harder to pronounce, but I think she is pronouncing it correctly, I believe you have misspelled it. The way she pronounced it is exactly how I've heard others pronounce Zeitgeist. Not that I think that is a huge thing, but she is claiming she had some kind of editorial review of of zeitgeist.
It's pretty obvious that she feels left out and wants to claim credit for it, but I also think that as many ppl who have seen it, only a few swallowed it as fact.
And it is laughable for her to say there are no primary sources, but she and others who share her view are the only credible and objective experts. The fact is there are two sides of this, anyone who holds one view is biased to the other. She is as biased in her belief, as I am in mine as a Christian. To claim that others are biased but you are not when you hold an opposing view is intellectually dishonest...maybe with herself.
The point is that this idea was not original with her or the maker's of zeitgeist. I pointed out in my own research that there are several self-acclaimed experts who wrote about this, one at the turn of the 20th century named Massey.
The Fatal Flaw In Zeitgeist Jesus is a Myth Theories
So much was this type of mechanism popular among skeptics and Bible scholars alike, that a man wrote an article mid 20th Century, debunking them both. (Bible Scholars use it when they read headlines in the middle east and attribute it to ancient prophecies from the OT). It discredited the idea such associations prove any relationship outside of their own minds:
"There was a Rabbi who taught at the University of Chicago named Samuel [Sam] Mill, who wrote a very interesting article called, Parallel-a-mania. And in this article, he took biblical scholars to task, basically because they so delighted in finding similarities or parallels to the Bible, outside the Bible, but they tended not to also look at the differences. And, if you combine the similarities with the differences, generally speaking, these extra biblical parallels become much less significant than what one might think when one reads some breathless academic account that we've discovered a parallel to Jesus in the story of Hercules."
Carl Jung and other psychologists refer to this as apophenia , and explains it as something the mind wants to associate. "Coincidental events seem related but are not explained by conventional mechanisms of causality and are the result of the mind's tendency to think it recognizes patterns amid disorder by discarding data that does not fit."
So this was not new with Acharaya (or however you spell that chick's name), nor is it evidence of much more than emphasizing the few similarities while dismissing the vast amounts of differences-even not being honest about them...which is more evidence of a bias. She is simply borrowing from a few other guys, who earlier experts have refuted, and shown that the similarities pointed out are absurd if truly examined (Son vs. Sun is the most notable) It is this scrutiny that is causing her to prop up Zeitgeist. She needs to dismiss primary sources, bc she herself is a secondary source commentator.
She's playing off of ppl's ignorance, and the refutation is now beginning to call into question her works as well. This is in several parts, and is but one of the debunkers of Zeitgeist (there are many). The truth is that several folks have refuted this line of reasoning, and it is an old argument crouched in newer conspiracy theories (even used as evidence of the newer ones, lol):
Man neither chooses physical life, nor does he choose spiritual life. Both are gifts from God.
edited to HTMLize link, because post was scrolling way over to the right.
This message has been edited by Oscar50 on May 10, 2008 10:22 PM
However, she still pronounces it incorrectly as most English speaking people do. It's a German word, and that's probably why it bothers me to here the Z pronounced like it is in zoo.
German z
ts
Zeit (TSITE), like ts in "cats"; never like an English soft z (as in "zoo")
But that's all beside the point .. just a personal annoyance for me. lol.
Yes, there is nothing original about what Acharaya is saying, just as the Da Vinci code was based on newer references like Holy Blood and Holy Grail, which were based on older books. I have a book first published in around 1920 by Edward Carpenter, as well having read Wheless's books, published around 1930. As you say, nothing new.
My views on this stuff has some commonality with Acharaya et al, but I tend to believe that Jesus really existed, but that he was fairly normal, another in a line of would be messiahs, and one whom the Church adopted later and grafted the Christ Mythos onto. I think the church also expunged a lot of historical data regarding Jesus, because it contradicted the whole God Man thing that they were trying to erect.
Ultimately though what is important is the moral teachings, in my view. Which really is reduced to love. Love of neighbour, love of enemy, and I believe through that implicity, is loving God. We love God by loving others.
Yes, that should have been obvious, although I wouldn't have ever recognized the correct German pronunciation. Everyone I've heard pronounce it so far is pronouncing it just like her. I thought you meant it should have been pronounced Zeit-jest. LOL!
So what does Zeitgeist mean anyway? I didn't think about that at the time, but now that you point out it's German roots...
I don't disagree with all of what Archarya says about organized religion. I do think she takes on a bit of a martyred status that is self-inflicted, and then hates others' for their beliefs. Plus she is very arrogant on her board, and has a pretty hefty following of sheep who worship her, as a guru of religious proportion.
But still, all of that to say, that she does make some points about religion that are valid. Although I don't come to some of her conclusions, and think Zeitgeist is chalk full of nonsense about the Bible being based on the zodiac, and other very obscure associations they try to link together, I think it is a helpful tool, to make ppl delve into the facts of what they believe instead of just taking someone else's word for it.
Although, as I've noted, you and I are the only ones who give a rip van winkle about this movie. LOL.
