The rating of this movie makes me sad.

the fun thing is that whenever i make an assumption or conclusion you call it 'lack of logic' or 'prejudice', showing the other side of it, which greatly expands the tutoring side of this thread, but doesn't change anything. you're not placing a counter-opinion, you just dismiss what i have said by saying, in short, "you are wrong".

But you are wrong. It would different if you weren’t. Logic is not about making assumptions on virtue like you’ve done. To make an unfounded or weak assumption is showing lack of good logic. It’s what a prejudice is. A prejudice (pre-judgement) is when you make a judgment (conclusion) with little, very weak, or meaningless information on why you’re making the conclusion, judgment, or assumption.

It's not like I'm making this stuff up to make you look bad. Just look up the terms. It’s what you’re doing, as you just admitted to.

historians are writers, they get pieces of facts and make connections between them - true, you are absolutely right. but they also drop those that don't seem to fit the storyline, calling them false statement or improbable to be real. who changes the story when it adds up so well?
don't get me wrong - i like the movie. i really do. especially the way it is recorded. also, the ideas refresh the way of thinking and looking at things, they are catchy and interesting. searching for further materials supporting the story is absorbing, which is a good thing. but telling someone "hey, that's the truth" is simple overreaction or credulity.

I don’t think you understand how they used the term "truth." When they call the movie the "truth," the context they are using is a occult sense of the world “truth.” By this they don’t mean some absolute unchanging 100% factual rigid notion of “the truth.” They mean the occult sense of the word – which is “information that was right in front of your eyes but not obvious.” I thought this was obvious, but I see people misinterpret this a lot. I guess it's not. You can confirm this by watching his radio interviews. He doesn't directly answer this way but he constantly talks about how purpose of the film "to seek hidden knowledge that's right in front of our eyes." That's the occult sense of "truth."

although, yes - you may say that i use prejudice towards new age. long story short: in my line of work, when i'm commissioned to do something, i have to know as much as possible about what i am trying to produce, adjusting it on different levels: psychological, aesthetic, terminological, statistical and so on. i am the tool used to display the product as best as it may be displayed, to gather the widest target audience... which are actually 'buyers', in a way. in this particular case i was selling religion, only that i had to call it 'movement'. i did a very thorough research concerning new age, mainly because it just didn't add up basing on the objectives set by the client. as i had to make connections to bring it to sense, i did dig deep enough to see the resemblance with this subject. i believe you would like me to "produce evidence" but i don't own any of those books, i don't have any recorded interviews in store anymore. i see that you're also a research fan, so i'll leave it to your perception... or maybe i'll just say that those have been burnt by christians, to save you some time? (don't get mad, it's just a joke. ignore it if you don't find it funny)

That’s fine. I think it does resemble new age / occult material. I just don’t think this necessitates that it’s wrong and or bad. I think it’s too broad of an extrapolation to associate it with something that has extremist in the subject matter then say that it too must be in the nature of the extremist. It would be like using the Christians in Jesus Camp to make conclusions on all Christians. It’s simply not smart.

personally, i hate doing research on people, as they are pretty much too changeable in short notice, and fast-adaptive to actually catch the true spirit of another person. only valid research in this case is observation, not theoretical deduction.

Alright.

if i'm egocentric then you're the same. you have attached yourself to few words like 'origin' or 'factual error' and claiming that i neglect the fact that "Set's primary role is to be antithetical to Horus" so you can elaborate on it and express the outcome of your deep studies. plus, it was you who called me names, at first. and you most certainly have an idea to follow, not minding the posts i've written, therefor dismissing or adding another sense to any statement that doesn't fit the path of your thinking.
and, to make it straight, i find any form of cult nonsense, not just new age. it's good to bring some order into chaos around us, but whenever it starts to be business... well, it's just plain wrong. and it is about business and influence over people and/or policies if sold nicely.

But your post was highly inaccurate. It’s not egocentric of me to correct your post when they’re totally misleading and your primary point (Zeitgeist has made an error in its facts) is actually the problem with you. Now if the information I given you was just based on my own opinion and I came at you with no evidence or real support other than what I think, then you have a case. But that’s not the case. My case is backed up with solid facts. It’s not a matter of what I simply think. It’s a matter of the facts. If you want to use that broad of a definition for “egocentric” because the information came from me and my studies – then by your definition of things, everyone is egocentric. I don’t think it’s effective or meaningful to use that broad of a definition for egocentric. The reason for terms such as egocentric is to make purposeful distinctions. You lose that if you use the word in that broad of a sense.

you're a riot... reread your posts and subside yourself in meditation for a while. because your attitude was/is "I'm higher than that teiguy garbage because I am right", being subject-themed you place yourself as the alfa and omega.

Notice how I don’t always post that way. I did, because it was mirrored from you.

i've studied your posts and whenever someone disagrees with you, you start shrinking the person. you dare people to "produce evidence" yet most of your statements are left unsupported.

Evidence gathering requires a lot of time that I don’t necessarily have. Notice however if someone questions my sources or evidence I produce it (check threads like the virgin birth and introduction to the Egyptian zodiac). If I don’t have evidence I don’t act like I do.

you like using word 'debunkers' not minding that you're a debunker yourself, as you seem to want this thing to be true.

How does that make sense? When I say “debunker” I’m talking about people who make it their goal to prove Zeitgeist wrong. Most debunkers will out right say they want to prove the movie wrong because its full of lies. If you don’t have this type of mentality, I won’t call you a debunker. (Notice how I didn’t call you a debunker). Also, even if I did “want the movie to be right” that doesn’t make me a debunker. It makes me a supporter. A debunker wants to prove something wrong.

Aside from that, you’re wrong. I don’t want Zeitgeist to be right. A lot of the material in Zeitgeist I was aware of before the movie came out, especially the Egyptian stuff. There are things in Zeitgeist that I agree with (like Horus vs Seth) and there are things in Zeitgeist that I disagree with (like it’s notion of the 3 day resurrection.

What I want is for people to understand Egyptian mythology because it’s very easy to misunderstand it and most Egyptologist will tell you point black that the Egyptians are highly misunderstood by the vast majority of people from the western world. If you don’t believe me I’ll produce the quotes from them. I simply share the sentiment.

I saw that as a problem far before Zeitgeist came out. People’s misconceptions of the Egyptian-Christian relation in Zeitgeist just further fuelled what I already thought.

also, numerous times you've advised (which is actually nonphysical threatening) people not to start the subject of egyptian mythology, acting like god among men in this field of science.

Can you quote me one time telling someone to not start with Egyptian mythology? If anything the exact opposite is true. I want people to be interested in Egyptian mythology. However what people tend to do is “fact-searching” where they superficially try to “collect facts” and then pass those “facts” along as though they are the absolute truth and it’s nothing more to the subject. An example of this is what you claimed with what “Seth originally was.” With such superficial researching, you are inevitably going to misrepresent their culture, legacy, and history. And that is what I don’t’ want people to do. To understand Egyptian mythology and history (they are one in the same to the Egyptian) requires that you actually understand the entire world view of the Egyptians – which is quite different from the common westerner. Unless you’re willing to do this, you are going to butcher their culture and history entirely like you did with Seth (and Horus but we haven’t gotten into that yet).

yet, i can't say that i don't agree with you on few occasions: people claiming that zeitgeist is made by satanists or that technology will lead us to doom, etc... those are like bad jokes or over-zealotry in defense of, most probably, one's religion (which i do understand, but find it hard to accept).

Glad we can reach a median.

this way or another, this exchange of opinions is as pointless as talking about global warming. it's the theory that some want to be a fact and others trying to neglect, with the truth laying somewhere in-between or just somewhere else. and it's strangely in use.
we have exchanged 'pleasantries'. i'm willing to take them by heart and think about myself, if you'll promise to do the same. otherwise, no deal :)
we both know that it's impossible to reach mutual understanding here, that's the reason why i'm not going to push it any further. leave the reply if you want to have the last word, your choice but also a waste of time. this way or another, i'm in process of writing a book. my editor reminds me of keeping things short and whenever i look at those posts, i just don't feel like it.

I don’t think it’s a waste of time because other people are reading our post and I remember when I first started researching topics that I loved, deep forum discussions were vary useful information to see beyond the world of things that existed in popular culture only. I used forums as a gate way to the deeper stuff (which is why I go through such huge lengths with things here).

maybe one day we will actually manage to talk about some movies, rather than facts or theories. are you into that kind of fun? seen anything good lately?

Last movie I’ve seen was Shutter Island and Avatar which I liked a lot. I don’t post in those forums though because I don’t have anything unique to contribute and I usually only speak when I think that I do.

just one last thing, curiosity - what is your take on comparison with krishna, mithra etc. etc.?

I haven’t researched Krishna or Mithras’s nearly as much. However, with the little research that I’ve done, I did find that it’s possible that the Krishna thing is being misunderstood by some people. For example, people attacked Acharya S when she compared Krishna being shot in the foot with an arrow to a tree as a crucifixion. They thought the comparison was absurd. But she’s not the only one that has done the comparison. For example Dr. Magee at Ask Why (he’s an actual historian and has wrote at least one book) did the same thing long before her. The reason is because how we think of a crucifixion has changed since the time of Jesus. The Greek word (which works like the bible was written in Greek) actually means “to hang or pin” and is sometimes associated with a tree as the cross didn’t take its current form until around 4th century and was far more reminiscent to trees pre-romans used to hang criminal (Egyptians did this too).
The point however is that “pinning to a tree” was very iconic at the time for the role of the “suffering servant.” It’s also possible that the foot was iconic as well as that turned into a big deal with some cultures like the Greeks who had stories of Achilles Heel. Folk literature was also popular at time and folk literature commonly had metaphors, analogies, and euphemisms that alluded to concepts in popular culture such as the notion of a suffering servant.

I’ll try and find Dr. Magee’s article on it. I’m not basing all of this information on him but he has a similar opinion of the arrow in the foot thing.

As for Mithras my opinion on him is even vaguer. I hear that star maps related to him are currently in agreement with connecting the Persian Mithras with the Roman (more Christian like) Mithras’s. Most apologist I’ve seen will take the conclusion of this Mithras’s console in (what I think was near the 70s) that concluded the two Mithras weren’t related for virtue. But I’m definitely interested in seeing if the last interpretations of star maps have any light to shed on that conclusion. If they’re related, then it would help support theories by people like Acharya. Her problem (and a problem with Zeitgeist) is they got over zealous with it and assumed that they are related when most Mithra scholars will say otherwise now.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

this was an interesting argument until someone brought up global warming...

some people need to listen to scientists studying ocean temps and the polar icecaps - instead of gathering all of their info from Fox News.

the earth is warming... expect a shoreline rise of about 3-5 feet in the next 50 years... and about 2 centuries till 'Waterworld' if people keep denying it.
next subject pls

reply share

add reply

formatting help