here is a link so that you can see it

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

For those who have seen this movie, is it valid? Or, are SOME parts of it valid? Or, is it a complete work of garbage?

If someone could fill me in, or just point me to some reading, (and please don't reference the bible to me, CGM), that would be very helpful.

Ryan

Films are what they are, and cannot provide (much like TV news) the kinds of details needed to make an informed and intelligent decision, so you must trust the research. I took a look at the referenced documentation and at least in the areas of my expertise, it is far from authoritive.
Certainly maintaining a skeptical attitude, especially about recent events, is commendable, but the other side of the coin is the necessity of taking the time to ascertain the best and most reliable sources, and understanding the criteria for judging them.
Cheers,
John

Its a bunch of poo poo in my opinion...but then I am biased because I love Jesus Christ. The majority of their claims (at least the ones I have heard about in passing, are easily refuted as junk. None of it changes who God is, and why Jesus died and rose again.


The sources of which they use have zero credibility (at least from an academic perspective.) These people have zero understanding of Christianity. As I always say (the Bible said it first), the cross is foolishness to those that are perishing.


Anyway, hope you enjoyed the video. I wouldn't care to watch it, Im sure its the same drivel that has been echoed for centuries.

Statement link, last line just before 'Thank You' captured the essence rather nicely IMHO: "That being said, It is my hope that people will not take what is said
in the film as the truth, but find out for themselves, for truth is not told, it is realized."

I am reminded of the ancient Greek aphorism:

"The truth is hard to find" (or often, "Truth always hides herself").

Since the topics in the film deal with history and historical facts and historical interpretations of facts, I would think that one should consult historians who have been trained in historical methodology and who specialise in the areas in the film and can discuss the original sources. The answers these writers give will not be simplistic or reductionalist, but will explore both different interpretations, and indicate the richness of the material.

John

I really think you have to take all three parts of the film individually. They have very little in common other than they are all in this one film. Regarding this, I believe that you can have your own opinions and beliefs about the first two parts of the film, but personally, I believe that what is told in the first two parts make a hell of a lot more sense than anything else I have come across.

Yet the majority of what is told in Part 3 I found out watching a television show many years ago. It is part of a series called Phenomenon: The Lost Archives and the show is called Monopoly Men. It first aired in 1998, nearly 10 years ago. Here is a link to the video at Google Videos Phenomenon: Monopoly Men Go ahead, watch and compare those 2 videos (part 3 of Zeitgeist and Monopoly men). Try to keep in mind that they are nearly 10 years apart. That is what I find so riveting and fascinating about Zeitgeist.

This documentary contains many many many many false statements. Many of the things stated in this movie are from books written by people who do not have any evidence at all to back these statements up. But, many things in this documentary are true (9/11 Conspiracy FACTS and the New World Order). The first part of the movie is not all entirely fact and many of the statements cant be proven.