Thursday, August 30, 2012

"The drive for same sex marriage is not simply about same sex marriage or the moral legitimization of homosexual behavior; it is also about the de-legitimization of Christian morality…But the Christian moral system is no minor part of Christianity, any more than the heart or lungs are minor parts of the human body. Overthrow the Christian moral system and you will have overthrown Christianity itself. Therefore, those who are pushing for the institution of same sex marriage are ipso facto pushing for the elimination of Christianity." –David R. Carlin, Jr in "Can a Catholic Be a Democrat?" (NO!)


Kirk Cameron's documentary film "Monumental" is now available on DVD. One of the things I like about it is how he talks about societal decline at the beginning of the movie. One of the things that I like about this film is how Kirk responds to Christians who are happy about the moral decline of the country because it is a sign of the last days and that means Jesus is coming soon. Kirk says-wait a minute-I have six kids-what kind of world are my kids going to live in-what kind of future will they have. Monumental is excellent.

Three strikes (no 4) against religious liberty and freedom of speech

First, Kirk Cameron gets in a firestorm for saying he doesn't believe in "gay marriage" on CNN. Then, liberals threaten to murder Brad Pitt's mother for saying she opposes "gay marriage." Then the government threatens to close down Chick-Fil-A because the founder doesn't believe in "gay marriage" Then Congressman Adkin is thrown under the bus by the Republican Party because he believes that abortion is always the wrong choice-even in the case of rape and incest. So we see a growing intolerance for free speech in this country and it is a disturbing development.

Romney and Paul Ryan's position on abortion-and mine

Mitt Romney policy is that abortion is wrong except in three instances. 1. Rape, 2. Incest and 3. To save the life of the mother. I can only accept point three. The Republican Party platform does not have a rape or incest exception. In my opinion, it shouldn't. Either abortion is wrong or it isn't, either it is the taking of a human life or it isn't. I cannot accept abortion at all because Jesus Christ and the Bible taught against it.

Joe Biden is going to put "ya'll back in chains"

Joe Biden has made many outrageous statements lately. He told a largely black audience that the Republicans are going to put "ya'll back in chains." But, it was Democrats, not Republicans who enslaved Blacks and it was Republicans who freed them. His comments are highly offensive and inappropriate. Obama himself is making inappropriate remarks-calling his fellow left winger, Mitt Romney an "extremist" implying Romney is a right winger-which he certainly is not.

2016 I strongly recommend the Dinesh D'Souza movie 2016. The premise is that the political philosophy of anti-colonialism is the primary motivating belief system of Mr. Obama and these ideas were first promoted in D'Souza's excellent book "The Roots of Obama's Rage." This election is pivotal. The American people have to choose between the American Constitutional system or vote for a Marxist dictatorship. This election will determine if America remains a free country or not.

"No Higher Power" and "Survey of hostility towards religion"

Phyllis Schlafly has a new book on the Obama administrations attack upon religious freedom.

For four years Barack Obama has waged an unparalleled attack—largely undocumented by the mainstream media—on religious liberty in the United States. Never before has an administration been more convinced that there is no higher power than itself: one nation under Obama. In this stunning new book, veteran conservative lawyer, activist, and commentator Phyllis Schlafly and reporter George Neumayr reveal the greatest assault on American liberty in our time—the Obama administration's war on religious freedom.

In No Higher Power you'll learn:

  • Why a second Obama term could spell the end of Catholic hospitals and the court-martialing of Christian military chaplains
  • How the Obama administration is stripping conscience protections for pro-life doctors and nurses—forcing them to either assist in abortions or quit medicine
  • How the Obama administration sought to ban Bibles from military hospitals and prohibit invocations of Jesus Christ at military funerals
  • Why even Justice Elena Kagan—an Obama appointee to the Supreme Court—was shocked by the Obama administration's dictating employment policy at a Lutheran church
  • How Obama is defying federal law in the Defense of Marriage Act
  • How liberal Christians like Jim Wallis have acted as useful idiots for Obama's war on Christianity—and how the Catholic Left in Chicago actually helped pay for Obama's training as a disciple of the radical Saul Alinsky
  • Why the Obama administration coddles Islam while actively discriminating against Christians and Jews
  • And much more In

In No Higher Power, Schlafly and Neumayr expose the Obama administration's brazen disregard for the First Amendment, its relentless purging of religion from our public life, and the even more chilling persecution of religion set to come.

A new report by the Family Research Council and the Liberty Institute claims that there's been a rising pattern of hostility toward Christians in America over the past decade.

The 140-page "Survey of Religious Hostility in America," prepared by the Liberty Institute and the Family Research Council, highlighted more than 600 examples illustrating what it characterized as religious animosity shown by judges, government bureaucrats, schools and secular groups. From ObamaCare mandates that force religious entities to pay for contraception, to children being punished for uttering prayers in school, the report's findings shocked even those who commissioned it.

"It's a conflict of world views," Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council, told "These groups want people to check their faith at the door of the public square."

The goal of the report is to raise awareness of these incidents to promote the appointment of judges "who are sensitive to the Constitution," said Kelly Shackelford, president of the Plano, Texas-based Liberty Institute. The report was presented in Tampa just ahead of next week's Republican National Convention. According to Shackelford, the hostility can lead to violence, as in the case of the Aug.15 shooting at the Family Research Council headquarters, in which a gunman allegedly said he disagreed with the group's beliefs before shooting an employee in the arm. He also cited the Aug. 5 shooting deaths of six people at a Sikh temple near Milwaukee. "It's way beyond anything we had imagined," Shackelford told"It's so much more prolific than it's ever been before." One critic said the report is guilty of blurring the line between attacking religion and upholding the Constitution. A.J. Johnson, development director of American Atheists, Inc., said no one condones hate crimes such as the FRC shooting. But many other examples cited are simply cases in which advocates called for the separation of church and state," Johnson said. "The Family Research Council distorts court cases upholding the First Amendment as examples of "religious hostility," she said. "In reality, they are imposing their beliefs onto others and claiming to be victims of religious persecution when they do not get unique Christian privilege." But Perkins said the secular nation that groups like Johnson's seek was never envisioned by the Founding Fathers, and will not come to be. "That's not the future of our country," Perkins said. [But it very well may be-depending how this election turns out.]

Read more:

America, America

This movie shows the plight of Armenian and Greek Christians who were slaughtered by the Turks in the beginning of the 20th century.

It is very dangerous for us to forget the millions of Armenian, Aramaic (Assyrian), and Greek Christians killed by the Muslims in the beginning of the 20th century.

An A-political military? OPSEC, a group of former military and intelligence operatives and creators of a long-form political ad that blames President Obama for a series of national security leaks, is firing back against criticisms from the nation's highest ranking military officer. Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey on Tuesday told Fox News he was "disappointed" by the political use of the military uniform. "If someone uses the uniform, whatever uniform, for partisan politics, I am disappointed because I think it does erode that bond of trust we have with the American people," Dempsey said in an interview with Fox News while flying back from a trip to Afghanistan and Iraq. But Scott Taylor, a former Navy SEAL and the president of OPSEC, argues that Dempsey's criticisms can be applied equally to the Obama campaign's "One Chance" ad, which features images of Black Hawk helicopters in flight and military pilots. The video, which is still available online, suggests Gov. Mitt Romney would not have made the same decision to call for the raid that killed Usama bin Laden. "The Obama campaign continues to promote a highly partisan attack ad that used military footage and photographs from the White House Situation Room to support sharp criticism of the president's political opponent," Taylor said. "The use of those in uniform and the work they do for partisan political purposes is not only unhelpful, as General Dempsey said, but is dishonorable, and the campaign should immediately remove the ad for good." Taylor also claimed that unlike the Obama campaign's ad, all of the men featured in the OPSEC video were former military and therefore have the right to speak freely. "Speaking openly about protecting those in uniform is far more helpful than speaking about classified intelligence or Special Operations missions, tactics and capabilities, which bipartisan leaders have said has reached alarming levels under this administration," Taylor said. Dempsey had said that as the steward of his profession -- the military -- he thinks it imperative that the military remain "apolitical."

[The military is not meant to be "apolitical." We swear an oath to defend a political document and a political system-that of the US Constitution. It would be better that we have men of principle who are committed to those principles. But some believe that we should be like the Nazi's said at Nuremberg-and "only follow orders" –no matter what those orders are-even if they endanger the constitution.]

"No Easy Day"

A firsthand account of the Navy SEAL raid that killed Usama bin Laden contradicts previous accounts by administration officials, raising questions as to whether the terror mastermind presented a clear threat when SEALs first fired upon him. Bin Laden apparently was hit in the head when he looked out of his bedroom door into the top-floor hallway of his compound as SEALs rushed up a narrow stairwell in his direction, according to former Navy SEAL Matt Bissonnette, writing under the pseudonym Mark Owen in "No Easy Day." The book is to be published next week by Penguin Group (USA)'s Dutton imprint. Bissonnette says he was directly behind a "point man" going up the stairs. "Less than five steps" from top of the stairs, he heard "suppressed" gunfire: "BOP. BOP." The point man had seen a "man peeking out of the door" on the right side of the hallway. The author writes that bin Laden ducked back into his bedroom and the SEALs followed, only to find the terrorist crumpled on the floor in a pool of blood with a hole visible on the right side of his head and two women wailing over his body.

Bissonnette says the point man pulled the two women out of the way and shoved them into a corner and he and the other SEALs trained their guns' laser sites on bin Laden's still-twitching body, shooting him several times until he lay motionless. The SEALs later found two weapons stored by the doorway, untouched, the author said. In another possibly uncomfortable revelation for U.S. officials who say bin Laden's body was treated with dignity before being given a full Muslim burial at sea, the author reveals that in the cramped helicopter flight out of the compound, one of the SEALs called "Walt" was sitting on bin Laden's chest as the body lay at the author's feet in the middle of the cabin. The publisher says the author used pseudonyms for all the SEALs. Bissonnette also writes disparagingly that none of the SEALs were fans of President Barack Obama and knew that his administration would take credit for ordering the May 2011 raid. One of the SEALs said after the mission that they had just gotten Obama re-elected by carrying out the raid. But he says they respected him as commander in chief and for giving the operation the go-ahead. Bissonnette writes less flatteringly of meeting Vice President Joe Biden along with Obama at the headquarters of the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment after the raid. He says Biden told "lame jokes" no one understood, reminding him of "someone's drunken uncle at Christmas dinner."

The author is being attacked for jepordizing national security by leaking classified information. But the Obama administration has been leaking classified information-in order to make Obama look stronger. See below:

Ronald Kessler reporting from Washington, D.C. — An accelerating series of leaks of classified information all have two things in common: They directly endanger national security, and the stories reporting on them paint President Obama as a hero.

News reports on Tuesday disclosed that the FBI is probing the leaking of information about a classified U.S. cyberattack program aimed at Iran's nuclear facilities, but a close look at recent developments uncovers a broad and disturbing pattern of leaks of some of the nation's most guarded secrets by the Obama administration

Pattern of White House Leaks Threatens Nation's Security
And critics of the Obama administration point to a pattern of leaks over a long period:

  1. It encourages the audience to not be ignorant and instead be knowledgable by way of the argument made in the film. This fallacy is common enough (known as the "appeal to consequences"[5]), but it is misleading in that it assumes the opinion on the issue is an indicator of knowledge of the subject, rather than knowledge of the subject being discernable by its own right.
  2. It pre-emptively labels any conflicting data or disagreeing statements as biased, thus placing a false burden on dissenting information to prove otherwise. This is a direct personal attack ("ad hominem"[6]), insisting that the dissenting view be disregarded because of the person expressing it, not because of the degree of validity of the view itself.

Claims of Secret or Hidden Knowledge

From the quote listed above from the film's website, the author (Peter Joseph) states that the claims made in the film are "not obtained by simple keyword searches on the Internet" or that "online encyclopedias or text book Encyclopedias often do not contain the information contained in Zeitgeist." However, on the film's website fourteen of the twnety-six sources listed-- (one more than) half of the sources-- have website links attached to them[7]. Additionally, fourteen of the works-- including material from Carpenter[8], Churchward[9], Cumont[10], Doane[11], Frazer[12], Irvin & Rutajit[13], Massey[14]
[16], Maxwell[17]
[18], Murdock (a.k.a. Acharya S)[19], Rolleston[20], Wheless[21], and even the Christian Bible[22]-- are not only easy to find through online searches but in some cases have copies in more than one location on the internet. In fact, of the fifteen authors cited in the list of sources-- some authors are cited more than once for different books they have written-- a full eleven of the authors used in citations have their work freely accessible online (more if works not cited are counted). The more notable authors-- Campbell, Carpenter, Cumont, Frazer, and even Massey, Rolleston, and Wheless-- all have material freely accessible in electronic format as well as print. To imply that the information in the movie was somehow hidden, in any capacity whatsoever, is blatantly false.

Use of Misleading Language

The most obvious use of misleading language in the movie is the correlation of "son" to "Sun" as if the similarity in pronunciation in Modern English is significant in some way, even though early Christian writings were written in Greek (son=huios, Sun=Helios), Latin (son=fili, Sun=Sol), and Hebrew (son=ben/bar, Sun=Shemesh), where over-simplistic vowel replacements would not change one word into the other. This rhetorical linguistic misdirection muddies the presentation in that the film never establishes a basis in fact for the audience to accept this, it simply treats it as a given.

The film also goes into misleading language in the form of descriptions, as well as using pseudoscience jargon like "astro-theological literary fold hybrid" in its assessments. Throughout each description, the wording of things being described as corrolative use leading terms (conflating '"aeon", which means "age"' with Jesus' Solar Piscean personification and Age of Aquarius) and treat innocuous phrases ("there shall a man meet you bearing a pitcher of water"[23]) as if they are groundbreakingly significant ("The man bearing a pitcher of water is Aquarius") as if such an assertion were an accepted given and no explanation for such an association need be made outside of stating it.

One of the worst cases of blatantly misleading information in Part I happens within the first minute of the segment. The narrator states: "This is the cross of the Zodiac, one of the oldest conceptual images in human history. It reflects the sun as it figuratively passes through the 12 major constellations over the course of a year. It also reflects the 12 months of the year, the 4 seasons, and the solstices and equinoxes. The term Zodiac relates to the fact that constellations were anthropomorphized, or personified, as figures, or animals."[

Lack of Independent Verification

While the transcript to the film does make citations to books and occassionally notes passages that make the same claims as the film, the film does not actually provide evidence pointing to texts that would prove those claims. This is not independent verification, this is repeating the claims of others and (in the case of the film) it does little or nothing to establish the validity of the claims themselves. For example: nearly all the Horus-based claims, despite the number of authors cited by Peter Joseph in the film, tend to trace back to either Gerald Massey or James Frazer. Massey tended to not include the actual translations he was working from to come to his conclusions, and Sir Frazer in his later abridgements even states himself that his work does not represent "a whole system of mythology"[31]. The film quotes the books by Dorothy Murdock (a.k.a. Acharya S) most heavily, who herself uses the others listed as references (like Massey) in her work. This is a closed system of cyclic referencing and it does not actually present to the viewer much in the way of actual evidence, only a recitation of similar claims (which are similarly unverified or unproven). The process of independent verification, which is not present in the film or within any of the source materials used, is used to establish veracity outside of what can be called "me too" piece[32]. Independent verification would also serve to bolster these claims that tend to be a radical departure from the more conventional schools of though, which would make the need to be sure of veracity even greater[33]. It is for this reason that the cyclic referencing within the sources-- the Zeitgeist film citing Acharya S (a.k.a. Dorothy Murdock), who in turn cites Massey or Frazer, both of hainvg their own challenges in veracity (depending on the claim)-- cannot be considered independent review or verification.

Use of Confirmation Bias Instead of Proof

Similar to the above section, the film's tendency to make circular reference citations to previously published claims borders on tautology. Describing things in a similar manner does not necessarily make those things similar, and repeating a claim previously made by another author without adding new information or supporting the claim with actual evidence itself (and not simply the other author's words) does little to establish the validity of a claim. Considering the nature of the claims made in Zeitgeist it would seem reasonable to expect actual proofs stemming from actual culturally and historically relevant evidence, as opposed to quotes of multiple authors making similar claims (and rarely supplying evidence) or misleading language that foregoes cultural and historical context? The burden of proof is upon the film Zeitgeist to make its case, not on this site or any other source to disprove, since it is the film that has made the claims and supported it primarily with confirmations instead of actual evidence.

Slow or No Progression of Evidence

The entire film, understandably, is in a presentation format in order to make the concepts it conveys more accessible. However, within the presentation the film assumes the hypothesis as a given before leading the viewer through the process of evidence to progress the viewer toward the same conclusion as the movie's hypothesis. While attempting to guess why would only be speculation, the importance of having a clear and concise progression of evidence by which the claims can be followed, revisited, and verified outside of the film would have been key in supporting the films claims. Yet it fails to engage in this activity with the viewer, instead explaining everything with an assumed sense of authority and credence that, from the onset of the film, had yet to be earned from the viewer (or reader).

Vague and Untestable Criteria

The film makes very little attempt to establish a measurement by which its claims of correlation can be measured, and even by the vague list of properties given in the film the lists of correlations are inconsistent and often unverifiable. In many of the sources for the first section, usually quoted, paraphrased, or flashed on the screen quickly, are often themselves poorly sourced and lacking in sourcing to original materials from the religions and cultures that they are commenting on, instead offering their own interpretation of events. This is a problem in that, were someone willing to attempt to follow the claims through to the original cultures and religions to see the evidence for themselves, there is no path of evidence for that someone to follow left by those authors. Stating whether this was an intentional omission or an honest mistake on the parts of some of the authors would be speculation, but pointing out the difficulty in being able to clearly and independently verify the claims due to lack of clearly sourced originating evidence is significant throughout the Zeitgeist film as well as its sources.

Claims of Historical Correlation

One of the main alleged evidences of the Zeitgeist movie is that possible correlations between different mythologies between religions is representative of either direct or indirect influence. To present substance to this claim, the film attempts to link Christianity to practically every other religion that has existed throughout history. This "see what sticks" technique, while able to bring up either vague or random similarities, never bothers to actually provide any actual proof of such claims, neither in the film nor in the sources provided within the transcript. Stating that something is true because someone says something you wish to agree with-- as is the case with a large percentage of the sources provided by the film-- is no different in methodology than religious apologetics, which are exactly the kinds of techniques the film claims to be speaking out against as fraud or wanton deciet. This hypocrisy aside, Some of the alleged claims are listed below:

Horus and Jesus

Before we begin examining Horus, it should be noted that the name "Horus" in Egyptian mythology and literature stood for many things[34], but mostly stood as a reference to the sitting pharaoh's divinity[35]
[37]. Basically, Horus was an invocation used to connect people (like the pharaoh) and things (like the sunrise and sunset, or the importance of a place) to divinity, having many different meanings depending on on the context of the reference to the name. This should be kept in mind when references to Horus are made, especially when claims connecting Horus to other gods are made, because "Horus" was a fluid anthropomorphosis of a divine aspect and not a single, static character within Egyptian mythology.

The claims made in the film regarding Horus are all of either questionable or outright lacking credibility, or are made up of mistranslations or deceiving interpretations of the mythologies involving Horus within Egyptian literature or other archaeological evidence. The main source for these claims tend to be Gerald Massey or Dorothy Murdock (a.k.a. Acharya S), who in turn relies on Massey's claims as her evidence. Unfortunately, Massey never provided actual textual or literal citations for independent verifications of his claims, and searching through the texts he claims to have been working from (the Ani Papyrus and several tomb writings, for example) turn up no evidence to back up his interpretations.

More information can be found on the Horus-Jesus_Correlations sub-page.

(Old Testament) Joseph and (New Testament) Jesus

Unlike the majority of the other correlations brought up in the film, this one is actually a valid one. However, the correlations mentioned within the film are somewhat superficial and flimsy, while the more academic correlations are ones that are quite valid. Joseph, the son of Jacob[38], is an Old Testament midrash that can be found in Genesis chapter 37[39] through Genesis chapter 50[40]. The film mentions the following parallels as significant "proof" of the movie's claims:

Other Mentions


Adonis, being a Greek import from its conquered Middle-Eastern territories (around modern-day Syria, Lebanon, and Israel), was allegedly based on the Hebraicized version of "the Lord" (Adonai, Hebrew: אֲדֹנָי) and the story of the Mesopotamian (Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian) god Tammuz[49]. The film only lists Adonis in a quick scrolling of names, some of which are duplicates of each other, and offers no actual explanation of why he is listed.

Adonis' mythology consisted of many different versions of stories, with varied and quite different accounts of his death and what happens afterward[50]. He represented eternal youth that dies and returns annually, but even this recurring rebirth story is seen as ending with a final demise[51], so it is unclear how the mythology of Adonis is meant to connect to Christianity, unless the viewer of the film (or, indeed, the reader of its sources) is expected to disregard the aspects of the Adonis myth that contradict alleged connections with Christianity, and only assume the one or two aspects that seem only partially similar.


Dumuzi is another name for Tammuz. See Tammuz for more.

Issa / Isa

This claim is taken direct from Dorothy Murdock (a.k.a. Acharya S): "The Arabian Issa purportedly lived around 400 BCE in the western Arabian region of Hijaz, where also existed places called Galilee, Bethsaida and Nazareth, a town that was not founded in Palestine until after "Jesus of Nazareth's" alleged era. The similarities between the Arabian Issa and the Palestinian Jesus are many and profound."[52]

Unfortunately, this claim is made without citation or any evidentiary material through which independent verification can be performed. The only similar claims to the ones made by Ms. Murdock have come in the form of claims that Jesus (or at least the story of Jesus) allegedly travelled through India and Tibet in the "lost years"[53], which tend to actually contradict claims (by Ms. Murdock and by the Zeitgeist film) that Jesus is a fictional or non-historic figure[54]. It would be highly unlikely that Ms. Murdock is referencing this Issa (or Saint Issa), however, because these references are talking about the very same Jesus that is described in the Christian Gospels. However, with no actual historical reference with which to compare and contrast, no proof of such a claim exists.

Speculation: This could also be a case of mistranslation on the part of Ms. Murdock or others, mistaking the name 'Issa' with one of the following:

  1. The god Assur, who may have been the personification of the city Assur of Assyria, and was later absorbed into both Sumerian and Babylonian mythologies and mixed with existing gods of those respective pantheons[55]
  2. The goddess Ishara, who to the Sumerians was a goddess of love and to Anatolians and northern Syrians was a goddess representative of the underworld[56]
  3. The god Isum, who was a popular but minor god in Sumer, often associated with the underworld[57]

Once again, however, it should be noted that none of these possibilities match the story and myth of Jesus, so these names may not be the basis from which Ms. Murdock or any other source for the Zeitgeist film came up with their claims. These possible references are being pointed out not to argue that they were the inspiration for the unsupported claims made by the film or the writers it sources, but to show that the most likely possible historical candidates fitting the same or similar name are not, in fact, supportive of the hypothesis put forth by Zeitgeist or its sources.


The mention of Tammuz (of Akkadian, Sumerian, and Babylonian origin) is an interesting one, mostly because the film's list states that Tammuz was a "savior god worshipped in Jerusalem." This is a blatant example of misinterpretation. Tammuz (Hebrew: תַּמּוּז) was called "Lord" which, in Hebrew, is the word "Adonai" (אֲדֹנָי). It is often cited that the name "Lord" used for Tammuz was likely later borrowed by the Jews when speaking about their god (YHWH, Hebrew: יהוה), whose name is forbidden to be pronounced aloud. Tammuz was probably worshipped in Jerusalem, but not any time even close to the Roman Empire and not by the Jews. This was a Babylonian god and, as of around 600 years Before Common Era (BCE), Jerusalem and Israel were conquered by Babylon.

While it is clear that Tammuz is states as a template for the Semitic-Hellenistic myth of Adonis[58], the best that the list flashed by in the film offers in correlation with Christianity is that Tammuz was worshipped in Jerusalem-- as many gods were at different points in history, which does not connect to anything-- and that Tammuz is somehow considered a "savior." However, the "savior" story of Tammuz deals explicitly with Inanna (also known as Ishtar), for whom he travels into the underworld to trade his own soul for the release of Inanna[59], who had ventured to the underworld to see her sister[60][61].

In all intellectual honesty, the only connection Tammuz has with Christianity is the use of the name "Lord" (Adonai or אֲדֹנָי) for both Tammuz and the Hebrew god. In this, it seems they only share a title ("Lord" or "Adonai") in common, which barely even qualifies for a tenuous correlation.

Correlation as Causation

It seems that most of the claims of correlation made within the film are presented in a manner to suggest that the creation and evolution of the Jesus mythology over the years have been taken primarily from these other myths. Leaving aside the questionable integrity of the claims or their mixed levels of validity, the fact remains that similarities alone would not necessarily imply any sort of causative relationship between the religions. Just because two religions have a deity or hero who is reborn does not necessarily imply that one of the two religions took from the other, or that they even developed their rebirth stories from the same source or context. This is a tactic used quite often in linguistic pseudoscientific claims, that similar-sounding words[66] imply some sort of originating relationship between languages, but this claim has been addressed on numerous occassions, both in dealing with individual words[67] and in dealing with phrases[68], and such claims are almost exclusively shown to be of dubious or questionable veracity. This is a good example of how the arguments of correlation as causation should be viewed with a reasonable amount of skepticism when direct connections are not described, and in the case of the claims within the Zeitgeist movie the claims are typically of questionable accuracy or validity on their own, not even counting their intended use as correlative conditions.

Correlations are not a completely useless method of determining a relationship between different things, but only if such correlations can withstand scrutiny and can display some sort of actual connection to suggest a relationship. Unfortunately, the Zeitgeist film not only fails to present correlations that can withstand scrutiny-- in fact, the majority of the claims are incredibly inaccurate or misleading-- but it also fails to establish any type of relationship between the various mythologies it presents in contrast to Christianity to imply sufficient reason to belileve that a relationship, causative or otherwise, actually existed.

'See What Sticks' Methodology

As evidenced in the sheer number of claims for correlation listed by the film itself, along with the random mixture of similarities in attributes listed by the film[69], the narrator of the film (and its sources) seem to take the figurative approach of tossing spaghetti against the wall and seeing what sticks in order to support their foregone conclusion, instead of using the evidences they present to actually build the conclusion from the ground up. Once again, even ignoring the mistranslations and misdirections made in the list of correlations, there still don't exist sufficient evidence that any one of the listed names stand up to a one-to-one comparison for correlations, and are instead quickly flashed across the screen in the movie without much exposition, expecting the viewer to take for granted that the claims of similarities are already proven instead of actually providing evidential information that gives credence to the claims.

This 'see what sticks' methodology is highly questionable at the very least, and is a red flag to the dubious level of intellectual honesty taking place otherwise.

Mixed Signals

A quote from the website:
"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."

Unfortunately, this hope has not been realized. Moreso, Mr. Joseph himself seems to be promoting his film as an "awakening" and a "revolution"[71], which seems to send a mixed message. If this film isn't meant to be taken as truth, then what exactly makes it revolutionary or cause for an awakening? That certainly seems like a question whose answer may be helpful to understand not only how this film should be taken, but why it seems to be presented in such an authoritative fashion even though the "not take what is said in this film as the truth" disclaimer is plainly made. Until such a clarification can be made explaining otherwise by Mr. Joseph regarding the level of authoritativeness of the claims in the film, the only recourse is to take the claims seriously and address them as the historical, allegorical, and logical fallacies that they actually are


No comments: