movement as a whole. By presenting a fairly comprehensive view of the globalist agenda in a movie that also explores unpopular views of religion, the makers invoked a negative emotional response to the entire movie. 

Result:
Someone sees Zeitgeist. Cannot see the first third for what it is.
Someone else talks about the evils of globalist bankers.
First person dismisses second person as bigoted.
The liberty message does not grow.

If you want to discuss Zeitgeist, leave the first third out of it completely. Whether you want to agree with it or not, it WILL cause some negative feelings and you do the movement no good by discussing it.

----------


## Hiki

> Here is a good video in response to that book:
> 
> "Zeitgeist, Part 1" Debunked? - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_9ZyddjaM4


She is a fraud.

----------

