blaming religion for atrocities committed is the same as blaming the Y chromosome for it. Stalin committed atrocities...what was his excuse?

old news



References to "Zeitgeist: The Movie" in the mainstream media are relatively few and mostly negative. "Zeitgeist Addendum" has mostly been ignored. As far as "the Movie", commonly the film’s factual accuracy has been challenged. A review in the Irish Times entitled “Zeitgeist: the Nonsense” wrote that “these are surreal perversions of genuine issues and debates, and they tarnish all criticism of faith, the Bush administration and globalization—there are more than enough factual injustices in this world to be going around without having to invent fictional ones."[22] Skeptic magazine's Tim Callahan criticizes the first part of the film on the origins of Christianity:

Some of what it asserts is true. Unfortunately, this material is liberally—and sloppily—mixed with material that is only partially true and much that is plainly and simply bogus. […] Zeitgeist is The Da Vinci Code on steroids.[23]

Other reviews assert that it is "conspiracy crap",[24] “based solely on anecdotal evidence” and “fiction couched in a few facts”,[25] or disparaging reference is made to its part in "the 9/11 truth movement.[14]

Academic coverage of Zeitgeist has also been sparse, mainly lumping the movie in with other conspiracy movies, although at least one academic has made a more detailed (and highly critical) analysis of the scholarship (see below). Again, the coverage has been largely negative, and typically treated as part of a contemporary phenomenon of “truth” movies. According to Scientific American

“The postmodernist belief in the relativism of truth, coupled to the clicker culture of mass media where attention spans are measured in New York minutes, leaves us with a bewildering array of truth claims packaged in infotainment units. It must be true—I saw it on television, at the movies, on the Internet, The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, That's Incredible, The Sixth Sense, Poltergeist, Loose Change, Zeitgeist the Movie.”[26]

A more severe overall treatment is given by Jane Chapman, a film producer and reader in media studies at the University of Lincoln, who analyzes Zeitgeist (“A fast-paced assemblage of agitprop”) as an example of unethical film-making.[27] She accuses Joseph of deceit through the use of unsourced and unreferenced assertions, and standard film-making propaganda techniques. While parts of the film are, she says, “comically” self-defeating, the nature of “twisted evidence” and the false attribution of Madrid bomb footage as being in London (which she calls a “lie”) amount to ethical abuse in sourcing (in later versions of the movie, a subtitle is added to this footage identifying it as from the Madrid bombings). She finishes her analysis with the comment:

Thus legitimate questions about what happened on 9/11, and about corruption in religious and financial organizations, are all undermined by the film’s determined effort to maximize an emotional response at the expense of reasoned argument.

Dr Chris Forbes, Senior lecturer in Ancient History of Macquarie University and member of the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney, has severely criticized Part I of the movie as having no basis in serious scholarship or ancient sources, relying on amateur sources that "borrow ideas from each other, and who recycle the same silly stuff" and "not a single serious source" can be found in official reference lists attached to the movie.[28] Of the film he says "It is extraordinary how many claims it makes which are simply not true."[28]

Forbes claims there is no evidence in Egyptian sources saying that Horus' mother Isis was a virgin. Similarly, neither Krishna (the eighth son), Dionysus (whose mother had slept with Zeus) nor Attis were ever supposed born of virgins. He points out that "son" and "sun" are not homophonic words in either Latin, Ancient Egyptian, or Greek, and therefore no such misunderstanding would occur; that the December 25 birth is not part of any of the myths—including that of Jesus, for whom Christmas Day was appointed as a festival day in open knowledge that the real date was not known.

Dr. Forbes also criticizes the movie's use of Roman sources to suggest that Jesus didn't exist, noting that a long list flashed across the screen of supposed contemporary historians that did not mention Jesus is actually comprised of geographers, gardening writers, poets and philosophers, who should not be expected to mention him. The allegation that Josephus' mention of Jesus was added later is criticized as misleading. Josephus actually mentions Jesus twice, with only one reference believed by scholars to have been doctored in the Middle Ages but to change an already existing mention of him. He also argues that the film misrepresents Constantine when it presents him as making Christianity compulsory (when he only legalized it) and inventing the historical Jesus (when early church records show that the historicity of Jesus had been a key element of faith from early on).

-wiki

I'm responding to your words as written - perhaps you are referring to a comment which I would find belittling if I saw it in context.

Taking your words without context, though, as written....the idea that that is 'belittling' is your perception. To me, that person might simply be being straightforward in their opinion - and while I disagree with the phrase "must also", the basic idea that these beliefs might be comparable seems reasonable to me.

Should we be discouraged from expressing such comparisons because someone else might be offended, in their own sensitivity?

Dear Eljay, if you sincerely suggest that your comment above is 'FACT', I rest my case in the matter of confusing fact and faith. And you win the title of Master Prestigitator!!!

The only facts about your comment above, is that there is this 'book', which some people a while back called the 'bible', which contains a bunch of words, over which words people have a lot of heated and diverging opinions. That's about it on the fact front.

YES! Right. Exactly. Bingo. On the nose. That IS the point I was making. I wasn't "suggesting" anything, just saying exactly what you just wrote.

These are some of the most refreshing and hopeful words I have read in these religious forums in the couple of years I've been around.

The luminous side of human nature seems to be fighting back the 'virus'!!!

Great finds 'middelearthing'.

Christianity is no more a virus than patriotism or any other allegiance, unless it affects or causes harm to others, in which case it is more a result of the individual mind than any collective belief

wouldn't any human experience be legitmate ...what would constitute a fake human experience

God did not write the bible - it is "inspired of god". Men wrote the bible as they were moved by the Holy spirit.

What is incorrect to assume from this - is that the bible is fallable, because men are fallable, for that contradicts the fact that the men who wrote the bible were inspired by God. So - therefore, the fallacy of men is trumped by the infallibility of God, because it defies logic to assume that an omnicient God would not know a mistake would be written by an author writing one of the books of scripture, and by his very nature - could not allow that to happen, so would inspire that author to only account that which He (God) wanted accounted.

God did not write the bible - it is "inspired of god". Men wrote the bible as they were moved by the Holy spirit. So - though a bit disingenuous - it is a fact that "Men wrote the bible."

You must realize - that Funches is a literalist, so in responding to him - you must say what you mean, and mean what you say.

God didn't write the bible

Okey, Voile - let's bring it down a notch, no need gettin' the blood pressure up. Let's get some clarity so we can discern where we agree, and where we don't.

First off - I grew up a Catholic - and never, in my entire 55 years have I met any professed Catholic who has read the bible - other than Miquel. (Lonely Walker) That is sort of irrelivant and off-point, but I will say this, I don't believe you'd find all of those Catholics you spoke of agreeing with the idea that Hitler was a Christian!

And we've looped around to this once again. We are in agreement about fanatical, legalistic Christian fundamentalists - who, by the way, I consider no more "Christian" than you actually do, because they twist and contort the philosophy so far beyond how it was intended - that it is no longer Christianity as far as most Christians are concerned.

Now - please - answer me this.

Where is the best place for one - ANYONE that is, to get their definition of a Christian. Let's start there, so you and I can at least agree on what the definition of one is. I will defer to you to get us started with a definition we can both agree on.

Hostility towards Muslims and Gays? Where do you get this idea? It's totally contradictory toward Christian belief.

I don't consider this "class" of people any more Christain, than an Atheist sees Stalin as representative to his belief, or a Muslim thinking Bin Ladin is a representative of what they believe.

In this way - one can consider Hitler as not representing Christainity in any way.

The "individual" definition of Christianity that I subscribe to, is the biblical one.

While your original post was about extreme religious extremism - your subsequent posts have only refered to Christianity - and not even on an extremist level. You speak of mere christianity as though it were a disease - yet you can't even define what a christian is. So - why did you bother to start this thread?