zeitgeist movie
Just wanted to say that there may be SOME 'truth' in this movie, but by no means are the 'facts' all proven and there are some gross lies in it as well.
please be careful in your using it to win people over to Ron Paul, and check out the facts and also others who have spent time researching to reveal the truth on this.
Here are some pages I felt were useful:
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/08/06/jay-kinney-reviews-z.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/zeitgeist-movie.html (one thing i know this page does not have correct, Jesus was not born in December, but that is beside the point it does bring up some sound reasoning)
http://www.infowarsforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=2952
Also, much the portion of this move on "The Fed" I do believe is true and it is sickening. I seriously want to throw up.
Just my two cents on this movie and a recommendation to be careful not to confuse or mislead people with it in an effort to win Dr. Paul votes.
IDK for me this movie help
IDK for me this movie help me separate "God" from "in the name of god". Although i'm not religious I do believe in a higher power. I feel like you really have to in order to protect yourself. For example: removing "under god" from teh pledge of allegance. Is not an attack on God(well it is by proxy), it's an attack on you. It's only precieved as an attack on god. Which aethiests seem to love to do on behalf of thoughs that wish to control us. Because to omit god is to assume government is the highest power and that is really dangerous.
"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it."
I agree with you......
Believing in the sovereign authority of God is to remove the all sovereign authority of man. To a tyrannical establishment, this is very dangerous and for this reason, Stalin and other's made Christianity an enemy of the state. That is what they are doing in this country as well. Just read the ATF training papers for local law enforcement. As long as you buy into the mushy, evangellyfish form of Christianity, you are considered passive and are left alone. Their doctrine however, is just glorified humanism that will be chanting "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" even as a Federal agent's boot is pressed down firmly on their faces. They are the ones who bought this deceitful war that completely violates the OT war doctrine. I pray that one day these Christ-claiming sycophants will one day wake up and realize that at the time of Judgement, Jesus will turn to them and say "I never knew you!" We are to be known by our fruits. Faith is to be lived in every aspect of your life...it is not merely life insurance.
Those of us that are sickened by the God-playing elitists running the establishment will not stand for this shit much longer. This does not mean forcing people to believe like us, but it means putting the power back into the hands of God and the individuals of this country. It was the Great Awakening that lead to the Revolutionary war. Passive slaves used to comfortable, decadent lives however, are happy being slaves...be it to banks, the Fed, the media, corporate beaucrats or whatever. Eyes need to be opened. My blindfold is off.....how about yours?
"This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave."
"Under God" was added to the
"Under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance during the 1950's Cold War hysteria. It was an attempt to distance ourselves from the officially atheist Soviet Communist government. I consider it an insult to the author to tinker with his original pledge, and if you recite it both ways I think any objective listener will agree that the cadence is better without the addition. Even as a little kid I instinctively knew it was awkward to pause for an extra line there.
----------
Liberty for Dummies
Screw the Pledge of (State) Allegiance!
I'm actually offended by the Pledge of Allegiance itself! What is this, pledging allegiance to an inanimate object, a symbol of the state? I find it revolting, and I would absolutely refuse to ever participate in it. Anyone with any backbone should see it for what it really is: more statist propaganda, and pressure to conform and pay homage to government. It's just a dressed-up prayer to big government, and I find it repugnant.
What a silly notion
"to omit god is to assume government is the highest power and that is really dangerous"
What a silly notion. Try "all men are created equal" and "endowed with certain unalienable rights." Government is simply an institution that we create and staff in order to protect those rights. Government is the servant of the people, not the master.
You Tube Version Federal Reserve Alone
There is a five part version of this on You Tube that features only the Federal Reserve. The religious angel they tack on is frivolous and discredits the whole. Steer people only to the five part version on the Fed. Link can be found here:
http://constitutionmoneybomb.com
Jesus did exist
First of all there is historical proof that a man named Jesus did exist and was crucified. Whether he was the son of God or just an average nobody is up to what you believe.
Christians do not believe that Jesus was born on December 25th. The church set that birthdate as part of it's liturgical calendar to explain the gospel in a specific order.
Zeitgiest is good because it gets people to think, but with all the half truths it proclaims it can not be taken serioulsy because that alone does more damage than telling outright lies.
historical proof? show me
non-religious writings please. historians. there was no jesus, sorry.
Please show me "historical
Please show me "historical proof" outside religious texts. The few claimed examples I'm aware of have been hotly contested by mainstream historians, and as such do not constitute "proof" in any school of thought other than those with a vested interest in the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. Most secular historians have no axe to grind in that regard, and indeed most would probably love to be the one to find such irrefutable proof, yet they continue to debate the matter.
----------
Liberty for Dummies
Cornelius Tacitus was a
Cornelius Tacitus was a Non-Christian who lived from A.D. 55 to A.D. 120. He was a Roman historian and has been described as the greatest historian of Rome, noted for his integrity and moral uprightness. His most famous works are the Annals and the Histories. The Annals relate the historical narrative from Augustus’ death in A.D.14 to Nero’s death in A.D. 68. The Histories begin their narrative after Nero’s death and finish with Domitian’s death in A.D. 96. In his section describing Nero’s decision to blame the fire of Rome on the Christians, Tacitus affirms that the founder of Christianity, a man he calls Chrestus (a common alternate spelling of Christ, which was Jesus’ surname), was executed by Pilate, the procurator of Judea during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberias. There are many other non-christian historians who have written of someone who was executed by Pilate and also reported of a solar eclipse and earthquake that co-incided with the crucifiction. Search for these names: Lucian of Samosata, Suetonius, Thallus and Phlegon, Josephus. It is a matter of faith if you want to believe if Jesus was the son of God or not, but no one can deny that this man has had a greater impact on humanity than anyone in existence.
Christ is not a surname, it
Christ is not a surname, it is a religious title: "the Christ." The nearest thing to a surname that has been applied to Jesus would be "Jesus of Nazareth," after the town where he is believed to have lived. Those who do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ (or that there ever will be or ever could be such an entity), tend not to call him Jesus Christ. This might include Jews, atheists, etc.
I'm aware of the names you've listed; they are all "hotly contested," as I said before. I won't do your Googling for you, but if you're adept enough to uncover those names, you should be equally adept at uncovering the debate surrounding them. Indeed, you would have to willfully ignore those search results in order to not be aware of them.
You are correct that no one can deny the impact of the Jesus figure, and no thinking person would even want to try. The debate is whether or not he was a real historical person, but clearly this point is irrelevant to the impact of Christianity. This is why it really shouldn't matter to Christians either way; the "Good News" has already been spread (or, the damage has already been done, depending on your perspective). My interest is in the truth, not in dismantling a religion, which I could never hope to accomplish.
----------
Liberty for Dummies
Exactly Correct // As I Also Understand It
Vote RON PAUL 2008
_____________
Not that you asked but I personally choose to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. My Mother taught me well.
As an after thought, please allow me to share the wisdom and humor of GEORGE CARLIN with everybody following this subject:
Religion is Bullshit (caution - strong language)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o
Vote RON PAUL 2008
Great movie
It exposes the world power structure for what it really is (corrupt, criminal, evil, and full of hate) and although there have been many other movies and books that have been written about the same subject matter, the beauty of Zeitgeist is that it is so visually compelling and explains things so well.
Having said that, I think one needs to look no farther than the CFR selection of candidates, and the MSM "blackout" of our candidate and hero Ron Paul to validate much of what Zeitgeist is about. Consider this:
*Ron Paul is "Champion Of The Constitution"
*The establishment hates Ron Paul for everything that he stands for, which is our Constitution.
*The Constitution partially serves to protect "We The People" from a Government run amok.
Considering the 3 points made above, it is easy to conclude that the "Establishment" is against "We The People and our Constitution"
and so.......Zeitgeist is very real and very truthful. The MSM serves as the sheepdog. I have taken action by canceling my newspaper subscription, and I do not watch or support FOX. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, ESPN, or any
other establishment propaganda mouthpiece. If we're serious about the Ron Paul Revolution, then I would suggest you start by making the above minor adjustments to your daily lives. There is strength in numbers, and we are many. Let's do this!!
fs
The Point Is.....
Jesus did not exist and December 25th is just a convenient date for Messiah's... GET IT ??
jakofharts
I think we need to realize
I think we need to realize we are trying to win back a country. I think we are not trying to change religion or kill it here. The point of the constitution is that we are all free to believe what we want or not to.
We need to move forward with debating religion and move on to economics, foreign policy, immigration, education, and yes, even abortion and global warming.
But understand that we are not going to wipe out Christians, Muslims, Jews, or atheist. In fact, we want to continue living with each other.
Religion has been documented in history numerous times, and perhaps even now, here, to be used in the wrong way...like dividing and conquering people and forcing itself upon others.
Time for FREEDOM, guys and embrace our differences...please.
Zeitgiest may have anti-religion in the first part, but it does not negate the other parts. There are people bashing different groups of people in this forum but true RP supporters can ask questions and yes, even differ in beliefs. RP's point is that the smallest group is an individual and yes we are FREE to be ourselves without coercion from a group, be it religious, ethnic, racial, economic, sexual, etc.
Let's stay on course for the WIN for FREEDOM.
Zeitgeist - why does it stay on top?
Zeitgeist is always on the top right when you visit ronpaulforpresident2008. There are many other topics more important to electing RP, and though this is interesting, it is NOT breaking news and should float down. It is a great RP website for news clips and other RP related articles.
On another point, I guess one could argue that Caesar or Alexander did not exist but you have to deny written history and eye witness accounts that are accepted as truth. And with far less evidence than the reams written about Jesus.
As far as his birth being December 25 though, that is highly unlikely. Early church history indicates that day was incorporated into Christianity by force of government (Constantine) based on the popular celebration of the Roman Saturnalia and was used to make Christianity more palatable to recently 'converted' pagans. Hmmm...mixing government and religion....not really a good idea.
It is True Jesus died on Passover, (the 14th of Abib, or Nisan). The question still remains What Year? Contradictions only appear in the bible when we try to force it to say what it does not. If we look at ancient Hebrew calendars you can find in 31 A.D. the Passover, (the 14th,) started Tuesday evening around sunset. (Remember a day is from evening to evening, not midnight to midnight).
This means in the year 31AD Jesus would have died and been buried on a Wednesday before sunset. If we can accept the year 31 AD, there is NO contradiction with Matthew 12:40 "...so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Other scriptures indicate he was risen by Sunday. Therefore, 31 AD makes more sense to me.
Many of our religious traditions need to be re examined. Some come out of the dark times before most people could read the bible for them selves. And the Church sat astride the government.
Steven Orrange
I think it stays on top because you just commented on it
and then I commented on your comment. : )
And me too
Here is another "red pill video" like Zeitgeist. Called Fiat Empire and features Ron Paul
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/the-truth-fiat-empire-the-...
Please show me these "reams
Please show me these "reams of written evidence" on the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. Note that religious texts do not apply.
----------
Liberty for Dummies
Phoobar
Phoobar, based on your "I find it entirely" comment, you make the impression that you are a disciple of the highly vulgar and obnoxious Christopher Hitchens.
I agree with your condemnation of organized religion, but it serves a purpose for a great many people.
I do disagree with your claim, however, that Jesus Christ of Nazareth never existed. It's pretty absurd to think that the earliest generations of Christians (who had lived during the time of Jesus) would endure intense persecution from both Jews and Romans all for the sake of a mythical man who they simply made up.
The Top 4 websites for Ron Paul fans - bookmark them!
http://www.amconmag.com/
http://www.antiwar.com/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/
http://www.vdare.com/
I take truth and reason
I take truth and reason where I find it. Hitchens certainly does have a flair for taking the fight to organized religion without apologizing for his views, as atheists like him have been forced to do until relatively recently.
I respect him for his willingness to seize the opportunity to speak his mind freely, but I'm certainly no "disciple" of his, or of anyone else. He is one of many valuable voices of reason on this subject. Richard Dawkins is another. Thomas Paine was yet another, although he lived in less religiously liberated times and had to be more careful. There have been many historical voices of reason who were sadly shackled by the times in which they lived, and the stifling effect that religion had on their ability to express themselves. Thank Zeus we are nearly free! ;-P
I've never found Hitchens to be vulgar, but then I have a pretty thick skin. Your mileage may vary.
----------
Liberty for Dummies
Hitchens
"I've never found Hitchens to be vulgar, but then I have a pretty thick skin. Your mileage may vary."
Have you never seen the Galloway-Hitchens debate? Or seen any of Htichens' appearances on the Bill Maher show?
Go to YouTube and search for Christopher Hitchens. Then, get a bucket in case you need to vomit while watching the many TV clips you will find. In many instances, Hitchens appears on TV visibly drunk.
I particularly like the debate he had with George Galloway. Hitchens was run out of town during that one. Have fun.
The Top 4 websites for Ron Paul fans - bookmark them!
http://www.amconmag.com/
http://www.antiwar.com/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/
http://www.vdare.com/
Again, your definition of
Again, your definition of vulgarity may differ from mine. I found the Galloway debate to be a bore, because I'm not interested in Hitchens' political views. I'm not sure if I even finished it because, again, I don't care to hear Hitchens justify his warmongering views. I find him to have been dead wrong, politically, both when he was a raving socialist and now that he's a raving war hawk. His views on free speech are incredibly lucid and even brilliant, but that's where our political agreement ends. As for Galloway, I find very little to admire about his politics, either. He is still a raving socialist, and a global warming nut, to boot.
Like I said, I take truth and reason where I find them. I can agree with someone on one point without endorsing their entire world view. I admire Hitchens for his religious opinions. I've seen many of them, including the "Falwell's enema" appearance, which only bolstered my admiration of his boldness. It's time for people to stop being afraid of religion. They have bullied us free-thinkers for too long. It needs to stop, even if that means offending the devout. Zeus knows they've offended us long enough.
As for being drunk, again, I don't have a problem with that. If you were raised in a teetotaler household, perhaps you might take offense to it. It wasn't that long ago when half the office would have been tipsy after a three-drink lunch. As a libertarian, I take no offense to this.
----------
Liberty for Dummies
The Hitchens-Galloway debate!
Yeah, that was a pretty entertaining debate, wasn't it?
The only version I saw was
The only version I saw was on the Fed alone, with the exception of the last few minuets of part five. It is shocking and sickening. I recommend have people view only the YouTube version regarding the Fed.
There is good evidence Jesus was born in December, by the way. His ministry was 3 1/2 years ending on passover. Passover is on the 15th of the month. Passover in 33 AD fell in May (an intercalary month was added in 32 AD to bring the lunar year back in line with the solar year; otherwise, passover usually occured in April). 3 1/2 yrs back in time from May 15, AD 33 would be November 15th, AD 29. Luke says Jesus was 29 at his baptism; he then went into the wilderness for 40 days, after which he began actively preaching. Jewish men did not start a public ministry until they were 30 yrs. Thus, if his baptism occured Nov. 15 when he was 29, but he began his active public ministry 40 days later after his fast in the wilderness, that would mean his birthday occured in December. Nov. 15 + 40 days = Dec. 25 - strange coincidence to say the least!
Blessings,
One of the best films ever.
One of the best films ever. regarding when Jesus was born, I haven´t seen any evidence when or even if he was born, The point the film makes is that the symbolic goes again and again in mythology and history.
we do have freedom of religion, so I guess anyone can believe whatever they want. Maybe I believe in pink flying elephants that rule space and time. Obviously no one can prove me wrong, since it´s impossible to prove a negative. :)
Anyone should take what they can accept from the movie, it is really a masterpiece.
/Mike
Front Fell Off
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcU4t6zRAKg
Ok...
We should still question any blindly held belif no matter what it is.
I have always had issues with the official version of religion.
1. creates division
2. puts god outside oneself.
3. controls with fear and guilt
4. your not worthy, your a sinner, you have to be saved
5. Roman empire controlled the documents for 800 years before anyone had a copy.
Glad I found Zen meditation (Zazen) I don't fear anything, I am at peace.
find god within you. all beings are eternal, can't be destroyed. we are all one - so end the division. true lasting happyness that religion never gave me.
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau
Strike at the root - Watch Money Masters
Part 3 is up on
Part 3 is up on www.ronpaulforpresident2008.com 2nd on the right hand side video links.
I think it is relevant.
Great Movie, but not for this forum...
I find this film to be great,it's not so much a "film" as it is just a bunch of assembled works of various people like Jordan Maxwell, etc. However I don't think the Ron Payl forum is the right venue to talk about this movie. I'm not censoring it and and by all means everyone has a right to talk about it, I could go on and on about it but I just don't think this is the time or place to do it.
Regards,
David F
www.myspace.com/asymptote
Regards,
David F
www.myspace.com/asymptote
I find it entirely
I find it entirely hypocritical and weak-minded that a person is willing to entertain the idea that 9/11 was an inside job, or that the FED is an insidious plot, without also taking a long hard look at religion -- the greatest conspiracy of them all.
Then again, if you're willing to entertain the preposterous fables in the Bible, I suppose you're capable of believing almost anything.
I'm not arguing the existence of a creative force. I'm talking about organized religions, all of which were created by human beings, oftentimes with ill intent. Those that were based on good intentions (I'm not convinced there are any, but I'm willing to entertain the thought) have been manipulated to serve for ill anyway. Religion is a means of controlling large populations. It is a political tool. If you believe in a creative force and wish to worship it, you need not recite passages from fairy tales or kneel before idols or compulsively rub strings of beads or give money to snake oil salesmen. All you should need is a dark starry night and a lawn chair.
If Zeitgeist offended you, I dare you to watch The God Who Wasn't There. (The full movie was on YouTube, but sadly was flagged for removal, probably by Christians. I guess not much has changed since the church used to execute people for translating the Bible into languages that the general populace could read. Can't have the people thinking, now can we?)
Jesus of Nazareth is a fable; an amalgam of previous myths. He is the perfected incarnation of those that came before him. When the creators of religion hit upon the idea to turn the god figure from supernatural to historical, they hit upon the formula for making a religion stick.
As for the rest of the Bible, it is simply laughable. Genesis, for example, is an almost charmingly fumbling attempt to explain the origins of the universe by an ignorant bronze age society. That a disproportionate percentage of Americans, relative to the rest of Western society, believe it as literal truth should be a source of embarrassment rather than pride. We've managed to shine much light into the intellectual darkness that had us cowering in fear for millenia, but we will never fully illuminate the darkest corners until we shed our ridiculous belief in mythologies that read like comedies.
I bet this comment gets flagged by those still shivering in the dark, chanting Hail Marys.
----------
Liberty for Dummies