A Zeitgeist discussion

First time I'm gonna try this blogging thing. I actually did this on one of those social networking sites (one of those older ones - hell, I am not really updated on the newer ones - like I care).

Anyhow, a small discussion has started in one of the e-groups that I am a part of. Instead of wasting my friends' email space by replying there, I would opt to share my thoughts here instead.

I am not sure if you guys have heard of Zeitgeist. It is a nice movie/documentary. It features (basically could be considered as) a conspiracy theory. Watch Video

What makes it interesting, IMHO, is that how it structured its points. From trying to discredit Christianity (part one: the greatest story ever told) - wherein it states that Christianity basically plagiarizes the other religions as the stories that Christianity uses are derived from other stories (Hindi, Greek, etc), which then originated from pagan deities. That Christianity (a myth) was created and used by the Romans then to control their society. And through the use of power, persuasion, and belief, makes Christianity - through the Vatican - a very strong element in order to influence society until today.

Then on with Parts 2 and 3, wherein it built the premise that major events (those of which the US is involved) are just for show: the US participation in WWI and WWII, its war on terror (triggered by the 9-11 attacks), and the great depression (?). These were done in order for certain banking clans to benefit - whether financially or amassing more power (from buying off banks, to bankrolling war funds, to monopolizing oil, etc).

I am not really a fan of going to churches, hearing masses, witnessing religious fanatics put all their faith (rather blindly) to JC and doing nothing and just relying on his omnipresence. Sheeesshh...that is pathetic. But I don't see myself as an aethiest (nor I don't see myself as becoming one - ever). But, let us say I'd like to keep my options open. That's why we have brains for - to think, to explore options. Hence, I became hooked on Zeitgeist from the start, thinking that this is really an interesting watch.

The way that it structured its "truths" is really logical (IMHO). If you might notice, I've placed quotation marks on the previous statement, because those ideas mentioned there could not be proved - neither publicly nor in the court of law; definitely not in our lifetime.

Nevertheless, true or not, the way that ideas were presented were quite logical. Unlike the ideas presented in other publications - hmmm..like...the bible? The director of the movie may be some naysayer or could be an ordinary pessimistic guy who - just for the heck of it - constructed fine pieces of a puzzle which actually fit (again logically) as he narrated the story. And that is a definite upgrade from those "religious" personalities telling their own stories. Oh yes, I'm talking to you Mike Velarde, and you, the founder of Iglesia ni Cristo (that Manalo guy), and other leaders/founders of these sects. Darn, why weren't I born witty and charismatic, I could have created my own fellowship/church, and make serious money. I tell you, religion is definitely a powerful and a serious-money making tool. ** Sigh **

But going back, once my interest was piqued by how the movie started, it actually built on that foundation. The way society was - and is - being controlled; how the emotions of the public are being played upon. And when it featured the "staged" 9-11 crash. I went like "Hey, I may be dumb at physics and the other sciences, and definitely forensics, but the way it featured their facts, it seemed waayyyy logical to me". The fact that there were no plane pieces from the crash - that I'd like to research more about. The team from CSI New York should have at least taken a look at the rubble (that was a lame attempt at a joke - forget it).

The documentary, as a whole, is very, very interesting. But you should have an open mind when you'd watch it. As a friend told us "that we should take all those presented with a grain of salt" - I am not exactly sure what that means. I just assumed that it has the same context - not to thoroughly believe on what were said.

Those who are not open-minded (I guess) could not finish the first part, as it would be challenging their faith. That's alright, no one's forcing anyone. And those who are actually interested are not really pessimists (more like being realistic). It would not really mean abandoning common sense and believing in this whole brouhaha wholeheartedly - as contrite and logical it may seem. (oh yes El Shaddai followers, I'm talking to you - that type of support defies common sense - sheeesh....use your brains for once!).

Furthermore, it doesn't mean abandoning the optimist, the dreamer in us. The more people think, the more they would weigh things, their pros and cons. The more they would want to know the "truth" - be it of different versions, which would actually help them in the long run. And not just be blinded by either side. That's why I've kept on repeating the word 'logical'. As at most, the whole theory is believable. Because, a conspiracy theory, basically is just another theory. A thought.

I raised this question in that discussion as well. If we were introduced to these such theories when we were younger. Wherein our faith was just starting, would our perception of reality be different from what it is today?

Think about it.