http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
Discuss.
2007-07-23 02:46:44 · 8 answers · asked by Automaton 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
That's why I said what do you think about the religion part, solely.
The other stuff is entertaining, the only thing that is true is the federal reserve stuff, besides that I just ignored the rest. The religion part is decent, but it lacks some research in specific areas, I suppose since it is an attempt to put forth a deliberate agenda. I'm not Christian but I have studied the early Theology of the Ante-Nicene Father's and Gnosticism (various other groups like the Ebonites/Nazirenes/Essene for example), needless to say most of these writers and sects held the scriptures as being allegories.
2007-07-23 02:57:48 · update #1
The history of religion and the sun cults is pretty accurate. I think it is sad that only the basics can be exposed in a film of this nature.
They were very concerned with calendars and much of the 12 and 13 conflict is due to the shifting from lunar calendars to solar calendars.
I read part of the dubunking of the God Who Wasn't There link. When I got to where the debunker claimed about no wise men from the east I had to pause because the Three Nobles are very much a part of the Horus myth, and they appear prominently in the heiroglyphs telling the Stories of Isis and her son. The carvings predate the Jesus story by quite a handy space of time. I do not have the exact times. I can look them up but the mythology is from about 1,000 BC.
Be careful about the mythology of Horus (Heru) because there are actually two myths. There is the Old Heru who was born as a Falcon and immediatly flew to the top of the Sky to become the new sun and Horus son of Isis, which is the one we are concerned with.
2007-07-23 02:57:54 · answer #1 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It seems very plausible, perhaps right on.
Part of me can't help but believe that the rest of that movie discredits Part 1. Those conspiracy theories put a poor light on their effort to show Christianity as a lie.
All in all, I really think Part 1 did a great job of arming atheists with ammo against Jesus freaks. But they went overboard in the rest of the movie.
2007-07-23 09:51:44 · answer #2 · answered by Seeker 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well researched biased propeganda of a low order.
Leni Reifenstahl did a much better job showing off Hitler in Triumph of the Will.
She was a genius who didn't need to have a closing argument.
When you HAVE to have a PERSUASIVE closing argument, it means your presentation wasn't very good.
Leni showed the world the POWER of Hitler without having to say at the end that the NAZI WAY OF LIFE IS THE RIGHT WAY.
She didn't NEED to do that. She kept you SPELL BOUND throughtout that entire movie.
When you have to resort to a resolve, it means your sermon didn't paint a very good picture and you have to spell it out.
Low grade propeganda.
2007-07-23 10:16:43 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
on the topic of religion, i'd say it's very easy putting the astrological claims to the test. are there three stars in orion's belt referred to as three kings? yes. do they align with, or follow, the eastern star and the location of the sun on december 25th? yes.
2007-07-23 10:38:12 · answer #4 · answered by just curious (A.A.A.A.) 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I checked a lot of the facts and they are inaccurate. The movie has been debunked.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/God_Who_Wasnt_There_analysis.htm
atheist
The Atheist Bible, it could be said, has but one word: "THINK." - Emmett Fields
2007-07-23 09:56:24 · answer #5 · answered by AuroraDawn 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I saw no truth in it. Zeitgeist - trend of thought and feeling in a period of history.
The only truth this world will ever know is Christ Jesus.
2007-07-23 10:11:30 · answer #6 · answered by Jeancommunicates 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
waiting for a rebuttal.
2007-07-23 09:53:13 · answer #7 · answered by Pisces 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Honestly, sounds like atheist propaganda to me...
-B
2007-07-23 09:50:05 · answer #8 · answered by The Brian 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋