|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jun 15, 2007 21:01:18 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 30, 2007 0:29:11 GMT -4
After watching Part I, I must say that it is entertaining.
Some comments about it:
-George Carlin made some very good points about religion. And he was right on.
-The 'disk' or sun, against the crucifix is the Celtic Cross. It was harder for the Celts to shake off their previous pagan beliefs. By keeping the disk, it was easier for Christianity to gain and keep converts in the British Isles. There was always friction between the Celtic Christians and Roman Christianity. Eventually, Celtic Christianity caved in and reformed. Luckily, during the so called 'Dark Ages', Irish monasteries became the centers of learning and a source of enlightenment. People came from all over Europe to educate themselves not only in Church texts, but non-theological works as well - which was not the case in mainland Europe.
-In the book, 'The Pagan Christ' , Tom Harpur connected the dots between the Jesus of 'historical' record and the myths of Egypt etc.
-I think many of the word similarities are because most of the languages in Europe are children of the ancient Indo-European language. For instance, the Indo-European word 'matar' becomes mater in Greek and Latin, mother in English, mayr in Armenian etc. This suggests that the original myth may be even older than the movie presupposes. I'm thinking as far back as four thousand B.C.E. This would make it older than recorded Egyptian civilization.
-Christian apologists in the early centuries wanted the pagans to become Christian. They tried to make it easier by adopting pagan symbols and dates to appease them - December 25, the Sun and so on....
-The Council of Nicea was in 325 A.D. Much of Christianity's doctrine had been loosely in place by then. Basically the council tied up loose ends and formalized the Creed based on already existing beliefs. In Part I, it seemed to suggest that the council was inventing everything . Their had of course been many, many references to Jesus Christ in the past 250 years at least, if you include St. Paul. Though besides the New Testament, references in the historical record start, I believe around 120 A.D. I know this is still 90 years after he died. Tacitus writing in the Annals (109 A.D.) referred to Nero's persecution of the Christians in 64 A.D.
-I wonder if Joseph Campbell ever tied these myths together?
-I think that although the similarities exist in myths it does not mean that Jesus did not exist. I know that Josephus' reference to Jesus (or 'Chrestus') was not originally in his writings - at least no modern scholar believes this. It was probably added around the tenth century.
Part two seems to be heading into 911 conspiracy territory. I'll comment after I've watched them.
I probably agree with a lot of the information presented regarding myths. To double check out all of the narrators connections between them would take too much research, but in general they seem sound. Some are tenuous, especially when he goes into the constellations.
A little bit of the Erich von Däniken style perhaps, though better put and not filled with the 'what ifs' , 'maybe'. and 'imagine' that old Erich liked to use.
|
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jun 30, 2007 4:39:42 GMT -4
Interesting comments, I think it's one of the most brilliant documentaries I've ever seen. There is a new release up now with more of a preamble which makes the first segment fit better. zeitgeistmovie.com/Comments from the creator. |
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jun 30, 2007 6:37:07 GMT -4
Comments from the creator. The trouble with a lot of conspiracy theories is that they extend this to the point where they have to claim that the Russian or Chinese media are also branches of the US government. |
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jun 30, 2007 9:30:33 GMT -4
I think the movie maker is talking directly to an American audience firstly and therefore only touches on the US media. I personally would disagree wholeheartedly if you thought that other national governments haven't latched onto the idea of press restrictions due to Al Ciada being behind every bush. Especially Russia and China, Russia with it's own little war in Chechnya being given a free hand. The Chinese restricted anti American reporting in it's media for fear of being put in the axis of evil sack and bashed by Uncle Sam with a big stick. Who knows what other restrictions or media bias came into force after the 911 rhetoric. Remember, you're either with us or you're against us as stated by Jr Shrub.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jun 30, 2007 10:31:47 GMT -4
If you think that the mass media in other countries don't criticise the US government, you need to read a few. The UK government may be with the US on Iraq, but the UK media have mostly been opposed, and as for the French...
|
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 30, 2007 21:49:30 GMT -4
After watching the whole movie, here are my comments:
Imaginative.
Speculative.
Subjective.
Kind of scary. If this stuff was the truth, the world would be in a lot of trouble. (Maybe it already is?),
I don't particularly like the editing - did Michael Moore edit this movie?
I can't trust everything the narrator is saying.
e.g. he infers that in WWI the Germans warned the American Public about boarding the Luisitania. In fact, the ad in the newspaper that the Germans place was about passenger ships in general, not specifically the Luisitania. And it is reasonable too assume that if you're on a ship traveling in waters where combat or hostile actions are taking place then you risk your safety. Plus the sinking took place in 1915 - it took Woodrow Wilson another two years to convince the American Public to enter the war.
All in all, I don't buy most of it. So many of the threads binding the theory together are too fragile.
Other opinions?
|
|
