That may be so, but does not entirely make sense. Actually it sounds like he is backtracking, the sort of thing shaky politicians would say about something in their past they no longer agree with- something you can probably witness much of on the news lately. The movies all with the title Zeitgeist in them, including the first film, and the movement itself is called the Zeitgeist movement. It's a bit confusing don't you think? Are you telling me the first film is for entertainment purposes then? How does the Zeitgeist movement not criticize religion?
There's nothing wrong with criticizing religion reasonably, but as I mentioned of the practice above with interest law. There is this article which describes some of what I'm talking about as advantages to ethical banking: Islamic finance: the future of banking? (15/04/2016) - Vita International
Although it actually is not limited to Islam. The same moral code was supposed to be practiced in Judaism and Christianity. In this interview with Jimmy Carter he talks about his volunteer humanitarian housing program: https://www.thisoldhouse.com/ideas/i...w-jimmy-carter
Are there any government policies we could push or that can be championed — or actually changed — to help this goal?
A: One thing that I've always pursued in this country (I did it when I was president, by the way, but that was in ancient times), but in some countries, for instance, I remember in Peru, we got the president of Peru to come with me when I visited the big projects there. And later they provided all the materials that any homeowner would need for a house. And the people would pay for the materials, but they charged a real low interest rate, like 3 percent. And then they would have one building supervisor who would maybe work with 20 different families in a general community, and teach them how to lay blocks, and how to square up the corners and how to build a roof truss and how to put it on and that sort of thing.
3 percent is still interest but at least an attempt at more ethical banking. He talked about it as well in this interview Jimmy Carter Pt. 2-The Colbert Report - Video Clip | Comedy Central where in these cases they charged no interest, and mentioning the Bible was his inspiration for that.
There are other positive points and ethics to draw from religion that has shaped humanity over time. I think it is pretty clear the movement criticizes religion as a whole with the first film. Just saying that it has nothing to do with the movement, doesn't really make sense. It is as if you want me to imagine that film was never made.
I think you guys would be better off criticizing the negative aspects of religion and capitalism, and not generalize them as wrong as a whole. As well as many of the principles of religion are actually fairly healthy for civilization, and those are often not practiced or those who claim to practice them are not, making them hypocrites. I brought up Jimmy Carter as an exception, as he is in his post-presidency a pretty decent guy. He was one of the few that firmly opposed the Iraq war early on and didn't change his mind. The other folks I'm referring to are the vast majority of politicians who claim religious inspiration, and based on their actions are the hypocrites I'm talking about. That could be clergymen as well, or whoever has important social positions in society and do not practice their proposed ideals genuinely. That does not mean the ideals themselves are wrong, but there are plenty of liars throughout history and history itself has been often told as a lie.
I think why you're confused here is because you're thinking that the First Z Film was made for the purpose of promoting an already established Movement. But in fact, things developed in the Opposite way. The First Film was a Personal project done by P.J. himself expressing his own Religious understandings. It had no plan of forming a Movement. That came Afterwards based on the Socioeconomic parts of the Films. The Movement as a whole holds no views on Religion. Any Religious person can be part of the Movement. TZM is basically focusing mainly on Economic issues. Any criticism of Religion is solely the beliefs of that individual and Not representative of the Movement.
But we do criticize the Capitalist System. The problem with it goes way deeper than Interest Rates or Ethical Standards. Capitalism is Unsustainable & Scarcity Driven among many other failures. You could still have a System that's 'more' ethical with lower Interest Rates but you will still have things like Economic Inequalities, Social Divisions, Resource Waste, Scarcity, Incompetent Leaders, Exploitation and on and on because you're still operating under a Monetary System which creates these type of inefficiencies in the Socioeconomic environment.
You can try and make a Monetary System more ethical but you can't make them operate based on Fundamental ehtical principles because they are still based on Competition for Scarce Resources. The only way I can see this being done is to move away from Monetary Economics to a more Fully Automated Economic System that Removes the Need for Human Competition, Class Division.
yeah it is confusing but it is part of the evolution of both TZM and peter joseph as described in the interview below. i take back what i said about the first movie , because i do think its part of TZM, at least what it was in 2007. part of tzm message is that people can change and its not a bad thing but can be a positive thing.
Originally Posted by anwiya
there are hundreds of videos and a full book by joseph , can you refer to him talking negatively about religion since 2009?
I'm not confused. Here let me make it fairly simply to understand using a comparison to the current presidential elections.
Originally Posted by Ernest
Donald Trump did something strange and uncharacteristic of being a leader in his past (associated with racist leaders, abused women, dodged taxes- pick one). He defends himself when accused by either ignoring it, or his supporters say it doesn't matter because that's when he wasn't a politician but a business.
I am actually comparing you to someone as incompetent as Donald Trump, because the logic you give to explain this is about the same. You either stand by the material in the first film or not, but it doesn't really make sense. It shares the same name of the movement, yet it's not relevant to the movement. I don't really care how many times you try and explain the movement around it, it doesn't really make sense. I think the vast majority of people here would stand by the information given in the first film anyway. If you mention zeitgeist films in casual conversation by the way, most people either know this movement doesn't exist, or they know it for the first film.
The monetary system is as ethical as it gets. You're talking about a hypothetical system, and have no idea if it actually would work or be more ethical. It really just sounds like you want the world to be convenient and the earth to revolve around man's needs and desires. Hey this is a heliocentric model of the universe and the world's resources don't revolve around you. Some of the logic behind this movement actually seems primitive and naive.
If that part of the 1st Film offended you then that's between You & the Producer of the Film. To say that all other subject matter of this Movement is 'similar' in message is quite a primitive & naive way of thinking. Do you believe in Everything your favorite Politicians, Movies, Organizations etc.. say? I hope not and of course we don't either. But if you do and Can't separate from what is being said and what is the Overall Crucial message & idea then I guess you will stay stuck in your own Identity Politics and quickly jump to illogical conclusions when something offends or confuses you. The fact is, if you Can't see above Religion at this time, you're limiting yourself to other possibilities out there and just might not be ready for this type of Change right now. And I apologize for that.
The Movement Explicitly tries to explain in all the information it shares that it's a Sustainability Group and nothing else. How can we provide Everyone with Life Needs that doesn't harm the Environment. Religion here is of no real significance because it's Unscientific and doesn't offer the necessary information on how to build a Sustainable Economy. And if you really believe that our Monetary System is as "Ethical" as it gets, then I would argue that you Don't really understand what Ethics are and how our Monetary System Fails us Terribly at this. It sounds really like you're just fine with the whole Capitalist model & Value System which is what we are all basically trying to Change.
That's pretty condescending, you're limiting yourself to missing the value of ethics in the past, which is sometimes called postmodernism. Actually science and religion are not separate entities, that is a product of dualism philosophy. You think I don't know what science is like because I don't hate religion? I've been aware of this movement for many years. There is a natural ethics to money and the markets. That's where I come back to economics, which was the original subject of this post. So if the market is not ethical enough for you, what you are talking about is regulation- in other words, socialism, or communism.
Originally Posted by Ernest
"Religion here is of no real significance", ok perhaps in these forums it is not. Then if you're okay with that, your idealistic bubble is as far as you will ever get. Religion is of significance in the world, just about everywhere. Arguing with me is not the point, I'm merely pointing the flaws of such a movement. Trying to ignore something that is a driving force for civilization and human behavior since the dawn of civilization is not a successful strategy.
Perhaps I have a greater understanding of ethics than you do, to realize that in an imperfect system, people can remain ethical, believing in the free will of individual, the God given free-will if you are religious, or merely the free-will triumph over determinism in philosophy. Either way, the point was not to argue personally or say who is smarter than the other, and I believe this thread has come full circle now. There are plenty of religious people who are brilliant, and there are plenty of scientists who behave religiously about their field, and are blind sighted to alternative theories. Arguably, we don't even live in a capitalist system anymore, but that's another topic entirely of itself. I believe in a material world that is flawed, much as described in Buddhism, and other religions, and seeking perfection in an imperfect dimension it is a lost cause. The very fibers and physics of this dimension are meant to be as it is. You can figure that out yourself or try and prove it wrong, that's your free-will.
Dear anwiya, do you believe in evolution? I believe in constant change. Society is also in constant change. It is also true that one can always improve. This forum/movement is about getting a better social climate, a better world for us to live in. Not perfect, only better -- perhaps vastly so.
Sorry if it sounded like I'm attacking Religion but that really is not what I'm arguing about here or rarely anywhere these days. Personally, I respect what Religion is trying to do as far as Morals & Ethics go. But for me being more of a Spiritual/Natural World kind of person, I believe in what I can observe,understand about the World through my own critical investigation. Religion is fine in a principled kind of way but all that really won't matter if the Socioeconomic Environment is influencing people to behave in contrast to that as all Religions & their followers demonstrate on a regular basis today. So I really don't see it as a Religious problem here but one of Mostly Economics that is influencing & shaping the way these established Institutions like Religion are being carried out. That's pretty much the way I feel about this area in general.
Regarding your Economic views. I get the feeling that you believe we can 'fix' Capitalism today because it's broken I guess and that you still have some hope that it could work for Everyone and better the World as a whole. So when you say something like this "There is a natural ethics to money and the markets". Can you elaborate what you mean here?
I'd like to apologize on behalf of the fellow people here who seem to be so incapable of treating you with the utmost respect you so clearly deserve. Time and again they have tried to communicate that they did not mean any harm and yet they clearly failed at this, as they are clearly just acting in condescending manners. Your presence here ought to be enough to make them feel empowered and inspired by your wise words, and of course anything you say is clearly light years beyond us all.
So here is my humble attempt at trying to beseech thee oh great and wise Anwiya please do not make any more threads if even the slightest response that does not open up with some variation of "you are so smart" will trigger some kind of response from you that opens up with " you are all just so condescending". If you are this insecure then perhaps it's not the internet you need to spend time on.
You mention being a former president tell me then now that you know of this movement and others like it, and you still have some influence in politics why not try to implement at least the stuff you agree with or is it simply too much work to strive for a better tomorrow? IS it just so much easier to lay back and point fingers at all the idealists as being in the land of fantasy? And to point fingers at all your naysayers as being condescending?
Last edited by TheGreatDimov; 10-21-2016 at 04:40 AM.
Reason: missed a sentence to add
Originally Posted by anwiya
So talking about the debt clock comes full circle with religion? And yet you have the audacity to proclaim that " you may have a better understanding", becasue oh yeah the person who is insecure about every posting form others is clearly the one who is wiser right?
Anyway just my two cents.
P.S. How you respond to my posts will show what you really are trying to do (post meaningful discussion) OR (just complain)?