Dear Mom - Letters to Heaven

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Zeitgeist Movie Review

A friend of mine sent me the link below (or click on the title) to this two hour documentary. I'm happy to report that it is compelling viewing and worth the time. Even if some of the conclusions or predictions might not stand up to other points of view this is still worth watching. The first ten minutes if historically correct offer a very fascinating overview of world religions that will give you more than a pause in your assumptions. It's a very well put together montage and the whole documentary is split into three parts. I watched a part then took a break freshened up my apple juice and then hunkered down for the next part. So take the time to review this feature. The worst thing that can happen is that you get another point of view to assess or are spurned on to do some of your own research and fact checking, and always, always, question authority.

Paul
Author - Journey Home
Zeitgeist Movie Link

5 comments:

Attempting to Know said...

hey i would just like to say that the first part is in fact mostly correct. I've been interested in ancient philosophy for some time and read a bunch of stuff on it, and I can vouch that most of it I know to be true (were things that I've read about before seeing the movie), especially the stuff about astrology.

Elliott Nesch said...

Zeitgeist Part 1 Refuted

www.beitshalomministries.org

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7572663630528394775

Journey Home said...

Tried to access your video link for Zeitgeist Part 1 Refuted but got this error message.

No results found for http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7572663630528394775.

Budhag Rizzo said...

"Zeitgeist Part 1 Refuted"

Hhmm... I don't know about that. Although I agree that a lot of "Zeitgeist: Part one" is a little far fetched, it doesn't come anywhere near THIS movie as far as bias is concerned. About 20 minutes into the film, while discussing some of the authors used as sources, they make it a point to mention one was homosexual. What difference does THAT make? I can see mentioning that one was an Atheist, showing the potential to be bias in his research (maybe). But being homosexual?! Only in the eyes of a christian (or muslim) would this be a problem with theological objectivity. PLEASE! Can we all be advocates of intellectual honesty here?

Unknown said...

RE: Blogger BudhagRizzo said...

" ... they make it a point to mention one was homosexual."

Hey budhagrizzo, the transcript for Part 1 is available here: http://zeitgeistmovie.com/transcript.htm

Where is the reference to which you refer above? I can't seem to locate it. Thanks. ---David