This is great review, very well written. I can personally attest that there are many parallels between Dionysus/Bacchus and the Jesus of the Constantinian Bible, as the film alleges.

Why is this article not Featured? It’s at the bottom…

Lame.

Anthony is going to fix this and republish it as a Feature soon. Something about the “publication date” threw it to the bottom. Stay tuned…

Sounds like a cute movie – can’t wait to watch it. I love grandiose conspiracy theories. Not that I’ve found one I believe yet.

So this movie actually proposes that Rome “invented” Christianity? Does it discuss The Didache? The Saint Thomas Christians of India? Rome invented Catholicism, not Christianity. If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em! Syncretism exists as a natural process, without the need for masterminds to guide it.

“ If you can©t beat ©em, join ©em!”

Exactly.

tell the truth

falls on deaf ears…

Speaking of Illusions….

I’m just going to throw this out there… take of it what you will…

———

Is renunciation a part of the truly spiritual life?

Yes, because ultimately all Spirit renounces what is not real, and nothing in the life you lead is real, save your relationships to Me. Yet renunciation in the classic sense of self-denial is not required.

A true Master does not “give up” something. A true Master simply sets it aside, as he would do with anything for which he no longer has any use.

There are those who say you must overcome your desires. I say you must simply change them. The first practice feels like a rigorous discipline, the second, a joyful exercise.

There are those who say that to know God you must overcome all earthly passions. Yet to understand and accept them is enough. What you resist persists. What you look at disappears.

Those who seek so earnestly to overcome all earthly passions often work at it so hard that it might be said, this has become your passion. They have a “passion for God”; a passion to know Him. But passion is passion, and to trade one for the other does not eliminate it.

Therefore, judge not that about which you feel passionate. Simply notice it, then see if it serves you, given who and what you wish to be.

Remember, you are constantly in the act of creating yourself. You are in every moment deciding who and what you are. You decide this largely through the choices you make regarding who and what you feel passionate about.

Often a person on what you call a spiritual path looks like he has renounced all earthy passion, all human desire. What he has done is understand it, see the illlusion, and step aside from the passions that do not serve him – all the while loving the illusion for what it has brought to him: the chance to be wholly free.

Passion is the love of turning being into action. It fuels the engine of creation. It changes concepts to experience.

Passion is the fire that drives us to express who we really are. Never deny passion, for that is to deny Who You Are and Who You Truly Want to Be.

The renunciate never denies passion – the renunciate simply denies attachment to results. Passion is a love of doing. Doing is being, experienced. Yet what is often created as part of doing? Expectation.

To live your life without expectation – without the need for specific results – that is freedom. That is Godliness. That is how I live.

You are not attached to results?

Absolutely not. My joy is in the creating, not in the aftermath. Renunciation is not a decision to deny action. Renunciation is a decision to deny a need for a particular result. There is a vast difference.

- Neal Donald Walsch

I just want to clarify that I am not denying the questions surrounding 9/11 in this piece. As I mention, “I am increasingly convinced of a sinister intent behind the Neoconservative agenda of the Bush Administration. While I can’t prove their complicity behind certain nefarious events, for all the abominations and scandals that have come to light, it’s not something I couldn’t imagine.”

I just don’t think Zeitgeist (in its overly-simplified, often erroneous, sweep through history) is doing any of these valid concerns any real favors. Winning converts by way of manipulation and slick edits is working at a cross-purpose from inspiring true revelation, IMO.

The recurring debate I seem to have over this film is from those that feel a little fact-fudging is permissible, to the greater good of “waking people up.” My argument in such a discussion is that, if you’re claiming that the powers that be are manipulating reality to serve an agenda, you would be wise not to employ the same tactics in making your case.

That said, I am curious if anyone has any comments regarding the latter half of this piece, regarding the mutability of “truth” and “reality” in this mercurial age?

-st

Rome invented Catholicism, not Christianity

... and then killed everyone who didn’t buy into Catholicism…

Almost every Christian church these days is an offshoot of Roman Christianity, most just don’t know their history well enough to be aware of it. All that was really questioned in the Protestant Revolution was the authority of the Pope.

The Romans killed Jesus twice.

I think what’s important is for people to realize that it’s not safe to trust any source without taking it with a grain of salt and doing your own research

Zeitgeist is now at 4,925,142 views, 16, 134 ratings with an average of 4.5/5 stars. User produced content is the new Zeitgeist. It looks very different from the old Zeitgeist.

Yet despite its many flaws, there is something deeply compelling about this movie. Were it presented as a thought experiment rather than undisputed fact, it could play a vital role in the emergence of a new cultural paradigm, loosening one’s mind to reevaluate the most basic assumptions about reality

Actually it is presented as “A Movie” and it includes Norman Beal pointing out that you are the reality and the ‘tube’/us is the illusion.

As a “new cultural paradigm”
(a) it is free; ergo not made for money,
(b) it is anonymous; ergo not made for fame.

Is it absolutely true? Wrong question~it’s truer than the official bilge that’s taught in school and church; that’s enough.

Will this ever be reposted to the front page, so it can get some of the exposure it has been denied?

My comment is that the mutability of “truth” and “reality” is in part illusion and part social evolution. There are a variety of realities. Mathematical relationships have a reality that is not dependent on the physical world. Mathematical truth has not mutated, but our understanding of it has varied and shaped our perceptions over time.

The reality that is described by the laws of physics has never mutated. I would even say that none of the mutations of organisms that have occurred on earth have ever mutated the reality or the relationship between the environment and life.

The reality of human experience, on the other hand, may be said to have mutated. Our identities are a different sort of reality and when they are divorced from immutable reality, a strange unnatural world arises. We have a need for truth that is as basic as our need for oxygen.

As John Lennon wrote:

Im sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocritics
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
Ive had enough of reading things
By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of hope
Money for dope
Money for rope

Im sick to death of seeing things
From tight-lipped, condescending, mamas little chauvinists
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth now

Ive had enough of watching scenes
Of schizophrenic, ego-centric, paranoiac, prima-donnas
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of soap
Its money for dope
Money for rope

Ah, Im sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocrites
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now

Ive had enough of reading things
By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now

All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth

I am glad that this is running on the front page…this movie is running around like a prophet of doom at my college, starting all kinds of reactions, counter-reactions and discussions…I have yet to see it but understand that a) it makes extensive use of the cause-effect paradigm (often a dangerous thing when implications are suggesetd as truth and b) that it proposes no solutions.
a ‘film’ like that can be dangerous…it can sap people of their energy, confuse and muddle those who would check all their facts, and generate more arguments about which parts were ‘true’ than actions to change what is true….

Congratulations on getting back to the front page.

I loved this movie, though I didn’t wholly agree with it.
It made me question my reality, just like any good work of art…
And it led me to the writings of two men who better explain Christianity without veiling their teachings in such heavy symbolism and allegory as the Bible: Edgar Cayce and Krishnamurti.

right on SCT, great writing.

guys… digg this asap

several convincing (or at least, better researched) rebuttals dismiss outright many of its tightly drawn parallels between Jesus and other deities.

You didn’t really link to a Christian Apologetics website for this link, did you?

Having asked that, I have some problems with the credibility of the movie Zeitgeist myself…

tingbudong wrote:
The reality that is described by the laws of physics has never mutated. I would even say that none of the mutations of organisms that have occurred on earth have ever mutated the reality or the relationship between the environment and life.

What has evolved/mutated is human knowledge of arcane secrets and hidden processes. Newtonian physics has given way over the past century to quantum discoveries that fly in the face of previous “hard” laws of nature. We can take a lesson from such historic shifts in understanding — there surely exist more things on earth not presently dreamt of in our philosophy.

This is, I think, where Zeitgeist succeeds — playing on our tentative awareness of the vast mystery behind the veil of official “truth.” Of course, Zeitgeist takes advantage of this yearning aspect of the psyche in spinning its own vision of mythology and conspiracy. Yet what I find most fascinating about this film is the way it informs a new paradigm of human consciousness in the 21st century. In an age of instant communication, digital proliferation, and eroding faith in institutions, it has become nearly impossible to discern facts from disinformation. We exist in a flux of conflicting possibilities and opinions, with nothing to cling to but our own perspective.

In the wave-particle observation experiments of quantum physicists, reality has proved to be directly influenced by the will of the observer. Objective consciousness (i.e., belief, or “truth”) could actually be the true source of reality.

I liked this article, as well as the movie.

In argument though, I would say that we can’t ever really know truth. I don’t really think that “truth” exists objectively. Every story, myth, fact, reality has multiple truths.

Zeitgiest does a great job of pointing out to people that what you think you know may not be your complete reality. There was a couple friends of mine that from when they were Children were taught about Jesus et al. They had never heard anything to say otherwise about him. Seeing Zietgiest didn’t change their belief in Jesus, but it made them think of their religion as a whole.

I think that’s a good thing.

tripe

J-Max is crashin the partay
Part1

“What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!”

Pope Leo X (Encyc. Brit., 14th Ed. xix, pg. 217)

I liked the review, and although I find the opening sequence of Zitgeist totally unnecessary and cheesy. Having said so, I find the following statement made by Corey disturbing:

“Zeitgeist’s treatment of Jesus as a messianic Frankenstein culled from preexisting pantheons hardly offends me, then, although I doubt its validity”

There is ample evidence of this being a fact. It is obvious Zitgeist itself is just a summary of many of sources and the evidence is quite compelling (I have to say that the explanation of the fish symbol was crappy since the movie never mentions the Greek acronym)

So, what Corey says about Judaism, can be said about Christianity: it is just a repackaging of good ideas to make a great product palatable to the general public. This, of course, doesn’t mean that the spiritual ideas and concepts Christianity is trying to teach are all wrong. So I don’t get it when he says he doubts its validity.

Some reading is required, I think. Joseph Campbell’s “The Hero with a Thousand Faces”, David Fideler “Jesus Christ, Sun of God”, and David Ulansey “The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries”, to name a few (do I like comparative religion? you bet!). I wouldn’t recommend titles Acharya S “The Christ Conspiracy” because of its aggressive approach to such a delicate topic (it contains good info, though). Also I recommend watching the video “The Hero’s Journey”, now sadly lost from YouTube for copyright infringement.

Now, tingbudong writes:

“Mathematical relationships have a reality that is not dependent on the physical world.”

I guess here’s a logical trap similar to the one created by that famous statement someone made that goes like: “mathematics is the language of the universe”. This is totally wrong. Math is a human made language to express what we perceive in the universe and abstract realities. It is exceptional because it constantly proves its importance and usefulness and its ability to evolve. There are no words to describe such an achievement but, but, but, buuuuuuut: it still is a MODEL of reality, not reality itself. And if anyone here has read “Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid” by Douglas R. Hofstadter, even math can have flaws as Gödel demonstrated. So, mathematical relationships do not have a reality, they are models of reality and as every model made by mankind, its perfectible and not free from flaws.

I constantly ask myself how much of what we know is just repetition of what we learned from family, society, religion, culture and everything else, and if there is even a possibility to have such a state of mind that can detach us from preconceptions so we can perceived the universe as it is…I, personally, do not think its possible…

In the end, the movie is clearly oriented to a specific audience and I do not think it will make an impact since everybody seems to have their minds made up about what’s true and what is not. So, in the end the title of this article pretty much summarizes the spirit of the times: choose you own reality… and deny any others.

mathematical relationships do not have a reality, they are models of reality

Is that right? True enough that decimal fingers&toes numbers don’t exist outside of a mental observer, however nature is full of binary processes e.g. cell division or reproduction that follow mathematical models regardless of a human observing.
Perhaps it is a paradox, even though the map is not the territory.

Yes, and the first part of Zeitgeist doesn’t really come to grips with the deeper aspects of the mystery cults.

The explanation of why December 25th is the birthday instead of the dark of the year winter solstice three days earlier may be deduced from what we now know about psychedelic mind expansion and the three-day death-like coma of paralytic tetradotoxin available to the ancients from the liver of puffer fish, the great fish of the Piscean aeon.

The star maps of Mithras’ underground initiation chambers are useful in mind expansion as any ‘mutated’ acidhead well knows. Also the old statue of Mithras emerging from the “egg-shaped rock” with a snake entwined about it. This is where they say Holy Fuck having retraced their life history back to their moment of conception, ye olde sperm and egg game.

Sharing such an initiatory bond with one’s fellow cultists created a ‘bonding’ as in the word religion meaning ‘what binds together’, hence quite appropriate to Rome’s soldiers.

Sol Invictas is another similar rebirth-of-the-sun cult but I don’t know if the drug experience was part of their initiation.

In any case, in our modern zeitgeist we can choose widely indeed.

Reading this thread, it would seem that most of the posters here are nominalists as opposed to realists. I used to be strongly opposed to Platonic realism, but these days I’m not so sure one way or the other.

But I think it is a mistake to deny the existence of truth. Even if Every story, myth, fact, reality has multiple truths , that’s still not an argument against its existence, IMO. We may need better definitions of truth, but without it, life is pretty much meaningless.

Hey mr. president man, is it really true that the united states doesn’t torture?
Well absolutely, considering that there’s no such thing as truth.

I think I read in one of Will Durant’s histories that Napoleon was keenly interested in whether Jesus was a historical figure. Is the question now invalid because “Objective consciousness is the true source of reality.”? Or is the question simply dangerous and seditious? In some circumstances, there is nothing as destructive and offensive as truth. Maybe we need to find new ‘truths’ before we can let go of old ones.

While I enjoyed Zeitgeist thoroughly, I’m always put off by the reductionism of NWO theories. I mean: it’s clear that the Church was more about power than about religion; I feel it’s obvious the state is lying to us about 9/11; and to claim that bankers, the upper-echelon of the bourgeoisie, have never conspired is simply naïve. But the cries of upcoming totalitarianism and neo-fascism, accumulated in NWO/OWG theories, are simply idealistic. History has proven that contemporary pseudo-democracy is the most conducive model for the perpetuation of the rule of the bourgeoisie. They cannot justify their exploitation except through their regurgitated propaganda of liberty, democracy, and freedom. Once a state becomes totalitarian, its moral authority and monopoly on coercion becomes blatant – thus the bourgeoisie have only resorted to this in times of massive crisis. Assuming the ruling class always favors fascism is idealistic, and thus the NWOers are an excellent example of how conspiratorial-reductionism is dangerous.

So, basically, I really dug Zeitgeist until the last few minutes. Oh, and RFID chips are nuts.

It makes no difference – tomorrow will come the same as it did yesterday and play out the same as it did today! And that is a factual TRUTH you can take to the bank of human existence.

Ting – Reading this thread, it would seem that most of the posters here are nominalists as opposed to realists.

Not me. The truth exists.

It makes no difference – tomorrow will come the same as it did yesterday and play out the same as it did today! And that is a factual TRUTH you can take to the bank of human existence.

Passing thought, just before the flash.

Sometimes no Peace

This thread is excellent… glad to find an audience interested in going deeper with this film than the surface details.

Regarding the discussion on Truth as an absolute… I think we are indeed grappling with something paradoxical here. On one hand, I can argue that quantum reality shows objective consciousness to shape the very substance of real experience, from interpreting events through the filter of perception, to perhaps “thinking the world into being” as recognized in observer effect experimentation.

On the other hand, I would also insist upon an unmediated, universal truth as exists in the golden ratio (a mathematics that informs the beauty of physical reality) and in the perfection of harmonics. Reality Sandwich contributor Richard Merrick recently explored a rising theory of high-energy physics called Lattice Quantum Chronodynamics (Lattice QCD) that proposes “an invisible, all-pervasive structure exists beneath atomic structure.” The mathematics within Lattice QCD shares astounding correlations with the tonal intervals of harmonics, revealing “nature as a kind of crystallized music.” It seems that the chaotic evolutionary path of the universe is somehow also part of an intelligent design that resonates throughout all existence as divine Truth.

ooh, now you’ve gone and pushed the “intelligent design” button. That should get you some negative reaction around here. Do we really need the ‘mind of god’ concept to explain truth?

Incidentally, a lot of western philosophy is traced back to pythagorean mathematics and his harmony of the spheres, but I’ve read that even that’s a myth

Do we really need the ‘mind of god’ concept to explain truth?

When you replace ‘god’ with Nature (or I, You, Us, Every Living Thing) yes…we do.

Breathe deep the gathering gloom
Watch lights fade from every room
Bedsitter people look back and lament
Another day’s useless energy spent.

Impassioned lovers wrestle as one,
Lonely man cries for love and has none.
New mother picks up and suckles her son,
Senior citizens wish they were young.

Cold hearted orb that rules the night,
Removes the colors from our sight.
Red is grey and yellow white,
But we decide which is right.
And which is an illusion?

:) I used the “intelligent design” phrase to make a point. We sometimes need to divest certain ideas from their radical fundamentalist connotations in order to get to the heart of our mysterious existence on earth. Re-read my last post — my point is that there are cohesive organizing principles and constants binding together all the chaos in the universe. Call it what you will — it is not worthy of brush-off just to spite creationists and evangelicals.

There is a paradox to all of this, but I think perhaps what seems contradictory to us is another example of our all-too limited perspective, catching glimpses of an infinitely big picture. Our search for truth must take into account our intellectual obstacles to grapple with it completely. Such things are doubtless better understood intuitively than expressed logically…

Jesus Doesn’t Want Me for a Sunbeam.

The truth exists.

Don’t get me wrong, TCS, you’ve always been my favorite internet person; but sometimes you’re so fucking narcissistic.

Jesus wants me for a sunbeam,
To shine for Him each day;
In every way try to please Him,
At home, at school, at play.

Refrain

A sunbeam, a sunbeam,
Jesus wants me for a sunbeam;
A sunbeam, a sunbeam,
I’ll be a sunbeam for Him.

Jesus wants me to be loving,
And kind to all I see;
Showing how pleasant and happy
His little one can be.

Refrain

I will ask Jesus to help me
To keep my heart from sin,
Ever reflecting His goodness,
And always shine for Him.

Refrain

I’ll be a sunbeam for Jesus;
I can if I but try;
Serving Him moment by moment,
Then live with Him on high.

Refrain

TCS – The truth exists.

EMS – but sometimes you’re so fucking narcissistic.

Go to the Mirror, Boy!

I often wonder what it is he’s feeling.
Has he ever heard a word I’ve said?
Look at him, now in the mirror dreaming.
What is happening in his head?
Oooooh, I wish I knew, I wish I knew.

- The drummer for The Who was Keith Moon.

Its okay to eat fish
Cause they don’t have any feelings

Something in the Way, mmm
Something in the Way, yeah, mmm…

I wish I knew who this Sarcasm cat is you keep talking about. He seems cute.

Moody Blues after Nights of White Satin, final cut.

lol

Funny how the word Sarcasm doesn’t appear in this thread until you posted it. ;)

Love myself, better than you.
I knwo its wrong...
So what should I do?...

I’m on a Plain...

If we recognize it as a paradox, that is a happy outcome. This is a fourth category that Rumsfeld missed with his famous:
known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns. Recognizing an unknowable is something Chuang Tzu emphasized:
Neither you nor I nor anyone else can know the answer
or
To let understanding stop at what cannot be understood is a high attainment. Those who cannot do it will be destroyed on the lathe of heaven

This is certainly a factor in that linked modern academic reappraisal of Pythagoras. Professors comment on commentary on commentary on rumours and gossip and stories.
Pythagoreans themselves did not talk about Pythagoreanism; they practiced echemythia which is Greek for STFU.

a story from wiki:
During a visit to the temple of Hera in Argos where, ages before, the Greeks had dedicated the booty they brought home from their victory over Troy, Pythagoras recognised among the exhibits the shield he had carried when, in a previous incarnation as the warrior Euphorbus, he was killed by Menelaus

The story may be accurate. That doesn’t tell us whether Pythagoras was correct. Perhaps later he reincarnated as Shao Yung, Paracelsus and Carl Jung. There would be a philosophic continuity at least.

Because of echemythia we don’t know, but look how suspicious Aristotle looks in
“On the Beliefs of the Pythagoreans”:

Marriage, they said, is five, because it is the union of male and female, and according to them the odd is male and the even female, and five is the first number to be generated from the union of the first even number, two, and the first odd number, three

Professor Burnyeat (in Ting’s link) considers this to be “fanciful numerology”
but does not recognize it as ordinary Taoist cosmogony reflected throughout the I Ching. The whole subdivides into two complements: yang and yin. Yang is the active creative half while yin is the passive receptive half. In that sense the odd numbers are yang and the even yin. But male and female is a mangled explication as one might expect since Aristotle’s source, if they actually were a Pythagorean, were violating their oath of echemythia.

Anyway both Burnyeat and Ulansey (Mithraism) are tainted by an annoying academic Eurocentrism.

Prof B:
the Pythagoreans were the first to make mathematics bear witness in the metaphysical debate, or the first to adduce the principles of mathematics as the principles of all things

He means the first in Europe. Not only China, but Egypt too is beyond his horizon.
Likewise:

Prof U:
the fact that the phenomenon of the precession of the equinoxes was unknown throughout most of antiquity: it was discovered for the first time around 128 B.C. by the great Greek astronomer Hipparchus

Roses, rabbits and robots, they all love lattice theory!
:: As a long overdue replacement for the vacuous space-time continuum, we are now poised for a return to the ancient worldview of a musical universe described by Pythagorean harmonic science

As I recall the exercise,
imagine your point of view is in the centre of a three-dimensional cube.
You’re perceiving six directions
labeled north south east west up down.
The six walls are either on or off
making 64 possible combinations.
Inside out it could be a sugar cube.
Label the corners where three walls meet
using 8 binary triplets.
These labels are the 8 ‘forms’ of the school of numbers and symbols.
The Chinese word is kua or gua .
These are the ‘forms’
and they are not fuzzy, abstract concepts but observed mathematical categories.
This lattice is the ‘language’ of I Ching.

Interesting thread yes. And reality sandwich leftovers! We are rich.

Who are the creators of this film? Have they remained anonymous?

There are no credits on the copy I saw but I think at least someone has claimed it
which might also be a “No, I am Spartacus” variation.

Does this quote sound like a fundamentalist hiding behind ‘intelligent design’?

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force… We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter

Actually it is uber physicist Max Planck quoted in the reality sandwich.
Wonders never cease.

The filmmaker (not sure if there are others) goes by the name “Peter J.” You can find a couple of radio interviews with him floating about the internets…

Heh, why not…

My favorite song about the Sun…

Overhead the albatross
Hangs motionless upon the air
And deep beneath the rolling waves
In labyrinths of coral caves
An echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand
And everything is green and submarine.

And no one called us to the land
And no one knows the where’s or why’s.
Something stirs and something tries
Starts to climb toward the light.

Strangers passing in the street
By chance two separate glances meet
And I am you and what I see is me.
And do I take you by the hand
And lead you through the land
And help me understand
The best I can.

And no one called us to the land
And no one crosses there alive.
No one speaks and no one tries
No one flies around the sun….

Almost everyday you fall
Upon my waking eyes,
Inviting and inciting me
To rise.
And through the window in the wall
Come streaming in on sunlight wings
A million bright ambassadors of morning.

And no one sings me lullabies
And no one makes me close my eyes
So I throw the windows wide
And call to you across the sky….

This film is all in all a theory ,in which like so many others depends on who believes it.. and who doesn’t
it will be interesting to see how this plays out around the threads