Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

GMC Forum _ CHILL OUT _ Everyone Should Watch This Movie...

Posted by: Legions Oct 23 2007, 04:07 PM

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

I hope that everyone sits back and thoroughly enjoys being informed.

Tell me what you think...

Posted by: mattacuk Oct 23 2007, 04:21 PM

Hi Legions,
This video already came up as a topic last month, if you do a search you can see what everyone thought of it !! smile.gif

Posted by: Spiderusalem Oct 23 2007, 04:35 PM

I thought it was perty mindblowing. A good one also along these lines is http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=America+Freedom+to+Fascism&total=985&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

It follows film maker Aaron Russo (who passed away a few months ago) as he makes his documentary about whether or not there was a law requiring americans to pay an income tax. What he stumbles onto is quite scary.

Enjoy.

Posted by: Wallimann Oct 23 2007, 09:51 PM

I can understand why the movie was made. I do think that there is a big missunderstanding in christianity though.
It's true that many churches seem to focus on money and salvation by works.
But I believe that Hell is not for those who dissobey the commandements. Because that would meen we would all go there.
That's why Christ came.. :-)

Posted by: Guitarman700 Oct 23 2007, 11:07 PM

Thank you david, someone finally set the record straight. smile.gif

Posted by: PolackHax0r Oct 23 2007, 11:28 PM

on a different note......

Guitarman, only 2 more weeks before COD4:MW comes out!!!!!!! biggrin.gif

I can't wait!!!!!! I played the beta on the 360. No Joke - BEST GAME EVER! (and it was only the beta laugh.gif )

-Justin

Posted by: Guitarman700 Oct 24 2007, 12:46 AM

yeah i know! ive been playing command and conquer 3 while i wait.

Posted by: Spiderusalem Oct 24 2007, 02:18 AM

I bought starcraft over again to train for Starcraft 2.

Starcraft is kinda like meeting your soulmate but you're denying that its her, so you get back together with her every few years and after a while you mess things up and she leaves again.

Posted by: MickeM Oct 24 2007, 02:25 AM

QUOTE (PolackHax0r @ Oct 24 2007, 12:28 AM) *
Guitarman, only 2 more weeks before COD4:MW comes out!!!!!!! biggrin.gif

What's COD4:MW ???

I just can't manage with all these short names. I play Halo 3 (HL03) now, it's a great game I think! Kids play it too, spite the guns... it's a no no but since we're shooting bad monsters here laugh.gif Wife is not too happy about it though. Anyway, them 4 and 6 years old (they play co-op) are ahead of me spite I've played longer and more often. They only get one or two days a week and not for too long at a time.
Damn kids! Geeks!

To my defence they play on difficulty lvl 1 or 2, I can't remember, I play on 3 (where 4 is the hardest) laugh.gif


EDIT: Legions, sorry for hijacking your thread. But as said, we covered that subject just rescently. Sorry again.

Posted by: PolackHax0r Oct 24 2007, 02:32 AM

COD4:MW is Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. A must have for 360 owners!!! It comes out in two weeks and is seriously the best game I've ever played. I'm not a huge fan of Halo 3. IMO it did not live up to the hype at all. I played it once thru to get the points and haven't touched it sense. I was thinking about buying the orange box, but I know in two weeks the only game I will be playing is cod4:mw.

It's all about COD4:MW................... and the guitar.... obviously!!! biggrin.gif

-Justin

Posted by: Unleash-The-Shred Oct 24 2007, 02:33 AM

This is crazy, i've never seen this, very interesting.

To me at leased. laugh.gif

Posted by: Ayen Oct 24 2007, 02:52 AM

QUOTE (PolackHax0r @ Oct 24 2007, 02:32 AM) *
COD4:MW is Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. A must have for 360 owners!!! It comes out in two weeks and is seriously the best game I've ever played. I'm not a huge fan of Halo 3. IMO it did not live up to the hype at all. I played it once thru to get the points and haven't touched it sense. I was thinking about buying the orange box, but I know in two weeks the only game I will be playing is cod4:mw.

It's all about COD4:MW................... and the guitar.... obviously!!! biggrin.gif

-Justin


Can't forget Assassin's Creed, releasing about a week later. 2007 is going to cause massive gamer heart attacks...

Posted by: tonymiro Oct 24 2007, 02:52 AM

I'm agnostic but I do believe that we should respect other people's right to believe or not and their way of doing so. As part of that respect if we attempt to claim that someone is untruthful then we should be truthful in making such a claim. I personally feel that the makers of the film rather lose their way by failing to follow this simple credo.

I studied apophantic theology as part of my PhD years ago. I have to say, whatever you think of the remainder of the film, that the first 30 or so minutes is what I would describe as being a very 'partial' view of the development of Western religion(s) and Christianity. There are a number of inaccuracies within. For instance:

There are any number of Lunar calender as Solar;

Much of what is presented as Egyptian mythos is Babylonian;

The adoption of some anthropomorphic symbols within the Western Horoscope didn't happen until about the 15th Century. Anthropmorphic btw means to make something human that is not - it does not mean to give something a symbol that a human understands/recognises as the film implies. (Aries, Leo etc are NOT anthropomorphic, Virgo is.)

The Horoscope discussed is Western and much of the constellations and their movements would surely be different in the Southern Hemisphere;

The start of the ancient Egyptian calender falls mid Summer not Dec 25 (the date moves around as the Egytpian Calender is not based on 365 days);

Julian of Caesarea in his writings and presentations was attempting to demonstrate Logos and how all other religions were/are at best a partial recount of the Word of God that is ultimately given in the teachings of Christ;

(Here it's worth keeping in mind that in his time there was both religious pantheism (including paganism) and Christianity itself was largely Paulian and/or had elements of gnosticism. Christianity itself was far from the dominant religion and Christians at that time were still persecuted and often crucified for their beliefs. His addresses were mostly to the Roman Senate at least as an attempt to stop the crucifictions. By demonstrating that God IS Logos he was bringing other religions within it and thus at the same time moving Christians within the full protection of secular law.)

There are quite a few other inaccuracies besides those.

I am agnostic - however even in my agnosticism I know that the Christian Church has faced claims similar to much of the film for centuries. It has in the past answered them and there isn't really ground for it to have to repeatedly respond. Indeed (and this is where I come in) in so doing one only needs to look towards the dialogue between Church and Thomas Ekhardt, St Teresa de Avila, St Augustine and many other apophantics.

So the film for me rather unravels because of its partiality at the start - whether or not there are any facts in the remaining 1 1/2 hours.

Cheers,
Tony

ps none of the above is meant as an attack on anyone here nor is it meant to offend. Just though it was worth pointing out a few things regarding the 'truth' claims in the film.

As an agnostic the question for me is ultimately Augustine's 'What do I love when I love my God' as yet I don't know. To the Christians and those of other Religions who have found their answer to that question you have my respect.

Posted by: The Uncreator Oct 24 2007, 03:10 AM

QUOTE (Wallimann @ Oct 23 2007, 12:51 PM) *
I can understand why the movie was made. I do think that there is a big missunderstanding in christianity though.
It's true that many churches seem to focus on money and salvation by works.
But I believe that Hell is not for those who dissobey the commandements. Because that would meen we would all go there.
That's why Christ came.. :-)


Bingo, +1

Posted by: Andrew Cockburn Oct 24 2007, 04:59 AM

QUOTE (tonymiro @ Oct 23 2007, 09:52 PM) *
ps none of the above is meant as an attack on anyone here nor is it meant to offend. Just though it was worth pointing out a few things regarding the 'truth' claims in the film.


Well religion and politics can always be sticky and emotive, but Tony, I applaud you for your erudite presentation, and the studied response you made here.

Posted by: tonymiro Oct 24 2007, 05:09 AM

TY Andrew - appreciated but where where you when I had to defend my thesis tongue.gif .

I'm possibly helped in that I discuss theology a lot with my brother in law whose a CoE vicar currently doing his PhD on (I think, seems to change a lot rolleyes.gif ) Ancient Hebrew.

Cheers,
Tony

Posted by: Legions Oct 24 2007, 05:24 AM

QUOTE (tonymiro @ Oct 23 2007, 05:52 PM) *
I'm agnostic but I do believe that we should respect other people's right to believe or not and their way of doing so. As part of that respect if we attempt to claim that someone is untruthful then we should be truthful in making such a claim. I personally feel that the makers of the film rather lose their way by failing to follow this simple credo.

I studied apophantic theology as part of my PhD years ago. I have to say, whatever you think of the remainder of the film, that the first 30 or so minutes is what I would describe as being a very 'partial' view of the development of Western religion(s) and Christianity. There are a number of inaccuracies within. For instance:

There are any number of Lunar calender as Solar;

Much of what is presented as Egyptian mythos is Babylonian;

The adoption of some anthropomorphic symbols within the Western Horoscope didn't happen until about the 15th Century. Anthropmorphic btw means to make something human that is not - it does not mean to give something a symbol that a human understands/recognises as the film implies. (Aries, Leo etc are NOT anthropomorphic, Virgo is.)

The Horoscope discussed is Western and much of the constellations and their movements would surely be different in the Southern Hemisphere;

The start of the ancient Egyptian calender falls mid Summer not Dec 25 (the date moves around as the Egytpian Calender is not based on 365 days);

Julian of Caesarea in his writings and presentations was attempting to demonstrate Logos and how all other religions were/are at best a partial recount of the Word of God that is ultimately given in the teachings of Christ;

(Here it's worth keeping in mind that in his time there was both religious pantheism (including paganism) and Christianity itself was largely Paulian and/or had elements of gnosticism. Christianity itself was far from the dominant religion and Christians at that time were still persecuted and often crucified for their beliefs. His addresses were mostly to the Roman Senate at least as an attempt to stop the crucifictions. By demonstrating that God IS Logos he was bringing other religions within it and thus at the same time moving Christians within the full protection of secular law.)

There are quite a few other inaccuracies besides those.

I am agnostic - however even in my agnosticism I know that the Christian Church has faced claims similar to much of the film for centuries. It has in the past answered them and there isn't really ground for it to have to repeatedly respond. Indeed (and this is where I come in) in so doing one only needs to look towards the dialogue between Church and Thomas Ekhardt, St Teresa de Avila, St Augustine and many other apophantics.

So the film for me rather unravels because of its partiality at the start - whether or not there are any facts in the remaining 1 1/2 hours.

Cheers,
Tony

ps none of the above is meant as an attack on anyone here nor is it meant to offend. Just though it was worth pointing out a few things regarding the 'truth' claims in the film.

As an agnostic the question for me is ultimately Augustine's 'What do I love when I love my God' as yet I don't know. To the Christians and those of other Religions who have found their answer to that question you have my respect.


great response haha. I don't exactly have the time to talk...

but, I would highly recommend watching the remainder of the film, because all you watched was Part 1, there are 3 parts and they are all completely different from each other.

Part 2 is about how the Government set up 9/11 and it gives some pretty shocking evidence.

Part 3 is about how it is unconstitutional to pay income taxes and some other stuff...

(so the other part doesn't really apply to you all the much you're not a US citizen haha)

haha I'm not a college major so I can't give you some crazy educated answer to yours without making myself look dumb.

thanks for the reply!

-Legions

Posted by: Unleash-The-Shred Oct 24 2007, 05:30 AM

Can someone post the link to the other post made about this?

Posted by: botoxfox Oct 24 2007, 05:33 AM

http://www.guitarmasterclass.net/guitar_forum/index.php?showtopic=7381&hl=documentary

There you go...

Posted by: Unleash-The-Shred Oct 24 2007, 05:34 AM

Thanks.

Posted by: tonymiro Oct 24 2007, 06:29 AM

QUOTE (Legions @ Oct 23 2007, 10:24 PM) *
great response haha. I don't exactly have the time to talk...

but, I would highly recommend watching the remainder of the film, because all you watched was Part 1, there are 3 parts and they are all completely different from each other.

Part 2 is about how the Government set up 9/11 and it gives some pretty shocking evidence.

Part 3 is about how it is unconstitutional to pay income taxes and some other stuff...

(so the other part doesn't really apply to you all the much you're not a US citizen haha)

haha I'm not a college major so I can't give you some crazy educated answer to yours without making myself look dumb.

thanks for the reply!

-Legions


Hi Legions,

I have watched all but the final 10 or so minutes when my internet connection ceased up on me and I couldn't bring myself to reload the film via my less then broadband connection wink.gif.

I've no objection to the other two main themes - and some sympathy with them - other than if you are to argue that 'the other side lies to us' then you can't start by presenting misinformation yourself.

As regards the payment, or not, of income tax. Well there's a long history of the withholding of income tax that dates back in the US at least to Thoreau when he wrote Walden and in the UK to the English Civil War (its history predates those though - it goes back to the Roman times).

I do think here that one needs to be careful. There is a Libertarian (in the US Right sense rather then European liberal/left sense of the word - think Robert Nozick's 'Anarchy, State, Utopia') that sees tax avoidance and non payment as part and parcel of a night watchman state/extreme free market system. Against this the Thoreau argument (albeit that the US Libertarians often try to use Thoreau) is much more about passive resistance from an individual who believes they live in a corrupt State or are subject to an unjust civil law.

Personally I prefer Antoni Negri's 'Time for Revolution' to the last 1/3rd of the film not least because its better argued. Ultimately though I don't buy in to the 'don't pay' argument though as I'm still too much wedded to the Socialist ideal of 'from each according to ability to each according to need.' Put another way, I find the Thatcherite line of 'there is no society' that supports the (US) Libertarian argument not to pay reprehensible.

Anyway all that is politics and personalised viewpoint on my part. Nonetheless should we decide to argue for tax avoidance then I do think it behoves us to be aware that there are different political positions on why one does so and that those positions, to me, are morally bound. That didn't come across to me in the film though.

Cheers,
Tony

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)