Zeitgeist and other lies of he media

Damian Mahadevan

Keeper of the Watch
Original Sin Donor
Joined
November 23, 2008
Messages
1,201
I was wondering how the media gets away with so many deliberate lies. Should the media be accountable to the lies they spread? I think so, for how long can a news outlet like Fox new be allowed to spread so many lies to decieve so many people.



About zeitgeist being nothing but lies(55 minutes)
http://bit.ly/Zeitgeist-Refuted
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
1,201
Your bias is showing already. Fox is no less honest than the leftie mainstream media. You're just more willing to excuse the lies that agree with your worldview.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,535
Location
Illinois, USA
Zeitgeist is lies ?
That's like saying a tree is a lie. Zeitgeist is just a concept of how the world works, it's not true or false. Zeitgeist is just the concept that morals, ethics and so on are ever-changing and that the things people believed in in the past generation are not the same as today or they will be in the next. In simple.
Lies ?
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
9,177
Location
Manchester, United Kingdom
That link doesn't work so well for me, but I can go to the blog.

Oh, I see now. Yet another attempt at trying to sound scientific at proving Fundamentalist Christianity. File it away with the satellite that "proved" a day was missing from the calendar. If you want a really heavy dose of this, read Velikovsky's _Worlds in Collision_ (can't remember the title exactly).

And 'Fundamentalist' is definitely an important term there. Mainstream Christianity doesn't say that Jesus was actually born on December 25th, 0001. December 25 is simply the first day in 12 days of celebration.

So Fox actually tried to pass this off as fact?? The sun being in the southern cross constellation and everything??
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
8,238
Location
Kansas City
http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/episode-038-zeitgeist/

Here is the link sorry for the late reply.


As for Fox they are the mainstream channel that i am exposed to on youtube. The problem comes from not when they are tryign to decieve me but when they do decieve others. The fact that they are still on air is a bit of an issue for me because i belive misleading people on a wide basis like on tv should be a crime. That is what i am trying to argue here.
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
1,201
That link doesn't work so well for me, but I can go to the blog.

Oh, I see now. Yet another attempt at trying to sound scientific at proving Fundamentalist Christianity. File it away with the satellite that "proved" a day was missing from the calendar. If you want a really heavy dose of this, read Velikovsky's _Worlds in Collision_ (can't remember the title exactly).

And 'Fundamentalist' is definitely an important term there. Mainstream Christianity doesn't say that Jesus was actually born on December 25th, 0001. December 25 is simply the first day in 12 days of celebration.

So Fox actually tried to pass this off as fact?? The sun being in the southern cross constellation and everything??

No they are 2 separate things. The link i had was a piece showing how zeitgeist the movie just made stuff up trying to link other mythologies and christianity. It pretty much has nothing to do with science this particular piece, i was quite shocked at all the lies the movie had. And i didnt like it one bit hence this thread.
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
1,201
Zeitgeist is lies ?
That's like saying a tree is a lie. Zeitgeist is just a concept of how the world works, it's not true or false. Zeitgeist is just the concept that morals, ethics and so on are ever-changing and that the things people believed in in the past generation are not the same as today or they will be in the next. In simple.
Lies ?

I was referring to the movie. Apologies for the multiple posts. Bad habit i got i will try to stop that.
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
1,201
What lies? jc never existed and all the Jewish mythology is a collection of Med / Persian myths . How the hell xianity is connected to science ? science needs evidence and there isn't a single historian mentioning jc , on the other hand magicians like Apollonios get shitloads of references in +10 countries .

The other topics are how banking works in the US and some stories told by an ex-economic hitman , apart from the conspiracy theories and taking sides there isn't any lie , it is a mater of perception to either side with them or take a different approach.
 
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
1,439
Location
Athens (the original one)
What lies? jc never existed

When you start an argument with something so fundamentally incorrect as that, you aren't going to win many people over. There is very little legitimate doubt that a religious figure existed during that time period that we now call Jesus. Whether or not he was the son of God, or performed any of the mircales attributed to him, is a question of faith.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,353
Location
Austin, TX
Actually there were several historians that make references to JC.
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
1,201
Actually there were several historians that make references to JC.

Yes, like ?

Look, i hate posting one liners cause they look like spam so if you have any credible historical document NOT written by a priest or a xian come on and post info.

Case is that there is only 1 "document" supposedly written by the a Roman but it is a 17th century fabrication.

Eh and about the books of the apostles , the books they wrote have several significant inconsistencies…like which day supposedly JC was crucified
 
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
1,439
Location
Athens (the original one)
Yes, like ?

Look, i hate posting one liners cause they look like spam so if you have any credible historical document NOT written by a priest or a xian come on and post info.

Case is that there is only 1 "document" supposedly written by the a Roman but it is a 17th century fabrication.

Eh and about the books of the apostles , the books they wrote have several significant inconsistencies…like which day supposedly JC was crucified

Given that priests were often the only ones literate, it's a pretty bad idea to toss out anything they write just because you don't like them.

Not sure if the Roman you refer to is Josephus or not, but he writes about Christ twice in Antiquities of the Jews. The first, and most well known, passage has been disputed because it appears to have been altered, though there is a 10th century Arabic version that appears to reference the original. Either way, while their is dispute about the exact language of it (and how much has been inserted later), there is little dispute that Josephus did write a passage in that spot that referenced Jesus of Nazareth.

The second passage, referrencing James as the brother of Jesus, is generally considered to be authentic as well.

As for the books of the apostles, of course there are discrepencies. What would you expect? Ever seen an accident? Ever ask more than one person what happened? Ever get the EXACT same story?

Tacitus wrote about Christ being crucified in his Annals (116AD).

The simple fact is that there aren't a lot of writings that have survived from this time frame PERIOD. Hell, only 35 of the 142 books of Ab urbe condita libri, considered for centuries to be the most sought after book from antiquity, survive.

The Christian movement was not a major event in the Roman Empire at the time it occured. Even within Judaea at the time it began it was considered more of a minor nuisance than anything. Why would you expect all sorts of historians of the time to be making note of it?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,353
Location
Austin, TX
I believe he is referring to the Zeitgeist documentary.

It's a three episode conspiracy theory of which the first borrows from the idea of sun gods and how they inspired the bible.

While artistically well made, it's hogwash.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNf-P_5u_Hw
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
Not sure if the Roman you refer to is Josephus or not, but he writes about Christ twice in Antiquities of the Jews. The first, and most well known, passage has been disputed because it appears to have been altered, though their is a 10th century Arabic version that appears to reference the original. Either way, while their is dispute about the exact language of it (and how much has been inserted later), there is little dispute that Josephus did write a passage in that spot that referenced Jesus of Nazareth.

There's much dispute for very much the reason you just gave.

The bit where the first passage is implemented, Antiquities 18.3.3, makes more sense if you remove the passage. The passage interrupts the flow, the block before it and after it seems to have been meant to be read after eachother. Furthermore, the language used in the passage have been argued to fit more with Eusebius than Josephus. Furthermore the same events are discussed in another place, but this time without any references to Jesus. Also, the included text doesn't fit what a jew from that era would write and it contains no information unique to the text, but it's just a summary of Christian beliefs in the 4th century (when the passage is believed to have been interpolated).

It should be known that this is the only non-testament source using the name Jesus.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,908
Location
Old Europe
Some think the passage on Jesus in Josephus is editted but virtually no one believes the passage on James, the brother of Christ, is editted. One reason being that Josephus is vague on naming the disciples.

http://religiousstudies.uncc.edu/people/jtabor/james.html

As you see he refers to Jesus as "..who was called Christ.." but he is not calling him Christ directly as is cited in Antiquities 18. ("He was [the] Christ. ")

Also mentioning Christ were Seutonis, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and even the Talmud.



I thought zeitgesit referred to as something that catches the spirit if the times; or am I think of anachronisms.



Fox news can be pretty good - Chris Wallace is certainly a terrific newsman. And if you want liberal reporting Juan Williams doesn't hide his bias, but unlike ABC or MSNBC, doesn't show contempt or act like he's smarter than everyone else.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
5,212
Location
The Uncanny Valley
The passage on Jesus by Josephus was altered, however they have found unaltered text from Josephus that has teh same passage mention Jesus well.

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.

http://religiousstudies.uncc.edu/people/jtabor/josephus-jesus.html
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
1,201
Also mentioning Christ were Seutonis, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and even the Talmud.

I have read all the mentioned sources, including Mara Bar-Serapion, Flegon, Thallus, Julius Africanus, Lucius, Kelsos, Marcus Aurelius, Galenos, Porfyrios and the various passages in the various Talmuds.

I have a test. If someone mentions Seutonius or Pliny, I know they haven't checked their information. They are passing on hearsay.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
Back
Top Bottom