! Updated at End!
The new film "Zeitgeist Addendum" gives an excellent explanation of how the fiat money system and our currency (Federal Reserve Notes) are by their very nature the heart of the economic problems we are facing. I certainly do not agree with all that the Zeitgeist film puts forward, I particularly disagree with their solution (a techno-Marxist Utopia) and their view of Christianity, however, the film is spot on with it's information on the monetary system/banker scam. It is simply brilliant in it's information:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Part 4:
Part 5:
Part 6:
There is more to the film, I have posted what I thought to contain the best information.
Update:
To be more clear with what it is and why I disagree with some of the film I will briefly write. I strongly disagree with the solution (hence I did not post it) that the film maker offers. I disagree with this politically as it is a form of what I would call a techno-Marxism, which of course on the surface seems appealing yet in it's naivete overlooks the sinfulness of man and the opportunity for corruption.
Also, as a Christian I reject the solution as only Christ is the solution to the fallen condition we are in, not some Utopian ideal. We need to be changed from the inside out and made into new creatures not from the outside in with a slick lazy society of comfort. Christ and His regenerating work and ultimate glorification of His own is our hope, not a system of government.
We should however not expect anything other than this from the world, as they without God are cursed to be worldly minded and seek solutions in that same fashion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Bobby
I went ahead and watch the whole two hour and three minute movie.
That is about as "pure" demonic doctrine as it gets.
I do not recommend anyone who is weak in the Faith and not well grounded to watch that movie.
The only thing missing from the video is "God", the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and Their Promises by way of the Gospel of the Kingdom.
I agree Michael, I do think it has some really good stuff in it though...it's like the old rat poison analogy, it's 95% good food so the rat takes the bait, but it's the 5% that kills. In the case of this movie it's more like 40% good...60% bad.
I do however think the information on the financial scam going on is excellent. As I said in the preface to the links I don't agree with their views of Christianity (obviously) or their solution to the problem, I do agree with their description. Their solution is completely God-less and ignores original sin and thus is yet another empty Utopian pipe dream.
Only our Lord can maked the crooked paths strait.
Hey Bob,
I just finished watching the first Zeitgeist film. Assuming that the content in the first was at least somewhat represented in the second, I was curious what you made of their statements regarding the at least 20 or so other tales of messianic figures predating Christianity that contained an overwhelming number of the same details as that of Jesus. You mentioned that you disagree with that part (naturally), and I was curious on what grounds you feel this way.
Hey Uber good to hear from you.
Well my shorthand reply to the challenges that the Zeitgeist maker raises is two fold:
Firstly, the hallmark difference from the myths and stories of the pagan gods in their recording are a-historical, whereas the Bible is historical. The myths don't include real time and space individuals but are stories explaining anomalies. Scripture on the other hand is historical in that it names figures like the Caesers, the tetrarchs, and the currencies in use at different points in history. The Bible stresses the historicity, real time and space aspect of the events it records whereas the pagan myths could really care less about historicity.
Secondly, just because there are similarities in the stories doesn't necessitate fraud, perhaps the same author. CS Lewis in writing about the pagan myths had some interesting takes on them and I think he is helpful. Supposing that man was once in tune with God, and fell away from that relationship would there not be echoes of that down through the ages? Some stories of God being darkened yet containing some of the original truth? Yet God reveals himself finally in Christ, thus repairing the rift.
Lewis argues that much of the pagan writing is actually prophetic forshadows of Christ.
I don't know how much one wants to lean on this sort of thinking but I find it interesting.
Lastly, I could give a blow by blow analysis of all the myths brought up and some of the misrepresentation of Christianity made in the film, others have done this already. Honestly, I find my first line of reasoning sufficient and don't feel it necessary to get bogged down into defending Christian doctrine from ancient pagan myths.
I agree with most of what the Zeitgeist maker puts forward though, I think he has his worldview and delivers his polemic against Christianity as if it is up there with the banking elite controlling humanity. It seems rather silly to me, those evil Christians building hospitals, spreading literacy, giving rise to representative limited government have been the scourge of humanity all along.
Firstly, the hallmark difference from the myths and stories of the pagan gods in their recording are a-historical, whereas the Bible is historical.
Let me first stress that I'm not in any way trying to say that the construct of the ancient myths is necessarily equivalent in quality to that of ancient or modern-day Christianity. Clearly, true or not, Christianity has a much slicker package which is part of what has allowed it to stay around for as long as it has. I'm simply not sure the fact that the Christian bible puts forth a more specific timetable for its events than myths of the past necessarily makes it a more true document. Doesn't the fact that specific figures and events that occurred in and around the events it is attempting to describe are mentioned merely mean that those who wrote the bible were aware of those historical events? References to the people and events you mentioned mean that the Christian bible is indisputably an old document, in terms of its origins, but I can't see how that shows anything else.
Lewis argues that much of the pagan writing is actually prophetic forshadows of Christ.
But since these allegedly 'prophetic' writings occurred thousands of years prior to the Christian version, Lewis has only really concocted a circular argument: We know the bible is authentic because god prophesized it beforehand in other writings, and we know the other writings are ultimately false, however, because the bible is the only authentic document, which we know because god prophesized it beforehand, etc, etc.
So the hesitance you mentioned for leaning on this sort of thinking is very well justified.
But really, whatever quality and peripheral historicity is lacking in the ancient myths, I still think that the overwhelming similarity of details between all of these beliefs is problematic for Christians and, in particular, Biblical Literalists.
Uber, you stated:
"I'm simply not sure the fact that the Christian bible puts forth a more specific timetable for its events than myths of the past necessarily makes it a more true document."
I suppose that's fair, however my main thrust remains and that was creating a demarcation line between the myths and Biblical accounts. I am merely saying the Bible is unlike the pagan myths, that's all. For the sake of argument it could be unlike the pagan myth's yet still false. Veracity wasn't the main goal, just a demarcation line.
you further say:
"Doesn't the fact that specific figures and events that occurred in and around the events it is attempting to describe are mentioned merely mean that those who wrote the bible were aware of those historical events? References to the people and events you mentioned mean that the Christian bible is indisputably an old document, in terms of its origins, but I can't see how that shows anything else."
Again I agree, one could cobble together a document that is false yet includes real time and space figures and places. However, if a document that claims to be a historical record of God's work IT WILL contain the aforementioned elements. As for this element being part of the Bible what it DOES show is that either it's authors fully believed these events had occured in time and space and they are recording the events as such, or, it is a clever hoax put together by numerous men over a thousand years (1500bc-90ad) who wanted people to think these events occured.
Like Christ rising from the dead, His interactions with men and women after rising are recorded both time and place. Eventually most of these individuals went out and were killed for proclaiming Christ to have risen and the good news of salvation in Him. Their martyrdom tends to dispell the notion that they were charlatans, charlatans don't offer up their lives to torture for something they know to be a lie.
But for the sake of debate I will watch the first Zeitgeist on Christianity again and post a reply in the future. They had to revise it from the original because there was a lot of miquotes and unchecked references that came back to emberass the maker.
I suppose that's fair, however my main thrust remains and that was creating a demarcation line between the myths and Biblical accounts. I am merely saying the Bible is unlike the pagan myths, that's all. For the sake of argument it could be unlike the pagan myth's yet still false. Veracity wasn't the main goal, just a demarcation line.
I see what you're getting at, and I would agree that the demarcation lines are significant and interesting, regardless of whether or the bible is true. I frankly don't know enough about the other myths, however, to know whether or not they all possess less in the way of historical reference.
They had to revise it from the original because there was a lot of miquotes and unchecked references that came back to emberass the maker.
These amateur agenda-based documentaries are tricky that way. I've seen a few now, and I always get the feeling that a lot of things are being overlooked or taken at face value for the sake of supporting an intriguing argument. I tend to like them more for the questions they ask than for a lot of the evidence they ultimately produce.
Post a Comment