NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, well, well, the contraversial movie, the Da Vinci Code, based off the popular book, is about to be released, and what do ya know, theres some controversy. The Catholic Church is calling for members to avoid seeing the movie and not to read the book. Also they are turning out tons of pamphlets and such that refutes the theme of the book. In case you don't know, the book's plot revovles around a deep dark secret held by the catholic church. The book is fictional but the Church holds that it is still wrong to create such a plot that tears down the Church. Well, I want to know what people think. Is the movie bad, should we avoid it, do you think that there is a secret, and well just tell me what you think.

It's not true. It's in the fiction section. Nuff said.

The book is really more fiction than fact, but I don't deny that Jesus could have a wife. Our Seminary Teacher told us: "See it if you want, but just take it a good story."

The book is really more fiction than fact, but I don't deny that Jesus could have a wife. Our Seminary Teacher told us: "See it if you want, but just take it a good story."
Yea my R.E teacher said a similar thing.. "I'll be seeing it for entertainments sake. It's a good piece of fictional writing"

The Da Vinci Code just expands upon the classic "lineage of Jesus" conspiracy, but it is actually popular so the Catholic Church has its panties all in a bunch.

I think that this is, like so many things, being blown WAY out of proportion.
Anyone who's thick enough to not know it's a piece of fiction yet self-proclaimed smart enough to read a book is a paradox on their own.
Anyone who's faith can be shaken up enough by a book that fictionalizes a theory has bigger problems than Dan Brown and the movie his book will be made into.
I think that the Christians need to calm down bad, because while they haven't got to the point of burning down embassies yet, if I were Dan Brown I'd be hiring a vigilante group to protect me for a while.
That being said, it is not their business what anybody reads, so they have no right to prohibit Christians from reading it (if they don't have enough faith to stand by their religion despite a book then they're not even heaven-bound to begin with, considering how weak their faith is), and I have no idea why they're shitting over non-Christians reading it (it's not like they're losing faith anyhow, and if they don't understand that it's fiction then they're a lost cause).
Why can't we all just get along? You know, Karl Marx may have been a bit too extreme for my taste, but he had it right when he said that "religion is the opiate of the people".

The Da Vinci Code just expands upon the classic "lineage of Jesus" conspiracy, but it is actually popular so the Catholic Church has its panties all in a bunch.
Yeah, even though I dislike dan brown and his writing it makes me want to see it just to spite that bunch of assholes

I am going to see it.

If the Church calls for a boycott, I must.... ;)

I am going to see it.

If the Church calls for a boycott, I must.... ;)
Does not hurt that my GF wants to go see it too

Personally, I think it's funny to see how irritable the Church has become over the years. Are people not allowed to dislike Christianity and actually say so?

I also really, REALLY enjoyed the book, even if it was just because the puzzles and hints and clues gave my brain a teaser that I love. :p

Now, like it has been said before, if the Church can't handle it's followers reading a simple book - and having the kind of reaction that they are - then I think they're worried about something in there. Maybe it's losing some 'potential' followers? Maybe because there are a few good points brought up in the book? I mean, if it's just fiction, why make such a fuss? There've been so many examples throughout histroy of people trying to put down or demonize people and/or organizations. Most of the stuff used to put them down is completely made up and fictitious. But if this Da Vinci Code is making the Church so anxious, then is there something true in there (or maybe just an incling of possible truth) that they don't want anyone to see? Conspiracy theorists, I leave YOU to discover the ultimate truth. :rolleyes:

I'll admit this, though; I'm an Athiest. I believe in scientific truth, and I can't really imagine what this world would be like - for me - if it truly were created by the Lord. That's a failing on my part, because that means I can't see things from a religious perspective very well. :confused:

Anyway, summing up all that; I am just very curious as to why the Church - who has helped so many people across the world and grown beyond a religious faith - would be so tussled up about a simple, fictional novel. This boycott they're promoting is a very questionable request on their part, I think. Suspicious behaviour.

Personally, I think it's funny to see how irritable the Church has become over the years. Are people not allowed to dislike Christianity and actually say so?

I also really, REALLY enjoyed the book, even if it was just because the puzzles and hints and clues gave my brain a teaser that I love. :p

Now, like it has been said before, if the Church can't handle it's followers reading a simple book - and having the kind of reaction that they are - then I think they're worried about something in there. Maybe it's losing some 'potential' followers? Maybe because there are a few good points brought up in the book? I mean, if it's just fiction, why make such a fuss? There've been so many examples throughout histroy of people trying to put down or demonize people and/or organizations. Most of the stuff used to put them down is completely made up and fictitious. But if this Da Vinci Code is making the Church so anxious, then is there something true in there (or maybe just an incling of possible truth) that they don't want anyone to see? Conspiracy theorists, I leave YOU to discover the ultimate truth. :rolleyes:

I'll admit this, though; I'm an Athiest. I believe in scientific truth, and I can't really imagine what this world would be like - for me - if it truly were created by the Lord. That's a failing on my part, because that means I can't see things from a religious perspective very well. :confused:

Anyway, summing up all that; I am just very curious as to why the Church - who has helped so many people across the world and grown beyond a religious faith - would be so tussled up about a simple, fictional novel. This boycott they're promoting is a very questionable request on their part, I think. Suspicious behaviour.


Well they have freaked out over many pieces of fiction ... hell look at what they did with hary potter.

They seem to like to freak out, this hardly shows that they are trying to cover something up that is being released in this movie.

Personally, I think it's funny to see how irritable the Church has become over the years. Are people not allowed to dislike Christianity and actually say so?

Well, I think the Church is a bit less irritable that it used to be. I mean, this isn't exactly the cruades or the inquisition.

Well, I think the Church is a bit less irritable that it used to be. I mean, this isn't exactly the cruades or the inquisition.

Point taken. As far as I know, they haven't actually executed anyone for a good while now. But oh boy, if Dan Brown wrote Da Vinci back in the Medieval times, would HE be up for a hanging! :D

Well, I think the Church is a bit less irritable that it used to be. I mean, this isn't exactly the cruades or the inquisition.

They have no choice. The goverments grew and stopped taking their advice in such matters.

But if this Da Vinci Code is making the Church so anxious, then is there something true in there (or maybe just an incling of possible truth) that they don't want anyone to see? Conspiracy theorists, I leave YOU to discover the ultimate truth. :rolleyes:


Anyway, summing up all that; I am just very curious as to why the Church - who has helped so many people across the world and grown beyond a religious faith - would be so tussled up about a simple, fictional novel. This boycott they're promoting is a very questionable request on their part, I think. Suspicious behaviour.

Allow me to give the first conspiracy theory.

The Da Vinci Code is untrue and has no real secrets which the church wants hidden. In fact the Da Vinci Code theory is a red herring put out by the catholic church. The church is intentionally acting weird about it purely to get the wisend skeptics like yourself to look so closely at the DaVinci theory that you dont actually investigate the real secrets the church wants to keep hidden. Someone was getting close to the truth so this wicked ruse was employed.
I for one shall be doubling up the tinfoil on my hat at least until DVD sales of the Da Vinci code taper off.

If Dan Brown had been alive in Medieval Times I doubt very much if he would have known who Leonardo Da Vinci was........

Allow me to give the first conspiracy theory.

The Da Vinci theory is untrue and has no real secrets which the church wants hidden. In fact the Da Vinci theory is a red herring put out by the catholic church. The church is intentionally acting weird about it purely to get the wisend skeptics like yourself to look so closely at the DaVinci theory that you dont actually investigate the real secrets the church wants to keep hidden. Someone was getting close to the truth so this wicked ruse was employed.
I for one shall be doubling up the tinfoil on my hat at least until DVD sales of the Da Vinci code taper off.
http://www.minionware.com/KAIA/COPYRIGHT-2005-2006-MINIONWARE-DOT-COM.jpg

If Dan Brown had been alive in Medieval Times I doubt very much if he would have known who Leonardo Da Vinci was........

And your point is.....

All I really have to say is thank goodness this isn't against Muslims or half the world would be in flames by now. :D

http://www.minionware.com/KAIA/COPYRIGHT-2005-2006-MINIONWARE-DOT-COM.jpg

You too huh?

You too huh?
Yup :) ... me and my bud

http://mishami.image.pbase.com/u19/twwilliams/upload/36310024._MG_1536.jpg

All I really have to say is thank goodness this isn't against Muslims or half the world would be in flames by now. :D


I can forsee a certain documentary film maker making Bowling for Allah

Yup :) ... me and my bud

http://mishami.image.pbase.com/u19/twwilliams/upload/36310024._MG_1536.jpg

Im forbidden from seeing that pic. Probably the CIA and trilateral commission blocking my connection again.

I quite love how many people that were in favour of teaching ID in science class, using the same sort of "facts", "reasoning" and "deduction" as found in the da Vinci code, are suddenly all in favour of accuracy and truthful representation of facts.

Too bad it mainly influences the Catholic Church though, which at least in that debate was quite reasonable :(

The uproar over this is ridiculous. Dan Brown states in the preface to the novel that the work is fiction.

I always think it's funny when the Church advocates against something like this, as if none of its members can think or critically analyze alternative theories (or in this case, a fictitious novel). The church I attend (Protestant) actually advocated reading the book and then held a series of discussions based on what was presented in the book versus what is presented in the Bible. Rather than inhibit critical thinking and promote ignorant naivete (as the Church seems to be doing), these discussions were enlightening. The book can be enjoyed without undermining faith.

I understand the desire of the Church to protect its members from "blasphemy", but this is fiction.

Allow me to give the first conspiracy theory.

The Da Vinci Code is untrue and has no real secrets which the church wants hidden. In fact the Da Vinci Code theory is a red herring put out by the catholic church. The church is intentionally acting weird about it purely to get the wisend skeptics like yourself to look so closely at the DaVinci theory that you dont actually investigate the real secrets the church wants to keep hidden. Someone was getting close to the truth so this wicked ruse was employed.
I for one shall be doubling up the tinfoil on my hat at least until DVD sales of the Da Vinci code taper off.

Man...that's a GOOD theory! :eek:

For the record, though, I am totally NOT a 'wisend skeptic'. I am simply a non-believer, and it's in my personality to jump on new ideas. Unfortunately, I jump quite quickly, without looking at all the angles...dagnabbit.

Regardless, those are neat thoughts, for sure. I shall now act on your theory and fly to Italy, make a surprise visit to the halls of the Vatican under the cover of night, and discover the REAL truths behind the Church!

Or I'll wait until someone makes a movie about the truths. That way, I can have popcorn too. :D

Dan Brown is one of the finest perpetuators of gimmickry ever.

I shall now act on your theory and fly to Italy, make a surprise visit to the halls of the Vatican under the cover of night, and discover the REAL truths behind the Church!



The truth is out there. Watch out for the Swiss guard. They may be dressed oddly but they are quite dangerous. They are regular clown-ninjas

http://galen-frysinger.com/european_train/stpeters04.jpg

http://galen-frysinger.com/european_train/stpeters04.jpg[/QUOTE]

THAT...is one imposing clown. :eek:

I think I'm going to invest in the Swiss Bank. With guards like that watching my stuff, I will sleep very soundly at night.

Are people not allowed to dislike Christianity and actually say so?

Are people not allowed to dislike black people and actually say so?

Are people not allowed to dislike black people and actually say so?

Sorry mate; race and religion are two very, very different topics. You can say you don't believe in something.

Yea my R.E teacher said a similar thing.. "I'll be seeing it for entertainments sake. It's a good piece of fictional writing"


A bit like the bible then, although slightly better written.

The uproar over this is ridiculous. Dan Brown states in the preface to the novel that the work is fiction.


And he has stated in interviews that he believes the tripe he writes.

And he has stated in interviews that he believes the tripe he writes.
Well, he would as it no doubt helps the sales of his books.

Personally, I don't think I'll go see it. I found the writing pretty dreadful but thought it'd make a decent action movie. But the more one reads of the mistakes in the book, the less one feels inclined to go watch it.

I'm not talking about the religious stuff here either. I mean pretty much everything he wrote was made up - including the stuff that was meant to be hard facts.
For eg, when Sophie grabs the other DaVinci painting to use as protection for her and Langdon. One problem: The painting in question is nearly 2m high in a very heavy wooden frame, weighing a couple of hundred pounds. I'd love to see Audrey Tautou rip that from the wall and run off with it. (Actually, I'd love to see Audrey Tautou rip her clothes off and run around my flat, but I digress)
I understand the geography of Paris is wrong in the book also. And near the end, the Scottich church where it all comes together - it wasn't built/commissioned/paid for by the Knights Templars as is stated in the book. They had nothing to do with it.

Basically, Brown just changed any and every fact as he saw fit. Nothing wrong with that per se, except he goes on and on about how meticulously well-researched and accurate the book is.

I just don't feel like contributing to such a hack author.

Personally, I think it's funny to see how irritable the Church has become over the years. Are people not allowed to dislike Christianity and actually say so?


People can dislike it all they want. But they can't really go and blatantly misrepresnent its history.

People can dislike it all they want. But they can't really go and blatantly misrepresnent its history.
Its FICTION

Its published as fiction and marketed as fiction ... the book is hardly trying to be passed off as reality. Yet that bunch of idiots still has problems with it.

I personaly dont even like the book, but it is still silly for them to find exception with it

I am not going to see this heretical movie, an I beg all good Chrisitans to do the same. Even as fiction, it is a direct attack on the Catholic Church, and Dan Brown should have placed a disclaimer in his book. Oh, by the way, Opus Dei is suing the production company if they do not place a disclaimer on the movie. Again, I beg all good chrisitians to turn from the heretical piece of work.

A bit like the bible then, although slightly better written.
Actually, everything in the Bible can be proven by history, unlike Dan Brown's heresy.

Is the movie bad, should we avoid it, do you think that there is a secret, and well just tell me what you think.
I do not know if the movie is good, decent or terrible. It is not out yet.
Secrets are fun. Everyone likes a good story. As far the Knights Templar concealing something like that I highly doubt it. It is like saying that the fighting order managed to cross the Atlantic before Columbus. We cannot prove or disprove it.
I will most likely see the movie at some point.

Anyone who actually belives all of the BS put into his book, have you ever considered that the Holy Grail was *gasp* A GRAIL?!?!?! No that's impossible you say, well, perhaps it was the GRAIL used by Christ at the last supper? No, waaaaayyyyy to simple. Besides lets not forget the evil, evil Templars who, oh wait. The templars NEVER ONCE betrayed Christendom, and became so powefull because of their INTELLIGENCE and SKILL, not because they blackmailed the Catholic Church. They where killed by a corrupt French King who owed them a fortune and didn't want to pay up, and that is FACT.

I am not going to see this heretical movie, an I beg all good Chrisitans to do the same. Even as fiction, it is a direct attack on the Catholic Church, and Dan Brown should have placed a disclaimer in his book. Oh, by the way, Opus Dei is suing the production company if they do not place a disclaimer on the movie. Again, I beg all good chrisitians to turn from the heretical piece of work.
Lol the catholic church deserves to be attacked some. Got to keep em as honest as we can

Its FICTION

Its published as fiction and marketed as fiction ... the book is hardly trying to be passed off as reality. Yet that bunch of idiots still has problems with it.

I personaly dont even like the book, but it is still silly for them to find exception with it
Actually, it is marketed as HISTORICAL fiction, and Dan Brown himself asserts this constantly. For this reason, it is heresy of the highest order, a direct attack on the Divine Son of God, Jesus Christ.

Actually, everything in the Bible can be proven by history, unlike Dan Brown's heresy.
What? Even Revelations?

Lol the catholic church deserves to be attacked some. Got to keep em as honest as we can
What ever happened to the good old days, when heretics where killed on the spot...

What? Even Revelations?
Yes, it can. Historians documents match exactly to texts from both the New and Old Testaments. Revalations is proven by the fact that a man was EXILED to a small and DESERTED island, and came back PREACHING of the 2nd COMING!

What ever happened to the good old days, when heretics where killed on the spot...
We matured

snip
I like you. You're funny.

Actually, it is marketed as HISTORICAL fiction, and Dan Brown himself asserts this constantly. For this reason, it is heresy of the highest order, a direct attack on the Divine Son of God, Jesus Christ.
Yes historical FICTION

It is FICTION about a historical place or charicter

Whats your point?

Yes, it can. Historians documents match exactly to texts from both the New and Old Testaments. Revalations is proven by the fact that a man was EXILED to a small and DESERTED island, and came back PREACHING of the 2nd COMING!
:D

Yes, it can. Historians documents match exactly to texts from both the New and Old Testaments. Revalations is proven by the fact that a man was EXILED to a small and DESERTED island, and came back PREACHING of the 2nd COMING!
What? I think Revelations is a methaphor of the Roman Empire from the perspective of the Early Christian communities. It can be proven that it was transcribed but the contents are - more or less - out there. Since it is officially considered a methaphor by the Catholic Church I do not really care about that book. It has given the Church a bad reputation in the long run.

I like you. You're funny.
Yeah he is the closest we have had to a good ol jesussaves in a long time

Its published as fiction and marketed as fiction ... the book is hardly trying to be passed off as reality. Yet that bunch of idiots still has problems with it.
Well, it's just been... what? 40 years? since they got rid of the Index, I guess they still haven't gotten used to the idea.

I do not encourage the boycott, it is a ridiculous measure, yet...

Imagine I write a book about a Rabbi that wants to take the world and uses a sinagogue fariseic assassin to achieve his means, a one-eyed assassin...Then comes the movie.

Imagine the repercussions...

They have a point in protesting, after all the muslims cremated things for some innocent cartoons...All they want is a "This story is fiction, not based in real facts" disclaimer. Not too much, if you think about it.

I am not going to see this heretical movie, an I beg all good Chrisitans to do the same.
Can we, good Atheists, see it?

I do not encourage the boycott, it is a ridiculous measure, yet...

Imagine I write a book about a Rabbi that wants to take the world and uses a sinagogue fariseic assassin to achieve his means, a one-eyed assassin...Then comes the movie.

Imagine the repercussions...

They have a point in protesting, after all the muslims cremated things for some innocent cartoons...All they want is a "This story is fiction, not based in real facts" disclaimer. Not too much, if you think about it.
Just because the muslems reaction was stupid does not make the churches stupid requests any less so

I think that the movie looks ok except that I don't think Tom Hanks fits Robert Langdon's part very well.

fiction - yes

however the church uproar is as much to downplay the horrible child molestation that they kept secret as to stop catholics from seeing the movie - a test as it were to see how their influence currently stands

opinions worth 2 nras or you get your own cup of coffee/tea/or church elder

Can we, good Atheists, see it?
I guess so ... he was already lamenting the good ol days when we were killed for speaking

Ironic that the position of the Catholic church on the interpretation on the bible is a liberal one. They admit it is not a historical book.

Yes historical FICTION

It is FICTION about a historical place or charicter

Whats your point?
the HISTORICAL part! That implies that at least part of the story is true! It portrays the faithful of Opus Dei as an evil fith colum of Catholicism. Dan Brown does NOTHING to rectify this heresy, and blatantly attacks the divine truth of Christ. He does not state that his theory is wild speculation. There is not fact in it whatsoever. Nice spelling BTW

the HISTORICAL part! That implies that at least part of the story is true! It portrays the faithful of Opus Dei as an evil fith colum of Catholicism. Dan Brown does NOTHING to rectify this heresy, and blatantly attacks the divine truth of Christ. He does not state that his theory is wild speculation. There is not fact in it whatsoever. Nice spelling BTW

HA! Oh the irony.

fith colum

the HISTORICAL part! That implies that at least part of the story is true! It portrays the faithful of Opus Dei as an evil fith colum of Catholicism. Dan Brown does NOTHING to rectify this heresy, and blatantly attacks the divine truth of Christ. He does not state that his theory is wild speculation. There is not fact in it whatsoever. Nice spelling BTW

If we are going to correct spelling is it not “Fifth Column” ?

Historical implies it has to do with history … nothing else

It does have to do with history. If you are too blind to see that it is your fault rather then the fault of classification.

the HISTORICAL part! That implies that at least part of the story is true! It portrays the faithful of Opus Dei as an evil fith colum of Catholicism. Dan Brown does NOTHING to rectify this heresy, and blatantly attacks the divine truth of Christ. He does not state that his theory is wild speculation. There is not fact in it whatsoever.

Indeed. He acts *exactly* like the Creationist/ID crowd. Repulsive, isn't it ?

I guess so ... he was already lamenting the good ol days when we were killed for speaking
Yes, the good old days when poeple had faith, and all souls recognized the truth of Christ, and not these ridiculous theories set out by crackpots who have no idea how terible the things they say are. I will nev er watch this movie, and I beg all Chrisitans to go to the cinema and enlighten the masses as to the truth of Christianity, not the twisted version put forward by the heretic Dan Brown. Also, as for you Atheists, if you do not confess with your mouths and belive in your hearts that Christ is the Living Son of God, then you are damned to begin with, any other sins you commit only further draw you away from the truth.
Jwp-serbu neglects to mention the fact that public officials (Clinton anyone?) are involved in scandals far more extensive and devastating then the Church scandal, this does not condone thier behavior, indeed, they should have been excommunicated on the spot, however the uproar against the Divine Church was instigated by Chrisitan haters in the media, and the small minority that call themselves Atheists.

Indeed. He acts *exactly* like the Creationist/ID crowd. Repulsive, isn't it ?
SOme of us find your denial of God Almighty repulsive. Dan Brown will answer for his sins, as will all of us.

HA! Oh the irony.
Er, lets forget about that...

Yes, the good old days when poeple had faith, and all souls recognized the truth of Christ, and not these ridiculous theories set out by crackpots who have no idea how terible the things they say are. I will nev er watch this movie, and I beg all Chrisitans to go to the cinema and enlighten the masses as to the truth of Christianity, not the twisted version put forward by the heretic Dan Brown. Also, as for you Atheists, if you do not confess with your mouths and belive in your hearts that Christ is the Living Son of God, then you are damned to begin with, any other sins you commit only further draw you away from the truth.
Jwp-serbu neglects to mention the fact that public officials (Clinton anyone?) are involved in scandals far more extensive and devastating then the Church scandal, this does not condone thier behavior, indeed, they should have been excommunicated on the spot, however the uproar against the Divine Church was instigated by Chrisitan haters in the media, and the small minority that call themselves Atheists.
Again thank god we matured passed that point as a society

Good riddance

SOme of us find your denial of God Almighty repulsive. Dan Brown will answer for his sins, as will all of us.

Who says I *deny* the God almighty ? I just deny the lies, trickery and deceit some people find necessary to use to promote His glory. It is not my fault people like that seem to be the main spokesmen for your religion today.

Who gives a damn about he Da Vinci Code when we've got the Smithy Code!

http://www.thesmithycode.com/

It's not true. It's in the fiction section. Nuff said.

^
|

Also, as for you Atheists, if you do not confess with your mouths and belive in your hearts that Christ is the Living Son of God, then you are damned to begin with, any other sins you commit only further draw you away from the truth.
Mmm... ok. Sounds good.

Well, well, well, the contraversial movie, the Da Vinci Code, based off the popular book, is about to be released, and what do ya know, theres some controversy. The Catholic Church is calling for members to avoid seeing the movie and not to read the book. Also they are turning out tons of pamphlets and such that refutes the theme of the book. In case you don't know, the book's plot revovles around a deep dark secret held by the catholic church. The book is fictional but the Church holds that it is still wrong to create such a plot that tears down the Church. Well, I want to know what people think. Is the movie bad, should we avoid it, do you think that there is a secret, and well just tell me what you think.
Funny, a while back they said they had no problems with either the book or the movie...

Funny, a while back they said they had no problems with either the book or the movie...
Then the Pope died... or they feel that there is an infringement on their own creative materal... or something...

Then the Pope died... or they feel that there is an infringement on their own creative materal... or something... Nods. true...
or it can be touted as "Factual". While I don't believe that of Mr Hanks, it has been done before... putting Fiction up as a "Documentary"

As hard as the Church has been attacking the movie and book lately, and considering all the free publicity it is generating for the film, I am starting to wonder if the Vatican is a financial backer of the flick?

or it can be touted as "Factual". While I don't believe that of Mr Hanks, it has been done before... putting Fiction up as a "Documentary"
The descriptions of the environments felt "Factual" but I do not think it should be classified as "Factual" because the plot is based loosely on myths, gossip and conspiracy theories.

I found this an intresting read on some of the flaws with the story

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/davinci-code.htm

Does not hurt that my GF wants to go see it too

Yeah, that pretty much sums up my feelings regarding seeing it. My GF liked the books, mainly because of the whole use of symbolism thing, and wants to go see it with me. I'm down with that...

Besides, I don't mind seeing the Catholic Church being undermined in any and every way, so it's win/win for me.

Jwp-serbu neglects to mention the fact that public officials (Clinton anyone?) are involved in scandals far more extensive and devastating then the Church scandal, .

Are you saying that Clinton getting a blow job (and later lying about it) from a willing, 20 something woman is more devastating than child molestation? I certainly hope you aren't...

Oh, and:
http://troll.freeservers.com/japant.jpg

in the process of reading the book at the moment and i must admit it is really good, and while some is clearly fiction you have to wonder how much the early church left out of the bible and how selective they were and why exactly they included the gospels that they did

the more alternative evidence we find the more it contradicts what is in the bible

Actually, everything in the Bible can be proven by history, unlike Dan Brown's heresy.

Everything in the Bible...proven? Historically? Oh my...I am going to laugh myself to sleep tonight.

It's not true. It's in the fiction section. Nuff said.


True, true. It is fiction. It's a brilliant piece of literature which is captivating and intriguing. But heres the thing. Even if it doesn't shake your faith (or even if you don't have any faith) it still causes people to doubt the teachings of the church. It gives people further fuel for the conspiracy theory. The book is written based on theories that people think Da Vinci came up with. The story uses some factual occurences, though very few, and lots of fiction to tell a story. When someone reads something or watches it, it influences them, whether you know it or not. Thats the power of sublty. Anyhow, my stance on the issue is this. Dan Brown, though skilled in his craft, is an asshole. If hes really a good writer then he should have come up with an equally intriguing book that doesn't tear down the very core of a long standing religion. He did it because he knows that contaversy sells. As for the call for boycotting, I understand it, but it may not be the absolute correct response. The Church promptly published plenty of material refuting the fictional evidence presented in the story. Now they attack they issue from two sides. The know that some people have easily persuaded opinions and something like this can affect their outlook on the issue. However, calling for a boycott, though seeming like a good idea, is not effective. They should push more for educating people as to the fictionality of the story. And personally I say Dan Brown or the director should provide a disclaimer before the film reassuring the audience that the story is, in fact, fictional.

Whether or not I will go see it is still undecided, Im torn between knowing my enemy, while also be entertained by a well developed plot, and avoiding supporting those who carry no respect for God.

in the process of reading the book at the moment and i must admit it is really good, and while some is clearly fiction you have to wonder how much the early church left out of the bible and how selective they were and why exactly they included the gospels that they did

the more alternative evidence we find the more it contradicts what is in the bible


This is precisely what I meant by fuel for conspiracy theory.

What ever happened to the good old days, when heretics where killed on the spot...

Maybe some people decided that killing folks wasn't the best way to go about spreading the love of Christ.

Yes historical FICTION

It is FICTION about a historical place or charicter

Whats your point?



Well heres the point. Who is Dan Brown to spin such lies about the divine Christ. He is treading on forbidden territory. And blah blah blah, dont even talk about freedom of speech, there are just some things you really shouldn't say.

Maybe some people decided that killing folks wasn't the best way to go about spreading the love of Christ.
Insane people? The unholy yearn for the guidance of the Lord.

Insane people?

I'm quite confused by this response... :confused: Could you explain?

Everything in the Bible...proven? Historically? Oh my...I am going to laugh myself to sleep tonight.


Ok maybe Sol misscommuniated. He probably knows that not everything in the bible is literal fact. The point is, the bible has plenty of hitorical evidence backing up the things that can be backed by history. Like the flood story of Moses (there is proof that there was a great flood), the existence of Christ, the lives of the apostles, and the fact that no one can prove anything about a living human descendant of Jesus Christ.

I'm quite confused by this response... :confused: Could you explain?
Re-read my post. I bolded out what I focused on. Your choice whether or not to take me literally though. :)

Re-read my post. I bolded out what I focused on. Your choice whether or not to take me literally though. :)

Ah well.

What ever happened to the good old days, when heretics where killed on the spot...

Ahh an Opus Dei follower.

I am not going to see this heretical movie, an I beg all good Chrisitans to do the same. Even as fiction, it is a direct attack on the Catholic Church, and Dan Brown should have placed a disclaimer in his book. Oh, by the way, Opus Dei is suing the production company if they do not place a disclaimer on the movie. Again, I beg all good chrisitians to turn from the heretical piece of work.

Whoa, I am a "good" Christian and hardly find it heretical. I read the book, knowing it was fiction based on some theory of possibilities. If you want to slur a book then start with Holy Blood, Holy Grail, the book that does not claim to be fiction. There is nothing wrong with questioning the "facts" we have been fed, if someone hadn't along the way we would all still be paying indulgences to buy our ancestors out of purgatory. Come on think for yourself.

By the way Opus Dei will lose that case, the movie claims to be fiction that is a disclaimer all on it's own.

It is more interesting that the Church is in such an uproar to me. Thou dost protest too much I think.

It is more interesting that the Church is in such an uproar to me. Thou dost protest too much I think.
Indeed, the Catholic Church (and some others) are overreacting over this. I wish sometimes that our Church were not so reactionary.

Yeah he is the closest we have had to a good ol jesussaves in a long time

Hey? Did anybody check to see if he is wearing a mask?

Ahh an Opus Dei follower.

Yeah. Looks that way. I'm not sure if he's the same guy as I've encountered here before though.

Opus Dei - Tenete Traditiones - Defensor Fidei

I think those were his monikers. The ones that I can remember, anyway.

Indeed, the Catholic Church (and some others) are overreacting over this. I wish sometimes that our Church were not so reactionary.

Amen, brother.

Jwp-serbu neglects to mention the fact that public officials (Clinton anyone?) are involved in scandals far more extensive and devastating then the Church scandal, this does not condone thier behavior, indeed, they should have been excommunicated on the spot, however the uproar against the Divine Church was instigated by Chrisitan haters in the media, and the small minority that call themselves Atheists.

Eh? Priest attacks children, Church officials move him where he attacks more children, move him and move him.

So far the Church has paid out over a billion in hush money in the US so far.

So what did Clinton do that was worst then this?

*Crickets start chirping*

Indeed, the Catholic Church (and some others) are overreacting over this. I wish sometimes that our Church were not so reactionary.



They have to be. The whole point of the existence of the Church is for them to lead all people to Christ. Though human corruption has often spoiled this, the mission still remains. If they don't react, then they serve no pupose. It will take a while before they can come up with the best solution to this. It shouldn't have happened in the first place. I repeat myself in saying, Dan Brown is an asshole. Since I just saw someone bring it up, Holy Blood, Holy Grail is a grave and dire heresy, probably the only book I would suggest you burn. It is entirely false and claims itself to be the plain truth and attempte to discredit God. It disgusts me to even see the book.

Eh? Priest attacks children, Church officials move him where he attacks more children, move him and move him.

So far the Church has paid out over a billion in hush money in the US so far.

So what did Clinton do that was worst then this?

*Crickets start chirping*


Man this priest raping children thing is a pretty serious nuisance. The priests responsible have caused a grea deal of trouble, and the initial reation to keep it under wraps to keep the Church's name clean was a bad response. They should have made it public and used it as a springboard to review their priesthod and cleanse it of these pedophiles. But alas, human error has lead us astray once again.

They have to be. The whole point of the existence of the Church is for them to lead all people to Christ. Though human corruption has often spoiled this, the mission still remains. If they don't react, then they serve no pupose. It will take a while before they can come up with the best solution to this. It shouldn't have happened in the first place. I repeat myself in saying, Dan Brown is an asshole. Since I just saw someone bring it up, Holy Blood, Holy Grail is a grave and dire heresy, probably the only book I would suggest you burn. It is entirely false and claims itself to be the plain truth and attempte to discredit God. It disgusts me to even see the book.
They don't have to do anything. Our Church can express its dislike for the book, and even condemn it, but it needn't call for its boycott. I am very much pro the freedom of speech, and it is time the Church was as well. Freedom of speech does not mean surrendering your beliefs to others, but allowing others to say what they think, and in turn exercise criticism.

The fact that so many take Dan Brown's book for the literal truth is also slightly alarming since he himself proclaims that it is semi-fictional.

They have to be. The whole point of the existence of the Church is for them to lead all people to Christ. Though human corruption has often spoiled this, the mission still remains. If they don't react, then they serve no pupose. It will take a while before they can come up with the best solution to this. It shouldn't have happened in the first place. I repeat myself in saying, Dan Brown is an asshole. Since I just saw someone bring it up, Holy Blood, Holy Grail is a grave and dire heresy, probably the only book I would suggest you burn. It is entirely false and claims itself to be the plain truth and attempte to discredit God. It disgusts me to even see the book.

Ah but Christ's first teaching is to NOT judge anyone. Tsk, tsk.

Ok, here is a good point. How many common people you think actually know anything about Opus Dei and their real postion in the world. Many people will quietly accept their portrayal in the movie as faact without out evn hesitating a second to look it up. Fiction can be a very powerful weapon against the Truth.

I mean seriously, just because its fiction its harmless is a stupid arguement. Are rumors not fictional?, yet they destroy people everyday, have even lead to teenage suicide and a variety of other issues. Fiction is ok in moderation and in specific circumstances, when used to entertain without any deragatory effect on someone, its a good thing, but the second you start to hurt someone in any way with the story you are attacking them and that is infringement on a persons (or establishments) dignity. Man I say this alot, Dan Brown is an ASSHOLE

Ah but Christ's first teaching is to NOT judge anyone. Tsk, tsk.


I never said judge, stop trying to put words in my mouth. I said guide. Guide and judge dont mean the same thing.

*snip*
So then why asked for it to be censored? The Church could just as easily condemn it and elucidate the general public as to how it is clearly fiction, something even its author makes a note of. Now, if indeed this does stimulate true research into ecclesiastic history, then maybe Brown's book had a positive effect after all. The Church is not averse to change when it is warranted.

This is just another witchunt, inquasition, crusade, in a long history of the same.

Ignorance is bliss less you are the target of the ignorant.

Man this priest raping children thing is a pretty serious nuisance. The priests responsible have caused a grea deal of trouble, and the initial reation to keep it under wraps to keep the Church's name clean was a bad response. They should have made it public and used it as a springboard to review their priesthod and cleanse it of these pedophiles. But alas, human error has lead us astray once again.

What really pissed people off was the honor they gave Cardinal O'Conner. He did a great deal of the hiding and he was rewarded quite well for it.

It really pissed me off to see his mug at JPII's funeral service.

I am one of the many that left over it. Especially when I read and heard many accounts of what happened.

This stuff has been going on for a looong time. Ever hear of the Duplessis Orphans?

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-70-1633/disasters_tragedies/duplessis_orphans/

They don't have to do anything. Our Church can express its dislike for the book, and even condemn it, but it needn't call for its boycott. I am very much pro the freedom of speech, and it is time the Church was as well. Freedom of speech does not mean surrendering your beliefs to others, but allowing others to say what they think, and in turn exercise criticism.

The fact that so many take Dan Brown's book for the literal truth is also slightly alarming since he himself proclaims that it is semi-fictional.


Calling for a boycott is, again, not something Im sure was the best response. But yes they do have to do something. They undersatnd freedom of speech quite well, but it doesn't mean they can't respond when that speech insults, attacks, or hurts them.

And again, you act like everyone knows all the facts and can make a full understanding decision about the story portrayed.

Calling for a boycott is, again, not something Im sure was the best response. But yes they do have to do something. They undersatnd freedom of speech quite well, but it doesn't mean they can't respond when that speech insults, attacks, or hurts them.
Calling for a boycott merely makes it seem extremist. I agree, it should respond, but via the proper means.

And again, you act like everyone knows all the facts and can make a full understanding decision about the story portrayed.
Which would contradict what I said in my post, no? Read it properly.

If Brown tried to pass his book off as fact, I'd be offended. But since he didn't, there's no offense. It's a fiction book. Nothing more.

Again thank god we matured passed that point as a society

Good riddance

You say that you've aged, I think you're just enraged.

It's the church who's getting rotten,
Yet it's Christ that you've forgotten.


:)

Calling for a boycott is, again, not something Im sure was the best response. But yes they do have to do something. They undersatnd freedom of speech quite well, but it doesn't mean they can't respond when that speech insults, attacks, or hurts them.

And again, you act like everyone knows all the facts and can make a full understanding decision about the story portrayed.

Boycotts rarely if ever work.

The Last Temptation of Christ is an example. It did far more business due to the outrage.

Satanic Versus was a looooooonnnnnnngggggg BORING book and it made gobs of money due to the death threats.

However, they are in a nowin situation. The movie is going to make a ton of money no matter what they do. Calling for a boycott will only help them make more.....

If Brown tried to pass his book off as fact, I'd be offended. But since he didn't, there's no offense. It's a fiction book. Nothing more.

He did make "it's factual" statements. However, I think it was about marketing rather then belief. Best way to sell something is with a bunch of pissed off people.....

Boycotts rarely if ever work.

The Last Temptation of Christ is an example. It did far more business due to the outrage.

Satanic Versus was a looooooonnnnnnngggggg BORING book and it made gobs of money due to the death threats.

However, they are in a nowin situation. The movie is going to make a ton of money no matter what they do. Calling for a boycott will only help them make more.....


But they have to try something. They are essentailly responsible for all the people they fail to guide to heaven. Thats a hell of a burden (no pun intended). And it is a no win situation. Like I said, the book should never have been written.

And heres a question to everyone, you think what Dan Brown did in writing this book was a sin or not, minor or major sin?

Ok, here is a good point. How many common people you think actually know anything about Opus Dei and their real postion in the world. Many people will quietly accept their portrayal in the movie as faact without out evn hesitating a second to look it up. Fiction can be a very powerful weapon against the Truth.

I mean seriously, just because its fiction its harmless is a stupid arguement. Are rumors not fictional?, yet they destroy people everyday, have even lead to teenage suicide and a variety of other issues. Fiction is ok in moderation and in specific circumstances, when used to entertain without any deragatory effect on someone, its a good thing, but the second you start to hurt someone in any way with the story you are attacking them and that is infringement on a persons (or establishments) dignity. Man I say this alot, Dan Brown is an ASSHOLE

Wow your hate on for Dan Brown is truly offensive, do you realize that? So is it ok for you to offend other people with your theory? Tell me do you also hate Martin Luther who questioned the Roman Catholic docterine of the time? Was he an asshole for not accepting what the masses were being fed by the church?

Whether anyone buys into any of this is an individual choice, research isn't hard (well except for the Vatican archives) so you must realize that anyone with an interest in this topic whether it be Opus Dei, DaVinci, Templars etc will search it out. I find it amazing that the church does not want people to think. No church makes a Christian, the Christians make the church.

I never said judge, stop trying to put words in my mouth. I said guide. Guide and judge dont mean the same thing.

You called Dan Brown an asshole in bold to boot. Sounds judgemental to me.

But they have to try something. They are essentailly responsible for all the people they fail to guide to heaven. Thats a hell of a burden (no pun intended). And it is a no win situation. Like I said, the book should never have been written.
Then our Church should do so effectively. Boycotting is counter-productive.

And heres a question to everyone, you think what Dan Brown did in writing this book was a sin or not, minor or major sin?
No sin at all. The Lord is not a God of hatred. It's not as if Dan Brown committed a cardinal sin, such as murder.

Fiction is just as dangerous as fact. You all calmly dismiss this as fiction. If someon doesn't know the facts its easy to accept what is in front of them at face value (especially since most of america is too damn lazy to get the facts). A lie is ficiton yet if let loose a lie can effectively kill somone.

My example:

If I start a rumor, you don't know all the facts so you accept it.

You act on that rumor.

Has that rumor not just had the same effect as fact?

If a kid kills himself because of the way hes treated after a rumor goes around school that says something about him thats not true.

Didn't that rumor just, in a sense, kill the kid?

Fiction is not an excuse, its the subject of the fiction, and this fiction has the power to destroy the image of Christ in those who lack full understnading.
Thats the thing, most people dont have full understanding.

But they have to try something. They are essentailly responsible for all the people they fail to guide to heaven. Thats a hell of a burden (no pun intended). And it is a no win situation. Like I said, the book should never have been written.

And heres a question to everyone, you think what Dan Brown did in writing this book was a sin or not, minor or major sin?

They should be smarter about their fights. Making amends over the PedoPriests would do many many things to improve their image. Everybody went :rolleyes: when they announce they will solve it by taking care of the homosexual priests.

They should have kept quiet or rather taking a stance of "It's an interesting mystery. Read it! If you want to learn about the historical, then look here......"

As to your question. No it's not a sin. It's a book. Nothing more. Knowledge was a sin once and God forbid that we start thinking that way again.

And heres a question to everyone, you think what Dan Brown did in writing this book was a sin or not, minor or major sin?

There are no minor and major sins. In that you are sorely mistaken. They are not rated from worst to best.

Tell me do you also hate Martin Luther who questioned the Roman Catholic docterine of the time? Was he an asshole for not accepting what the masses were being fed by the church?

Not much of a comparison. Martin Luther sought a deeper religious truth, and a better understanding of God. It was a movement within the faith.

The DaVinci Code is no such thing.

Not to agree with The Most Holy Dragon, but your comparison is rather invalid and hasty.

You called Dan Brown an asshole in bold to boot. Sounds judgemental to me.



So, I called him an asshole. That's my opinion, not the Church's. I judge people sometimes, Im not perfect. This isn't even a part of the arguement you just wanted to go as far as you could to point out holes in my arguemnet. But my point still stands, the Church has to react because its duty is to guide all human kind. Whether or not I judged Dan Brown doesn't compromise the intent of the Church.

Like the flood story of Moses (there is proof that there was a great flood)
Surely you mean Noah. And no, there's no proof of a great flood as described in the Bible. In fact, the story is too ridiculous to be true.

the existence of Christ, the lives of the apostles,
There's no historical proof of the existence of Christ, and the apostles are very much in doubt.

and the fact that no one can prove anything about a living human descendant of Jesus Christ.
Duh! If there's no proof of the existence of Christ there's not going to be proof of his descendants.

They should be smarter about their fights. Making amends over the PedoPriests would do many many things to improve their image. Everybody went :rolleyes: when they announce they will solve it by taking care of the homosexual priests.

They should have kept quiet or rather taking a stance of "It's an interesting mystery. Read it! If you want to learn about the historical, then look here......"

As to your question. No it's not a sin. It's a book. Nothing more. Knowledge was a sin once and God forbid that we start thinking that way again.


Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. One of the ten commandments. This book effectively, whether he means is or not, bears false witness against the best of neighbors, Jesus Christ.

Not much of a comparison. Martin Luther sought a deeper religious truth, and a better understanding of God. It was a movement within the faith.

The DaVinci Code is no such thing.

Not to agree with The Most Holy Dragon, but your comparison is rather invalid and hasty.

He began by questioning accepted docterine and turned to his inner faith and heart for the answers. It was a movement led by one man, whose ideas were embraced by others and not the church. He was tried as a heretic and if not for Saxony governors intervention he would have been burned at the stake.

Are you not condemning anyone who questions this? Luther was disgusted with the methods of the church regarding indulgences, that lead him to his search for the truth and his personal battle to the pulpit and church doors. The movement began because of him and his writings against the church.

Fiction is just as dangerous as fact. You all calmly dismiss this as fiction. If someon doesn't know the facts its easy to accept what is in front of them at face value (especially since most of america is too damn lazy to get the facts). A lie is ficiton yet if let loose a lie can effectively kill somone.

My example:

If I start a rumor, you don't know all the facts so you accept it.

You act on that rumor.

Has that rumor not just had the same effect as fact?

If a kid kills himself because of the way hes treated after a rumor goes around school that says something about him thats not true.

Didn't that rumor just, in a sense, kill the kid?

Fiction is not an excuse, its the subject of the fiction, and this fiction has the power to destroy the image of Christ in those who lack full understnading.
Thats the thing, most people dont have full understanding.

If an institution is so easily destroyed by the printed word, it doesn't diserve to exist.

Wow your hate on for Dan Brown is truly offensive, do you realize that? So is it ok for you to offend other people with your theory? Tell me do you also hate Martin Luther who questioned the Roman Catholic docterine of the time? Was he an asshole for not accepting what the masses were being fed by the church?

Whether anyone buys into any of this is an individual choice, research isn't hard (well except for the Vatican archives) so you must realize that anyone with an interest in this topic whether it be Opus Dei, DaVinci, Templars etc will search it out. I find it amazing that the church does not want people to think. No church makes a Christian, the Christians make the church.



Hmm, interesting. Your right, perhpas I am rash about my stance on Dan Brown. But I still defend my view that what Dan is doing is wrong.

The Church wants people to think, but they will still defend against people who do things the lead people to think the wrong thing. Even Christ warns about false prophets. (not saying Dan is a false prophet, but his book leads people astray, thats bad enough)

And your also right that people will research it if they are interested. As Catholics we are called to Faith seeking Understnding and we should always look to fully understand and know our faith.

But its still wrong to even vaguely lead someon astray. Whether or not the truth is easily found does not make the act of missleading them in the first place harmless.

Christians do indeed make the Church, but the Church also makes the Christian. Jesus established the Chruch through the apostles to ensure that someone would be here to guide all mankind to his glory and love. The church is here to guide thus they must respond to any and all forms of attack on the Truth of Christ.

If an instatution is so easily destroyed by the printed word, it doesn't diserve to exist.



Oh, this institution will not b e destroyed by the printed word. You have no such luck with that. But it still damages it's members.

If an instatution is so easily destroyed by the printed word, it doesn't diserve to exist.
He is deluded. The Catholic Church may not be destroyed by the printed word, but it overreacts to it. It needs to bring itself up-to-date.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. One of the ten commandments. This book effectively, whether he means is or not, bears false witness against the best of neighbors, Jesus Christ.

That only comes into play when you are intentionally trying to hurt your neighbor's reputation.

The world has slander/libal laws to take care of that.

The Church is in no position to cry foul.

He began by questioning accepted docterine and turned to his inner faith and heart for the answers. It was a movement led by one man, whose ideas were embraced by others and not the church. He was tried as a heretic and if not for Saxony governors intervention he would have been burned at the stake.

Are you not condemning anyone who questions this? Luther was disgusted with the methods of the church regarding indulgences, that lead him to his search for the truth and his personal battle to the pulpit and church doors. The movement began because of him and his writings against the church.


Well, sometimes the right thing and the Truth are hard to find and even harder to expess. The indulgences were wrong, but he shouldn't have lead a split from the church. He should have stayed within the church and continued to fight to get them to see that the sale of forgiveness is wrong.

That only comes into play when you are intentionally trying to hurt your neighbor's reputation.

The world has slander/libal laws to take care of that.

The Church is in no position to cry foul.



Actually, your wrong. That commandment pretty much says that if you lie, its wrong. the world may have slander/libel laws but the world doesn'y always know best. The church can cry foul because, despite the intent, the story still has negative effect upon the image and doctrine of the church.

Hmm, interesting. Your right, perhpas I am rash about my stance on Dan Brown. But I still defend my view that what Dan is doing is wrong.

The Church wants people to think, but they will still defend against people who do things the lead people to think the wrong thing. Even Christ warns about false prophets. (not saying Dan is a false prophet, but his book leads people astray, thats bad enough)

And your also right that people will research it if they are interested. As Catholics we are called to Faith seeking Understnding and we should always look to fully understand and know our faith.

But its still wrong to even vaguely lead someon astray. Whether or not the truth is easily found does not make the act of missleading them in the first place harmless.

Christians do indeed make the Church, but the Church also makes the Christian. Jesus established the Chruch through the apostles to ensure that someone would be here to guide all mankind to his glory and love. The church is here to guide thus they must respond to any and all forms of attack on the Truth of Christ.

I have no problem with the church not endorsing a book, movie or whatever. I do have a problem with them dictating that I can't see it or read it. This drives straight to the fight Luther held that the Bible itself should be published for the common man. Though the church burned his German editions for years saying that the common man could not understand it and it was heresy to put it in the laymans hands. That is a control and power game, and any faith that has to resort to that is not about the individual.

If a church is so threatened by what we read then they have not served their purpose to begin with.

He is deluded. The Catholic Church may not be destroyed by the printed word, but it overreacts to it. It needs to bring itself up-to-date.


Oh, and what is up to date exactly? Is it your crazy concept of a super liberal, everyone fights for themself and decides whats right and wrong for themselves kind of environment. (dont worry im not saying thats the kind of person you are its just an example) The concept of up to date is not the issue. The Church is obligated to react, and if they overreact a little so what. Its better than doing nothing. I pray that the church leaders can find a solution that fits the bill perfectly, but they are pretty much in a no win situation.


And to explain the boycott. If you understand all the facts and your faith is not shaken by the story then your ok to see it right? WRONG by seeing it you are supporting a falsehood that could potentially misslead others. Your actions have effects far beyond most poeples awareness. What you so is seen by others and can affect their actions and decisions.


Yea I know, the boycott won't work, but it still makes sense.

Actually, your wrong. That commandment pretty much says that if you lie, its wrong. the world may have slander/libel laws but the world doesn'y always know best. The church can cry foul because, despite the intent, the story still has negative effect upon the image and doctrine of the church.

That is what I said.

The fact his book says NOVEL on the cover kind of shoots the commandment down.

The Church has sulied it's own reputation. If it had a good reputation, then this book couldn't do much if anything to it.

Fighting over this book doesn't help it in any shape or fashion.

Never mind the fact that declaring nothing bad can ever be said against the Church suggests it is perfect.....

Well, sometimes the right thing and the Truth are hard to find and even harder to expess. The indulgences were wrong, but he shouldn't have lead a split from the church. He should have stayed within the church and continued to fight to get them to see that the sale of forgiveness is wrong.

Oh he did. It tore him apart that the church gave him no choice but to split from it. He petitioned the Pope Leo to change the church's stance on it and tried to show them the error in the scriptures and translations from Greek to Latin. Leo would have none of it and went on a crusade to have an inquistion in which the church demanded he recant or be burned. Yet, Luther's translation was correct and the Vatican's was wrong. It was a power play by the Pope that cost the Catholic church one of their greatest teachers.

I have no problem with the church not endorsing a book, movie or whatever. I do have a problem with them dictating that I can't see it or read it. This drives straight to the fight Luther held that the Bible itself should be published for the common man. Though the church burned his German editions for years saying that the common man could not understand it and it was heresy to put it in the laymans hands. That is a control and power game, and any faith that has to resort to that is not about the individual.

If a church is so threatened by what we read then they have not served their purpose to begin with.


Hmm, you pour into a much more deeply seated problem in society.

And they cant force anything, they can guide, suggest, strongly urge etc...
But they arent restricting your ability to choose. You can still choose to ignore them, in this case I wouldn't suggest you ignore them becuase what they are saying is right and to avoid the movie is the right thing to do.
But its very hard for people to trust the Church in light of many of its members doing such missleading things in the recent past...

Their is so much damage in the world and society that the Church has a hell of a workload. And it doesn't help that people keep popping up in the church that lead us astray even further. Anyhow thats another topic for another time.

*snip*
Personally, I am happy at the course that the Catholic Church is taking to ameliorate itself, make up for its past misdemeanours and re-approach its following. It has work to do, no doubt, but it will get there eventually.

Oh he did. It tore him apart that the church gave him no choice but to split from it. He petitioned the Pope Leo to change the church's stance on it and tried to show them the error in the scriptures and translations from Greek to Latin. Leo would have none of it and went on a crusade to have an inquistion in which the church demanded he recant or be burned. Yet, Luther's translation was correct and the Vatican's was wrong. It was a power play by the Pope that cost the Catholic church one of their greatest teachers.


Hmm, indeed pope Leo X was a great harm to the church. Martin tried and tried but couldn't make it. If he was so sure and so right hed have known that dying for his belief would have been worth it in the long run. Had he stuck wih th Church and been burned, time would have revealed the errors the Pope Leo X had and people would have looked to Martin as a martyr for the truth. Instead he turned and ran for his life and is now looked at as the guy who made Christianity so much more confusing. The thing is, he knew what was right, but was unwilling to die for it so he took the guidacne of men to Christ into his own hands, that was a wrong move.

He began by questioning accepted docterine and turned to his inner faith and heart for the answers. It was a movement led by one man, whose ideas were embraced by others and not the church. He was tried as a heretic and if not for Saxony governors intervention he would have been burned at the stake.

Luther was disgusted with the methods of the church regarding indulgences, that lead him to his search for the truth and his personal battle to the pulpit and church doors. The movement began because of him and his writings against the church.

Yes, you're right in the first paragraph. Dan Brown still isn't near ecquivalent. Dan Brown wrote fiction, and depending on your source, claimed it was true. The fiction does not attempt to find a deeper spiritual truth but claims instead that the Church has been lying and covering up a secret for years.

You're missing the point: Luther sought a better understanding of Christ and Christianity, Brown sought dough, and depending on your source, exposure of Church 'scandal' for the sake of itself.

Dan Brown has in no way indicated in internal theological flaw in the Church as Luther did.

Are you not condemning anyone who questions this?

I never mentioned condemnation at all, so I don't know why you are asking me.

Personally, I am happy at the course that the Catholic Church is taking to ameliorate itself, make up for its past misdemeanours and re-approach its following. It has work to do, no doubt, but it will get there eventually.


Good Im glad someone sees that. And BTW when did I ever say "*snip*". I have seen two people quote me on that but I dont remeber saying that. Oh well.

Good Im glad someone sees that. And BTW when did I ever say "*snip*". I have seen two people quote me on that but I dont remeber saying that. Oh well.
To avoid repeating long posts, you use the word "*Snip*" to cut out what you are quoting.

In spite of the hype, I read the book. I may see the movie when it comes out on HBO - it has Tom Hanks and he generally doesn't make bad movies - though there's always a first time.

I don't see what all the fuss is about. In one word, it's fiction. They taught us about fiction in elementary school - it means it's a made-up story. And (apologies to those who liked it) not a very well written one - it's derivative (though not, as some would have you believe, plagiarized) and kind of silly.

As to it's relationship to Christianity - Christ died (if he ever existed) 2000 years ago - we base our knowledge of him on one book which has been translated (badly) umpteen times and paraphrased as many more times. Who knows what's factual?

That is what I said.

The fact his book says NOVEL on the cover kind of shoots the commandment down.

The Church has sulied it's own reputation. If it had a good reputation, then this book couldn't do much if anything to it.

Fighting over this book doesn't help it in any shape or fashion.

Never mind the fact that declaring nothing bad can ever be said against the Church suggests it is perfect.....


No you said that its only wrong if its intent. The NOVEL As you say is a lie about the Church. Thus its wrong. Yea I know the church doesn't have the best reputation but its working on it. And this book still causes harm despite its current condition.

Ok thats a complicated subject. The Church in its concept and origianl intent is perfect. However, since the intent manifests itself in man, the erroneous behavior of mankind hs lead to problems with the physical establishment of the Church. If you see an error in what a member of the church is doing you shoul fisrt verify that its wrong, and then try to correct it someway. However, the poin of the arguement is this book in paticular, The book portrays that the core of the Church, Christs divinity and his actions on earth are not as they are. The book isn't trying to help it, it simply damages an uncorrupted core doctrine of the church.

Hmm, indeed pope Leo X was a great harm to the church. Martin tried and tried but couldn't make it. If he was so sure and so right hed have known that dying for his belief would have been worth it in the long run. Had he stuck wih th Church and been burned, time would have revealed the errors the Pope Leo X had and people would have looked to Martin as a martyr for the truth. Instead he turned and ran for his life and is now looked at as the guy who made Christianity so much more confusing. The thing is, he knew what was right, but was unwilling to die for it so he took the guidacne of men to Christ into his own hands, that was a wrong move.

You are kidding me right?? Saxony governors protected him from being murdered by a tyrant and you somehow think his murder would have served a better purpose?? His teachings are exactly why the Catholic church eventually put the Bible into your hands. They had competition and people who began to think for themselves. The Vatican had no choice but to rise to the challenge. Without that the church would have done nothing but continue its practices. Oh yes he knew what was right, and thank goodness he and others had the courage to stand against the Pope regarding it. The only ones confusing Christianity at the time were those in the higher echelons of the Vatican at the time, those who tried to refuse to let people think.

In spite of the hype, I read the book. I may see the movie when it comes out on HBO - it has Tom Hanks and he generally doesn't make bad movies - though there's always a first time.

I don't see what all the fuss is about. In one word, it's fiction. They taught us about fiction in elementary school - it means it's a made-up story. And (apologies to those who liked it) not a very well written one - it's derivative (though not, as some would have you believe, plagiarized) and kind of silly.

As to it's relationship to Christianity - Christ died (if he ever existed) 2000 years ago - we base our knowledge of him on one book which has been translated (badly) umpteen times and paraphrased as many more times. Who knows what's factual?


Wow thats one way to put it. I keep repeating that fictional can still do harm. Just becuase its a fictional story doesnt mean it cant have real world effects. Dont be ignorant.

As for the bible thing, the story is still known in its original language and is still held as accurate. The church has copies in its original language so that they can refer back to it before error of translatino got involved.

Good point though, Tom Hanks generally makes good movies and the story should be interesting, but that doesn't undo the fact that the story still has som harmful repercussions upon the Church's image.

No you said that its only wrong if its intent. The NOVEL As you say is a lie about the Church. Thus its wrong. Yea I know the church doesn't have the best reputation but its working on it. And this book still causes harm despite its current condition.

Ok thats a complicated subject. The Church in its concept and origianl intent is perfect. However, since the intent manifests itself in man, the erroneous behavior of mankind hs lead to problems with the physical establishment of the Church. If you see an error in what a member of the church is doing you shoul fisrt verify that its wrong, and then try to correct it someway. However, the poin of the arguement is this book in paticular, The book portrays that the core of the Church, Christs divinity and his actions on earth are not as they are. The book isn't trying to help it, it simply damages an uncorrupted core doctrine of the church.

If it makes people investigate the actions of the Church, then it's a good thing.

Good men have nothing to fear from it. Bad men sit in the shadows and condem it.

Here's my problem with the Da Vinci code:

Though it is a work of fiction, I believe Dan Brown's point was to create public support for these theories he himself believes in. Even though most of them have been proven wrong, or are meer speculation. The book contains many outright falsehoods, including in his so-called "FACTS:" presented at the beginning.

Dan Brown could just have been trying to make money through controversy, or he may have some sort of bone to pick with Christianity, but, in my opinion, these are "theories" he believes, and he wants other people to believe them. He does this sneakily by writing a fiction book instead of a historical essay.

Also, I believe that Robert Langdon is what Dan Brown wished he was, does things he wished he did, and in general is Dan Brown putting himself in his book, but cooler, and accomplishing so much more. Like getting the girl.

Also, no one read Dan's first autobiography/fantisy "Angels and Demons" so he wrote one nearly exactly the same but with more explosive subject matter.

All this speculation of Brown's character is my own opinion only, by the by.

Wow thats one way to put it. I keep repeating that fictional can still do harm. Just becuase its a fictional story doesnt mean it cant have real world effects. Dont be ignorant.
So? What if it does cause harm to the Church? If the Church is strong enough they will survive it.

As for the bible thing, the story is still known in its original language and is still held as accurate. The church has copies in its original language so that they can refer back to it before error of translatino got involved.
Here, on the other hand, we have fiction trying to pass itself as truth. A lie, in other words. To be more precise, you are lying. You're a liar who doesn't care for truth and will say whatever it takes as long as it's convenient to your goals.

The Bible has no copies of any original of the Bible. There are no original fragments known of any part of it and there is absolutely no way to check for errors or omissions.

See? You're lying through your teeth. I guess you're going to hell with all of us.

Wow thats one way to put it. I keep repeating that fictional can still do harm. Just becuase its a fictional story doesnt mean it cant have real world effects. Dont be ignorant.

As for the bible thing, the story is still known in its original language and is still held as accurate. The church has copies in its original language so that they can refer back to it before error of translatino got involved.

Good point though, Tom Hanks generally makes good movies and the story should be interesting, but that doesn't undo the fact that the story still has som harmful repercussions upon the Church's image.

Those people who practice critical thinking should have no problem in telling the difference between fact and fiction. If fiction does harm, it's because people don't practice critical thinking.

As for the bible thing, the story is still known in its original language and is still held as accurate. The church has copies in its original language so that they can refer back to it before error of translatino got involved.

This is in fact was a pretty good reason to not allow everyone to have a translated copy, but keep it in the hands of experts. Especially the multi-layered Hebrew cannot be translated correctly and completely in a way that produces a readable book; whenever one tries to keep the flow of the story concessions need to be made. Which results in translations that tell us the opinion of the translator (or his employer) instead of the actual meaning.

But the common man will read it as literal truth...

You are kidding me right?? Saxony governors protected him from being murdered by a tyrant and you somehow think his murder would have served a better purpose?? His teachings are exactly why the Catholic church eventually put the Bible into your hands. They had competition and people who began to think for themselves. The Vatican had no choice but to rise to the challenge. Without that the church would have done nothing but continue its practices. Oh yes he knew what was right, and thank goodness he and others had the courage to stand against the Pope regarding it. The only ones confusing Christianity at the time were those in the higher echelons of the Vatican at the time, those who tried to refuse to let people think.



What greater devotion to a cause is there than to die for it?
If he died for it, the Church would have held him as a heretic for a while, but eventually the people who were caught up in the political bullshit of the events wuold have faded out and the events in retrospect would have served as a guide to correct the erroneous actions of Pope Leo X and his "higher echelons". The whole issue of indulgences was wrapped around Leos greed and that John Tetzel Guy. Also the Church was filled with power hungry patriarchs. But as time passed people changed the establishment from the abuse of power to the spiritual guide. If Martin Luther had stayed within the church we wouldn't have 36000 differnet christian denominations causing so much confusion over the right way. Also its not all Martin Luther I know about Henry VIII and his role in the existence of the Anglican church.

You ever heard of Thomas Aquinas? For a long time the Chruch held him as heretical, but he never rebuked his belief and now we all see him as a brilliant scholar of the Church.

If it makes people investigate the actions of the Church, then it's a good thing.

Good men have nothing to fear from it. Bad men sit in the shadows and condem it.

If that was true, slander and libel wouldn't be such serious issues.

The fact is that fiction and lies can damage the reputation of a good person or organization.








The thing about the Da Vinci Code, it's not about religion as much as it's about fact vs. fiction, truth vs. lies, reality vs. fiction. The book gets people to believe lies and fiction as truth and fact, and, in my opinion, that was the intent. That's what really irks me. What the lies are and who or what they are directed at is secondary.

The Bible has no copies of any original of the Bible. There are no original fragments known of any part of it and there is absolutely no way to check for errors or omissions.


Actually, there is. But the point that is not openly mentioned, is the fact the 4 main gospels were written 60 or so years after their events.

The thing about the Da Vinci Code, it's not about religion as much as it's about fact vs. fiction, truth vs. lies, reality vs. fiction. The book gets people to believe lies and fiction as truth and fact, and, in my opinion, that was the intent. That's what really irks me. What the lies are and who or what they are directed at is secondary.
That is exactly what baffles me as well. That so many people take this book for the literal truth, even though it has weak groundings.

If it makes people investigate the actions of the Church, then it's a good thing.

Good men have nothing to fear from it. Bad men sit in the shadows and condem it.


Wrong, bad men sit and the shadows and feed off of it, they use this as self assurance of their already confused perception of the church. Stop trying to portray the church as bad in this situation.

Actually, there is. But the point that is not openly mentioned, is the fact the 4 main gospels were written 60 or so years after their events.
Actually, there aren't. Even the oldest fragment known of the gospels and St Paul's Epistles and other newer parts of the New Testament are much older copies of what are supposed to be the original documents. Some of them in Greek or Latin, but it's impossible to tell how similar they are to the original.

And the Old Testament is much harder still.

That is exactly what baffles me as well. That so many people take this book for the literal truth, even though it has weak groundings.


Like I say, most people don't take time to see all the facts. They simply see an easy to access finished copy. They read it and put it down without ever thinking to refute it in their own mind.

Wrong, bad men sit and the shadows and feed off of it, they use this as self assurance of their already confused perception of the church. Stop trying to portray the church as bad in this situation.
I will agree here, partially. Just because one condemns the nature with which the book was written does not make them culpable for any wrongdoing. Also though, it is good that more investigation is encouraged with regard to the Church and its doctrines.

Like I say, most people don't take time to see all the facts. They simply see an easy to access finished copy. They read it and put it down without ever thinking to refute it in their own mind.
Just like the Bible. What's the problem?

Those people who practice critical thinking should have no problem in telling the difference between fact and fiction. If fiction does harm, it's because people don't practice critical thinking.

But the sad fact is, most people don't. And Brown was banking on that.

That is exactly what baffles me as well. That so many people take this book for the literal truth, even though it has weak groundings.

Exactly. I have a friend who thinks every word of it is true except the events. All the "historical" stuff she believes. She thinks that it's stuff known commonly in all scholarly circles, and we laymen just never heard about it.

And Brown writes it to be read that way. It's the impression he wants you to come away with.

Exactly. I have a friend who thinks every word of it is true except the events. All the "historical" stuff she believes. She thinks that it's stuff known commonly in all scholarly circles, and we laymen just never heard about it.

And Brown writes it to be read that way. It's the impression he wants you to come away with.
Yeah I noticed this from reading his books. Even the authors of his major sourcebook continually insist that their findings are extremely ambiguous, in spite of how Brown portrays them.

Just like the Bible. What's the problem?


Yea but if you go see all the facts, youll see that much of the bible is supported plenty well enough. The Da Vinci Code is primarily fictional.

Also though, it is good that more investigation is encouraged with regard to the Church and its doctrines.

But it doesn't encourage investigation, it gets people to believe falsehoods as facts, without ever investigating.

If that was true, slander and libel wouldn't be such serious issues.

The fact is that fiction and lies can damage the reputation of a good person or organization.

The thing about the Da Vinci Code, it's not about religion as much as it's about fact vs. fiction, truth vs. lies, reality vs. fiction. The book gets people to believe lies and fiction as truth and fact, and, in my opinion, that was the intent. That's what really irks me. What the lies are and who or what they are directed at is secondary.

You can never prevent people from beliving stories. At it has been said "There's a sucker born every minute"

The Church can only blame itself for adding to this situation. If you remember the last line in the book of Ecclesiastes "…increase in knowledge is increase in sorrow."

Wrong, bad men sit and the shadows and feed off of it, they use this as self assurance of their already confused perception of the church. Stop trying to portray the church as bad in this situation.

Ah but I am right. There are many at the Vatican that have no problem with the book. Some have said they even liked the book as it is a great work of fiction.

Yea but if you go see all the facts, youll see that much of the bible is supported plenty well enough. The Da Vinci Code is primarily fictional.
Now you're lying again. The Bible doesn't stand an ontological analysis even against itself, much less against reality.

And the Da Vinci Code doesn't try to pass itself as the word of God.

But it doesn't encourage investigation, it gets people to believe falsehoods as facts, without ever investigating.
I meant the sceptics the book created. They will want to see if the book indeed has any basis, so they will investigate, although I agree with you that too many people take it at face value.

Just like the Bible. What's the problem?
People who insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible are foolish and narrow-minded in my opinion, just as are those who take what Dan Brown says for the literal truth.

The Church can only blame itself for adding to this situation.

I can blame Dan Brown a fair bit. In fact, I'd put the majority of blame on him. If not all.

What exactly has the church done wrong? Tryed to refute false claims about it? What's so bad about that?"

(If the church did something really bad about it, forgive me, I did not start at the beginning of the thread. I know I know, I'm a bad generalite. Just let me know what it was, if anything)

Ah but I am right. There are many at the Vatican that have no problem with the book. Some have said they even liked the book as it is a great work of fiction.


Ah but this arguement only proves mine. The men who liek it as a great work of fiction fully understand and know it to be false. These are good men, they have nothing to fear from it. The bad men still use it wrongly.

Actually, there aren't. Even the oldest fragment known of the gospels and St Paul's Epistles and other newer parts of the New Testament are much older copies of what are supposed to be the original documents. Some of them in Greek or Latin, but it's impossible to tell how similar they are to the original.

And the Old Testament is much harder still.

Crap. I shouldn't have edited out the oral accounts comment. It made sense in my head. ;)

What I was going to say that it's a "fools errand" to look for the original since the 4 main Gospels were written 60 or so years after the events and they came from oral accounts.

People who insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible are foolish and narrow-minded in my opinion, just as are those who take what Dan Brown says for the literal truth.
I think that's the problem that the Church has with this book. They're going after the same market! Sceptics, after all, don't take the Bible that much seriously, and don't take this book too seriously either (even those that hadn't come across its theories before).

However, the true believers, those than believe anything they come across, those are the backbone of the Church's followers, and this book threatens to take some of them away.

Now you're lying again. The Bible doesn't stand an ontological analysis even against itself, much less against reality.

And the Da Vinci Code doesn't try to pass itself as the word of God.


Ok first of all, Im not lying, and second whats with the again?

Anyways, the bible, that parts that are meant to be literal (which is only a small portion) is supported by historical fact. It stands quite well aligned with itself as a matter of fact.

And it is the word of God.
Obviously The Da Vinci code doesnt try to be, but it still tries to cuase trouble.

I meant the sceptics the book created. They will want to see if the book indeed has any basis, so they will investigate, although I agree with you that too many people take it at face value.

Ah, I misenterperated. But yes, whenever someone investigates anything with an open mind and a dedication to *truth* and *facts,* it is good. I agree with you that this book has primarily created snap-decision makers like my friend I mentioned.

I think that's the problem that the Church has with this book. They're going after the same market! Sceptics, after all, don't take the Bible that much seriously, and don't take this book too seriously either (even those that hadn't come across its theories before).

However, the true believers, those than believe anything they come across, those are the backbone of the Church's followers, and this book threatens to take some of them away.
The problem is -for the Church- that by adopting such a reactionary stance it is silently and unwillingly validating its opponents claims, even if they possibly are devoid of all merit. It is time it realised that reactionary attitudes yield no, or perhaps even negative, results.

What I was going to say that it's a "fools errand" to look for the original since the 4 main Gospels were written 60 or so years after the events and they came from oral accounts.
And even that is very much in doubt, including if the original narrators were witnesses to the fact, when did these stories first appear, where were they recorded for the first time, who were the original writers, etc. etc. Almost everything of importance about the source and reliability of the gospels is unknown.

I think that's the problem that the Church has with this book. They're going after the same market! Sceptics, after all, don't take the Bible that much seriously, and don't take this book too seriously either (even those that hadn't come across its theories before).

However, the true believers, those than believe anything they come across, those are the backbone of the Church's followers, and this book threatens to take some of them away.



OOO thats bold. Calling me and fellow belivers gullible. I am a true beliver not because i accept things easily but because I understand my faith rahter well, I constantly seek to reaffirm it with facts, arguments, logic, and events.
The Da Vinci code poses no threat to those like me, but it poses great threat to the great number of members who dont fully understand and are gullible (these are not true believers, but they are believers still). The church wishes to guide all of its members, those that have strong faith and those that are struggling. The Da Vinci Code makes it harder to keep those tha are sturggling.

And even that is very much in doubt, including if the original narrators were witnesses to the fact, when did these stories first appear, where were they recorded for the first time, who were the original writers, etc. etc. Almost everything of importance about the source and reliability of the gospels is unknown.

That will always be the problem since the people telling the stories weren't present. They heard it from somebody else.

Hmmm. Shall I bring of the recent Coptic stuff and make Dragons head explode. ;)

I think that's the problem that the Church has with this book. They're going after the same market! Sceptics, after all, don't take the Bible that much seriously, and don't take this book too seriously either (even those that hadn't come across its theories before).

However, the true believers, those than believe anything they come across, those are the backbone of the Church's followers, and this book threatens to take some of them away.

I am a skeptic, I take nothing at face value. I am also a devout Christain. When I read the Da Vinci Code, I did some reaserch, and found Mr. Brown's "facts" to be either fabrication or speculation.

"Skeptic" and "believer" are not mutually exclusive.

The church's main problem with this book is that it lies about them, it slanders their God, and it hurts their image. Made all the worse because it's not even true.

The fiction does not attempt to find a deeper spiritual truth but claims instead that the Church has been lying and covering up a secret for years.

You're missing the point: Luther sought a better understanding of Christ and Christianity, Brown sought dough, and depending on your source, exposure of Church 'scandal' for the sake of itself.

Dan Brown has in no way indicated in internal theological flaw in the Church as Luther did.



Ah but the church has been lying and covering up things for years. So the over all gist of the idea that the church lies and covers up is in fact a truth. Whether the details of his story are fact or not isn't the relevance to me, the fact that the church HAS done just what the plot indicates only makes the plot more intriguing. This is what the church hates most of all. It really isn't the idea that Christ had a wife or children, but that the church has practiced deceit. They don't like being reminded of it publically in any genre.

Whether Brown has a beef with organized religion or not is not what I see in this book at all. But as you said a guy selling a story for personal gain. If in that story a truth of church corruption is embellished to sell fiction so be it. People will dig to find out if it so or not, look at this board alone, haven't we all looked into it? Amazing to me is the simple fact that people are looking at faith and religion at all in this day and age of so many drawing completely away from religion. When was the last time a fictional book or movie even invited discussion?

I am a skeptic, I take nothing at face value. I am also a devout Christain. When I read the Da Vinci Code, I did some reaserch, and found Mr. Brown's "facts" to be either fabrication or speculation.

"Skeptic" and "believer" are not mutually exclusive.

The church's main problem with this book is that it lies about them, it slanders their God, and it hurts their image. Made all the worse because it's not even true.

Hmmm you wouldn't have some attitudes about Catholics now would you?

What they heck was the ministers comment?......

-edit-

I remember "The Whore of Babalon".......

I am a skeptic, I take nothing at face value. I am also a devout Christain. When I read the Da Vinci Code, I did some reaserch, and found Mr. Brown's "facts" to be either fabrication or speculation.
Pretty much the same here. Although I do think there are still mysteries to be uncovered relative to the Christian faith, I don't think Mr Brown proves anything conclusively, or even partially.

The problem is -for the Church- that by adopting such a reactionary stance it is silently and unwillingly validating its opponents claims, even if they possibly are devoid of all merit. It is time it realised that reactionary attitudes yield no, or perhaps even negative, results.


Actually they have to react beacuse if not then they lay down and let people accept these lies as truth. The results are effective for those tha are struggling in their faith and debate the facts behind the whole event. Just becuase it has no effect for you doesn't mean its no good. You can't please everybody.

Actually they have to react beacuse if not then they lay down and let people accept these lies as truth. The results are effective for those tha are struggling in their faith and debate the facts behind the whole event. Just becuase it has no effect for you doesn't mean its no good. You can't please everybody.
And again, requests to have the work boycotted are not the proper mode of reaction. They may, as I said, diminish the work and prove its fallacies, but that doesn't mean they have to adopt an extreme, self-defeating position.

Ok first of all, Im not lying, and second whats with the again?
First time, when you said there was historical proof of Jesus and the Apostles. There's none. Second, when you said that the Church keeps a copy of the Bible in its original language. There's no such thing. And this is the third, which you compound:

Anyways, the bible, that parts that are meant to be literal (which is only a small portion) is supported by historical fact. It stands quite well aligned with itself as a matter of fact.
Not nearly on both accounts. True, there are some cities that the Bible mentions that really existed, and some kings, who also really existed, but that doesn't make the Bible more true or divine. The Illiad and Odissey also mention places and people who existed, that doesn't make Zeus and the Olympic gods more real, does it?

Other accounts, like the flood, are obviously mythological, maybe inspired by a very ancient event, and passed down through generations, but mythological nonetheless. The particular Roman census that supposedly drove Joseph and Mary to Betlehem never existed. Even if it had Romans didn't require you to move when taking a census.

There are also several inconsistencies and gaps in the Bible's story that make one doubt about its divine origin: where did Cain's wife come from? why does Deuteronomy classify the rabbit as a ruminant? why are there two accounts of creation? or two genealogies of Christ for that matter?

Obviously The Da Vinci code doesnt try to be, but it still tries to cuase trouble.
Not nearlt as much as the Bible and the Church have caused through the ages.

Hmmm you wouldn't have some attitudes about Catholics now would you?

What they heck was the ministers comment?......

-edit-

I remember "The Whore of Babalon".......

My girlfriend is Catholic. I find many Catholics to be really great people and good, perceptive, free-thinking Christains. I have also met many Catholics who were the opposite.

So I don't have an attitude about Catholics as a whole, I have an opinion on each individual person, as I meet and get to know them, as I do with all people I meet. I don't judge people my groups.

The Catholic Church, I see as having a confused mix of wanting to be modern and appeal to people today, while at the same time staying rooted in tradition and the origonal message that can never change. These two factions don't mix well, and oft result in a confused, half-and-half dogma. Although they Church leaders are people trying to find their own way, and trying to help other people find theirs.

What's this about a "ministers comment" and a "whore of Babylon"?

The Catholic Church, I see as having a confused mix of wanting to be modern and appeal to people today, while at the same time staying rooted in tradition and the origonal message that can never change. These two factions don't mix well, and oft result in a confused, half-and-half dogma. Although they Church leaders are people trying to find their own way, and trying to help other people find theirs.
I hope that one day our Church will manage to devise a coherent approach to the problems it faces and modernise itself effectively. As you said, many of us are free thinkers nowadays, and this might help reform Catholicism.

I am a skeptic, I take nothing at face value. I am also a devout Christain. When I read the Da Vinci Code, I did some reaserch, and found Mr. Brown's "facts" to be either fabrication or speculation.

"Skeptic" and "believer" are not mutually exclusive.
Of course not. But are you going to deny that the strongest defenders of the faith are usually those least disposed to think about, put it in doubt, and openly criticize it?

I mean, if you are really a sceptic you would have started by questioning your faith: is the Bible the true word of God? what about other books, like the Bhagavad Gita? did Christ really exist? etc. and pondered on all the known facts.

The church's main problem with this book is that it lies about them, it slanders their God, and it hurts their image. Made all the worse because it's not even true.
Yeah. And it says it's not true right there on the cover. If people are dumb enough to believe it unquestioningly, that's their problem.

First time, when you said there was historical proof of Jesus and the Apostles. There's none.

That's accully not true.


There are also several inconsistencies and gaps in the Bible's story that make one doubt about its divine origin: where did Cain's wife come from? why does Deuteronomy classify the rabbit as a ruminant? why are there two accounts of creation? or two genealogies of Christ for that matter?

Because much of the Bible isn't ment to be taken literally. You cannot express something like the nature of God and the universe in purely literal terms. When you are trying to wrap a human mind around something that, by it's very nature, cannot be understood or fully comprehended, much less put down in concrete words, the usual rules don't always apply. So you can have two seemingly mutually exclisive creation stories next to each other, and it's not contradictory at all. It's not a historical document, it's a set of symbolism ment to push our limited human minds to the higher level of thinking, to understanding of the devine.

That's accully not true.
Care to present it then?

When you are trying to wrap a human mind around something that, by it's very nature, cannot be understood or fully comprehended, much less put down in concrete words, the usual rules don't always apply.
Suuuure... and you call yourself a sceptic.

What's this about a "ministers comment" and a "whore of Babylon"?

I wasn't posting a dig. I didn't write my thought out right.

The comment was that the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon.

There are many nutjobs around. God seems to attract them ;)

First time, when you said there was historical proof of Jesus and the Apostles. There's none. Second, when you said that the Church keeps a copy of the Bible in its original language. There's no such thing. And this is the third, which you compound:


Not nearly on both accounts. True, there are some cities that the Bible mentions that really existed, and some kings, who also really existed, but that doesn't make the Bible more true or divine. The Illiad and Odissey also mention places and people who existed, that doesn't make Zeus and the Olympic gods more real, does it?

Other accounts, like the flood, are obviously mythological, maybe inspired by a very ancient event, and passed down through generations, but mythological nonetheless. The particular Roman census that supposedly drove Joseph and Mary to Betlehem never existed. Even if it had Romans didn't require you to move when taking a census.

There are also several inconsistencies and gaps in the Bible's story that make one doubt about its divine origin: where did Cain's wife come from? why does Deuteronomy classify the rabbit as a ruminant? why are there two accounts of creation? or two genealogies of Christ for that matter?


Not nearlt as much as the Bible and the Church have caused through the ages.

Not every event is literal. Jesus did exist and there is historcial proof as well as proof of his tomb. Also the shroud of turin is pretty solid proof for me.
The Church has copies of the bible written in the language of the people of that time. I didnt say they have the original bible, thats silly the bible is a collection books and many of the "original" scrolls are lost. but they still have copies of it in hebrew, greek, latin, aramaic, and any other language a book of the bible was originally written in.

The tale of Cain is not literal and the same with the Creation stories. The flood story is not completely literal there is tons of symbolism in it, but a great flood did occur and there is proof. The lack of proof of a particular census is of no real consequence.

Of course not. But are you going to deny that the strongest defenders of the faith are usually those least disposed to think about, put it in doubt, and openly criticize it?

I mean, if you are really a sceptic you would have started by questioning your faith: is the Bible the true word of God? what about other books, like the Bhagavad Gita? did Christ really exist? etc. and pondered on all the known facts.

Accully, I do.

I think those truly strongest in their faith are those who have chosen it. When I was a child, I was told all the Christain dogma, and I accepted it, because an adult said it. As I grew older, I began to doubt. I went through a 2 year period when I was an avowed athiest. For reasons much to complex and personal to go into here, and after much thought, investigation, reading, meditation, more thinking, et cetera, I *decided* I believed. And my faith that I have chosen, and that came after I doubted, is so much stronger then that "faith" that I had accepted "just because."

So as I said, my faith is constantly expanded and re-enfored by doubt and honest exploration. Like it says in the Bible:

"Test everything. That which remains is true."


Yeah. And it says it's not true right there on the cover. If people are dumb enough to believe it unquestioningly, that's their problem.[/QUOTE]

But my contention is that Mr. Brown writes it in such a way that he wants people to believe it's true, thus intentionally lieing and spreading falsehood, killing fact and truth. And I have a problem with that.

Should the book be banned? Hell no! But I can still be against it.

"I do not agree with a word you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it" and all that jazz.

Yeah. And it says it's not true right there on the cover. If people are dumb enough to believe it unquestioningly, that's their problem.


True, its their problem, but since the Church is responisble for every human soul, its also the Church's problem so therefore, they react to rectify it.

"The comment was that the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon.

There are many nutjobs around. God seems to attract them "

right - look at the muslim extremists - different god, wild effect

:headbang: :sniper:

Care to present it then?

How about Roman records at the time?

Ask any scholar or professor of history.


Suuuure... and you call yourself a sceptic.

I like how you picked out the one sentence, completely out of context (one that I hestated writing because I thought you might seize on it like that) to make it seem like I was saying something I was not. Very clever. Genius, even. You think of that all by yourself? Because if so, you could really revolutionize the feild of politics! Why, with such a new and origonal style of making those you are talking to look fooling, there's no telling how far you can go! So I tip my hat to you, sir.

True, its their problem, but since the Church is responisble for every human soul, its also the Church's problem so therefore, they react to rectify it.

So if a soul ends up in hell; is it the fault of the church?

Responcibility implies ownership.

"The comment was that the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon.

There are many nutjobs around. God seems to attract them "

right - look at the muslim extremists - different god, wild effect

:headbang: :sniper:


Same God, accully.

So if a soul ends up in hell; is it the fault of the church?

Responcibility implies ownership.


Wrong, when I am left responsible for my brother, does that mean I own him? No it doesn't. If a soul ends up in hell, it is the failing of the church to keep it from happening. But since we have free will, the Church isn't all at fault.

So if a soul ends up in hell; is it the fault of the church?

Responcibility implies ownership.


I'll have to disagree with MHD here. Each man is responcible for his own soul.

But it is the church's problem if people accept it blindly for a different reason. They are accepting false attacks on the church and Christian doctrine.

Not every event is literal. Jesus did exist and there is historcial proof as well as proof of his tomb. Also the shroud of turin is pretty solid proof for me.
Ah, but the tomb is just said to be the tomb of Jesus. There's no proof that it actually is. In fact, there's much doubt that it was used as a tomb at all. After all, it was only "discovered" in the 4th Century!

And the shroud of Turin has been dated to the Middle Ages, not nearly old enough to have been Christ's shroud.

The Church has copies of the bible written in the language of the people of that time. I didnt say they have the original bible, thats silly the bible is a collection books and many of the "original" scrolls are lost. but they still have copies of it in hebrew, greek, latin, aramaic, and any other language a book of the bible was originally written in.
The Church has fragments of passages written in the original language. More often than not it has Greek or Latin translations. It's very different.

The tale of Cain is not literal and the same with the Creation stories. The flood story is not completely literal there is tons of symbolism in it, but a great flood did occur and there is proof. The lack of proof of a particular census is of no real consequence.
Sure, when there's no proof or where there's contradiction we'll just say that it's either an allegory or of no consequence. We can apply the same test of truth to The Da Vinci Code and then we'll find that it's true.

In either case, this casts a very large doubt on the Bible as the word of God.

How about Roman records at the time?

Ask any scholar or professor of history.
There are no known contemporary Roman records that mention him. There is a single reference to a certain "brother of Jesus," but since that wasn't an uncommon name it's impossible to know if that's the one who occupies us. Ask any scholar or professor of history. After all, it is you who claims there is such proof.

I like how you picked out the one sentence, completely out of context (one that I hestated writing because I thought you might seize on it like that) to make it seem like I was saying something I was not. Very clever. Genius, even. You think of that all by yourself? Because if so, you could really revolutionize the feild of politics! Why, with such a new and origonal style of making those you are talking to look fooling, there's no telling how far you can go! So I tip my hat to you, sir.
That single sentence was the core of your argument. Are you admitting that it was feeble?

Here it is, reproduced in its entirety, if it's so important to you:

Because much of the Bible isn't ment to be taken literally. You cannot express something like the nature of God and the universe in purely literal terms. When you are trying to wrap a human mind around something that, by it's very nature, cannot be understood or fully comprehended, much less put down in concrete words, the usual rules don't always apply. So you can have two seemingly mutually exclisive creation stories next to each other, and it's not contradictory at all. It's not a historical document, it's a set of symbolism ment to push our limited human minds to the higher level of thinking, to understanding of the devine.
Sounds as dumb as when presented alone. Worse, even. Pure circular reasoning. I'm sorry to say that even if you thought of this by yourself you won't be revolutionizing the field of logic.

Greek is the origonal language for much of the New Testiment, by the by.

Ah, but the tomb is just said to be the tomb of Jesus. There's no proof that it actually is. In fact, there's much doubt that it was used as a tomb at all. After all, it was only "discovered" in the 4th Century!

And the shroud of Turin has been dated to the Middle Ages, not nearly old enough to have been Christ's shroud.

Well where have you been? They found out that the test was skewed by bacteria. They restested and guess what? It fits rather well in the appropriate timeline. The tomb has sufficient evidence behind it.


The Church has fragments of passages written in the original language. More often than not it has Greek or Latin translations. It's very different.


Sure, when there's no proof or where there's contradiction we'll just say that it's either an allegory or of no consequence. We can apply the same test of truth to The Da Vinci Code and then we'll find that it's true.

In either case, this casts a very large doubt on the Bible as the word of God.


Actually, you keep refering to the original language like I mean the original scroll. They have bibles written in the language since some of he actual original scrolls are lost. But the language of them is the same as that of their scroll predecessors.
The census really is of no consequence, there is nothing I can say about the hitorical proof of census that will make you change your mind. Since I don't even know if the census is in recorded history or not so I can't aruge it. (never took time to look that instance up never was told about it)

The bible is the word of God, but it was written by human hand, in human language, in human style. So some of the historics are funny, but the message is still the same thruoghout, God created out of love and he always loves us (more to it but lets leave that for later)

Well where have you been? They found out that the test was skewed by bacteria. They restested and guess what? It fits rather well in the appropriate timeline. The tomb has sufficient evidence behind it.


Well then. A linky would be good to back that up.

I'll have to disagree with MHD here. Each man is responcible for his own soul.

But it is the church's problem if people accept it blindly for a different reason. They are accepting false attacks on the church and Christian doctrine.


Maybe I presented that topic awkwardly. I mean the the Church is charged with guiding every human soul to heaven, if not then in a sense the Church has failed them, however since everyone soul is their own the Church cannot be blamed for those who refused despite the Church's efforts. I don't know if that clarified anything but yeha thats what I meant.

Well then. A linky would be good to back that up.



Alright then here is a link that shows that the results leave it to be plausibly 2000 years old.

http://www.shroudstory.com/breaking02.htm

-edit-

Heres another site that helps


http://www.shroud2000.com/CarbonDatingNews.html

"Religion is the opiate of the masses" - Carl Marx

and i am not a drug user


please remember that the church will always make a fuss when anything challenges their beliefs

There are no known contemporary Roman records that mention him. There is a single reference to a certain "brother of Jesus," but since that wasn't an uncommon name it's impossible to know if that's the one who occupies us. Ask any scholar or professor of history. After all, it is you who claims there is such proof.

I'll get back to you with sources.



Sounds as dumb as when presented alone. Worse, even. Pure circular reasoning. I'm sorry to say that even if you thought of this by yourself you won't be revolutionizing the field of logic.

Please forgive my inarticulation, I've been up for 32 hours at this point.

I cannot give you in concrete terms that you will accept just why I accept the Bible and other such sources as revelation of the Devine. "The rules don't apply" sends the wrong message, but it is the closest I can come right now.

Just because I choose to believe, and just because I can't effectively put something that powerful, complex, and personal down to you on an internet forum, who are you to say I am or am not skeptic? As I said, my faith is stronger through being constantly tempered by doubt.

If it takes massive, complex texts such as the Bible, Koran, Bhagavad Gita, et cetera to start a human mind on the path to understanding the divine, how can you expect a sleep-deprived me to wrap it up in a few sentences here?

"Religion is the opiate of the masses" - Carl Marx

and i am not a drug user


please remember that the church will always make a fuss when anything challenges their beliefs

1) You mispelled "Karl"

2) The church isn't so much mad that it's beliefs are being questioned, but that someone is speading *lies* about them. Get it right.

Please forgive my inarticulation, I've been up for 32 hours at this point.

I cannot give you in concrete terms that you will accept just why I accept the Bible and other such sources as revelation of the Devine. "The rules don't apply" sends the wrong message, but it is the closest I can come right now.

Just because I choose to believe, and just because I can't effectively put something that powerful, complex, and personal down to you on an internet forum, who are you to say I am or am not skeptic? As I said, my faith is stronger through being constantly tempered by doubt.

If it takes massive, complex texts such as the Bible, Koran, Bhagavad Gita, et cetera to start a human mind on the path to understanding the divine, how can you expect a sleep-deprived me to wrap it up in a few sentences here?

Well put :)

Alright guys, fun debating and everything but its about 2:30 in the morning here and I need some sleep. Ill be back tomorrow night.:sniper:

Well put :)

Thank ya.


Although I think me and Mr. Iztatepopotla have reached an impass in our discussion. It's been fun, though, it certainly has.

Alright guys, fun debating and everything but its about 2:30 in the morning here and I need some sleep. Ill be back tomorrow night.:sniper:

G'night.

It's nearly 4 here. I could keep going, or not, whichever people feel like.

Accully, I'm off to bed too. I'll check on you cats in the morning.

Another Da Vinci Code thread? Seems like I responded in one of these a couple days ago that was different from this one.

My thoughts on this discussion are:

1) I read The Da Vinci Code and am one of the few I suppose who feel the book wasn't even that believable in what was supposed to be the obvious fiction part. Example: He has a character in the first chapter who gets mortally wounded, a 72 year old man who is shot in the stomach and has 15 minutes to live. But in that 15 minutes, this fatally wounded 72 year old man runs the equivalent of 3 city blocks, thinks up at least 3 anagrams, writes the address to his bank on a key, hides this key behind a large painting and writes on the glass of that painting, writes on the glass of another painting across the way, takes off all his clothes (and "folds them neatly"), draws a pentacle on his stomach in his own blood, draws a huge circle around himself and special directions, poses and dies. His obvious fictional part in the characters he creates is hard to believe.

2) The trouble some are having with the book is because an author has every right to do whatever he wants with the characters he creates. Dan Brown not only creates with his characters but changes the background historical information. This causes confusion with the reader between what is fact and fiction. A Barna study showed that 53 percent of those who have read the book said it made an impact on them in what they believe spiritually! http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=Perspective&PerspectiveID=4

I don't know of any Christians that want to "ban" the book. But many Christians have a hard time believing this 53 percent figure and are disturbed by that. The book is an attack on not only what Christians believe but on history. Christians just want to get the correct information out there to people who are actually confused about the book being fiction and believing much of it as fact. It doesn't help when the author is on the record several times saying everything in the book is accurate and factual. I think most of his research was lacking and there weren't many actual facts in this book. People like me see the book as a great opportunity to talk about spiritual things.

3) The four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are historically reliable and the gnostic gospels in this book are not only misrepresented (the gnostics tended to over spiritualize Jesus instead of making him more human. They believed the flesh was evil) but were written in the third and fourth centuries. The four gospels were most probably all completed by 70 A.D. according to conservative and liberal biblical scholars alike.

Well where have you been? They found out that the test was skewed by bacteria. They restested and guess what? It fits rather well in the appropriate timeline. The tomb has sufficient evidence behind it.
Ever since the dating there has been speculation as to why the test "failed," but nothing has been proven conclusive. The C14 test conducted in 1989 is the only definitive guide so far that indicated the shroud's age, and it may very well be wrong since only a very small sample was allowed to be tested. Unfortunately, until the keepers of the Shroud allow more exhaustive test we won't know for sure.

The tomb has no evidence behind it other than "it looks like it could maybe have been."

Actually, you keep refering to the original language like I mean the original scroll. They have bibles written in the language since some of he actual original scrolls are lost. But the language of them is the same as that of their scroll predecessors.
That doesn't mean they say the same, they're still copies. Plus, as I've said before, most of the material the Church has are Latin or Greek translations. And fragments at best.

I'm a Christian (Not a Catholic - there's a big difference), and as far as I was concerned, I thought The Da Vinci Code was one of the best books I'd read in years. It didn't infringe on my beliefs at all, but I actually enjoyed looking up all the paintings and references to see what they showed and what I had missed before.

Personally I thought there was nothing wrong with the book, same as I think that the Harry Potter books were cool as well.

I don't agree with censorship, though I can understand the reasons that the Catholic church throws up.

I'll get back to you with sources.
I'll be waiting.

Please forgive my inarticulation, I've been up for 32 hours at this point.
And how am I supposed to know that? Besides sleep depravation is bad for you. You should try to sleep.

Just because I choose to believe, and just because I can't effectively put something that powerful, complex, and personal down to you on an internet forum, who are you to say I am or am not skeptic? As I said, my faith is stronger through being constantly tempered by doubt.
Easy. It's not the choosing to believe part (which is very well put, belief is a choice, and an exclusively personal one at that), although a sceptic would choose to doubt. But it's rather applying different rules to what you choose to believe that definitely makes you non-sceptical. By definition.

If you choose to believe that's all very well and good. Don't let me interrupt you. But don't come to me saying that you are an sceptical or that you arrived to your conclusion using the rules of scepticism because that's just not true. You chose to believe, and that's enough, but it's not scepticism.

Ever since the dating there has been speculation as to why the test "failed," but nothing has been proven conclusive. The C14 test conducted in 1989 is the only definitive guide so far that indicated the shroud's age, and it may very well be wrong since only a very small sample was allowed to be tested. Unfortunately, until the keepers of the Shroud allow more exhaustive test we won't know for sure.

The tomb has no evidence behind it other than "it looks like it could maybe have been."


That doesn't mean they say the same, they're still copies. Plus, as I've said before, most of the material the Church has are Latin or Greek translations. And fragments at best.

1. There are over 5,000 manuscript copies of the New Testament. None of them are original, but the earliest copies date to about 120 A.D. With that many manuscripts, there is actually a scientific method to comparing the various documents over time and looking for differences. If you compare the New Testament with any other book in antiquity, the New Testament is the most historically reliable by far. If the New Testament is questioned for it's reliability, then we certainly cannot believe anything in antiquity.

2. I am not aware that anyone is aware today what tomb Jesus was actually buried in. The point is that we don't know which tomb because he didn't stay in it very long. The tomb is actually powerful evidence when you look at it in a legal sense. Not an actual tomb that we can look at today, but the fact that in it's historical context, Christianity thrived in a world where all anyone had to do was drag out a dead body of Jesus to put a stop to it all. This has brought many throughout history to faith.

1. There are over 5,000 manuscript copies of the New Testament. None of them are original, but the earliest copies date to about 120 A.D. With that many manuscripts, there is actually a scientific method to comparing the various documents over time and looking for differences. If you compare the New Testament with any other book in antiquity, the New Testament is the most historically reliable by far. If the New Testament is questioned for it's reliability, then we certainly cannot believe anything in antiquity.
There is a reasonable certainty that the Gospels come from a single manuscript, the Q Source, I think they call it. But even that original source would be from a few decades after the supposed fact. And even so, that doesn't mean that what is written in that manuscript is actually based on fact. Unlike the remains of old cities, contemporary texts on various kings, government notes, baskets, and different kinds of records that give us an idea of life in antique times, no independent corroboration has been found on the existence of Jesus.

Perhaps that Q Source was a play, and people liked it and started reproducing it, and some people took it as the real truth, just like some people now take The Da Vinci Code. Anything is possible and we'll never know for sure until we find it, if we ever do.

2. I am not aware that anyone is aware today what tomb Jesus was actually buried in. The point is that we don't know which tomb because he didn't stay in it very long. The tomb is actually powerful evidence when you look at it in a legal sense. Not an actual tomb that we can look at today, but the fact that in it's historical context, Christianity thrived in a world where all anyone had to do was drag out a dead body of Jesus to put a stop to it all. This has brought many throughout history to faith.
Yes. As a symbol it's powerful. As evidence, it's rather lacking.

There is a reasonable certainty that the Gospels come from a single manuscript, the Q Source, I think they call it. But even that original source would be from a few decades after the supposed fact. And even so, that doesn't mean that what is written in that manuscript is actually based on fact. Unlike the remains of old cities, contemporary texts on various kings, government notes, baskets, and different kinds of records that give us an idea of life in antique times, no independent corroboration has been found on the existence of Jesus.

Perhaps that Q Source was a play, and people liked it and started reproducing it, and some people took it as the real truth, just like some people now take The Da Vinci Code. Anything is possible and we'll never know for sure until we find it, if we ever do.


Yes. As a symbol it's powerful. As evidence, it's rather lacking.

Ha! Ha! The evidence of the resurrection of Jesus is a symbol and as evidence it's lacking? Actually when you start to go through it all, the eyewitness accounts, the empty tomb, the roman guards, the piercing his side, etc., there's some good evidence there. I don't expect the response in this thread to change your mind. But lots of people who have set out to disprove all of that have become Christians (Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel to name two off the top of my head).

And it sounds to me like you have alot of faith in this Q document. I have taken classes studying the gospels and do not believe there was ever a Q. The four gospels were all written within a strong oral tradition by eyewitnesses of those accounts. Those authors were even put to death for what they claimed.

No reputable scholar or historian would give any credence to The Da Vinci Code, nor should they, as researched history. However, the Bible is the most attested work in all of antiquity and historically reliable. Your statement believing the Da Vinci Code could some day be seen in the same light as the Bible for accuracy is laughable.

Lastly, you write no independent corroboration has been written about Jesus. You really need to check your facts before being so bold. There are at least half a dozen from what I remember. I'll have to look those up and post them tomorrow. There's actually more independent resources outside of Scripture attesting to the existence of Jesus of Nazareth than there is evidence attesting to the Roman emperor of the day.

You can take all the information and investigate it and try to get to the real answers, or you could probably write a successful novel it appears :)

Ha! Ha! The evidence of the resurrection of Jesus is a symbol and as evidence it's lacking? Actually when you start to go through it all, the eyewitness accounts, the empty tomb, the roman guards, the piercing his side, etc., there's some good evidence there.
Yes, I see how your lack of reading comprehension would have you believing all sorts of things. Where did I say that the supposed tomb of Christ is evidence? I'm calling it a symbol because that's what it is, but that doesn't make it evidence. Or just because the Temple of the Mound is a symbol for the Muslims you'd say that that's evidence that Mohammed was God's chosen prophet?

And it sounds to me like you have alot of faith in this Q document. I have taken classes studying the gospels and do not believe there was ever a Q. The four gospels were all written within a strong oral tradition by eyewitnesses of those accounts. Those authors were even put to death for what they claimed.
Me? I put no faith in it at all, if it even exists. There's no certainty on the authorship of the gospels, much less that the authors were put to death. There's even less certainty that they're based on eyewitness accounts, and if so, how many links went from the "eyewitness" to the written document.

No reputable scholar or historian would give any credence to The Da Vinci Code, nor should they, as researched history. However, the Bible is the most attested work in all of antiquity and historically reliable. Your statement believing the Da Vinci Code could some day be seen in the same light as the Bible for accuracy is laughable.
HAHAHAHAHAHA! Where did I say that the Da Vinci Code could some day be seen as the same light as the Bible? C'mon! Did you fail basic English comprehension? I said that the Gospels could have started as a work of fiction that was taken too seriously, just like the Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction taken too seriously. The Bible is far from being the most attested work in all of antiquity, much less historically reliable. It has too many gaps and inconsistencies to be called accurate. We can say that the history of the Jewish people happened along those general lines, but that's far from being accurate or reliable.

Lastly, you write no independent corroboration has been written about Jesus. You really need to check your facts before being so bold. There are at least half a dozen from what I remember. I'll have to look those up and post them tomorrow. There's actually more independent resources outside of Scripture attesting to the existence of Jesus of Nazareth than there is evidence attesting to the Roman emperor of the day.
Cite them. If you're thinking of the "evidence" of Flavius Iosephus, Tacitus, Plinius II, and Suetonius, save yourself the trouble. Those have been proven false. And unless you can come up with contemporary coins, sculptures, and edicts of and by Jesus, you're gonna' have a very hard time backing that "more evidence than the Emperor" thing.

You can take all the information and investigate it and try to get to the real answers, or you could probably write a successful novel it appears :)
My novel would be very boring: Did Jesus exist? There's no evidence that he did. The End.

Ok, I found some of the external evidence from non-Christian documents I promised I would post later.

1. Tacitus - a 1st Century Roman, was considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world. He acknowledges Jesus' crucifixion saying,

"Christus...suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate." (Tacitus, A, 15.44).

2. Pliny the Younger - a Roman author and administrator. In a letter to the emperor Trajan in about A.D. 112, Pliny describes the early Christian worship practices,

"They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to do any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was thier custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food - but food of an ordinary and innocent kind." (Pliny the Younger, L, 10:96)

Josh McDowell writes, "This reference provides solid evidence that Jesus was worshipped as God from an early date by Christians who continued to follow the practice of breaking bread together, as reported in Acts 2:42 and 46. This secular reference alone disproves Dan Brown's theory that the deity of Christ was accepted only lately around the time of Constantine, over two hundred years after this letter was written."

3. Emperor Trajan, in responding to Pliny's letter, gave the following guidelines for punishing Christians,

"No search should be made for these people, when they are denounced and found guilty they must be punished, with the restriction, however, that when the party denies himself to be a Christian, and give proof that he is not (that is, by adoring our gods) he shall be pardoned on the ground of repentance even though he may have formerly incurred suspicion." (Pliny The Younger, L, 10:97)

So much for Brown's theory that Christians were originally pagan god and goddess worshippers.

4. Suetonius, chief secretary to the emperor Hadrian confirms the report in Acts 18:2 that Claudius commanded all Jews to leave Rome in AD 49.

"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome." (Suetonius, Life of Nero, 16)

Speaking of the aftermath of the great fire at Rome, Suetonius refers likely to the resurrection of Christ when he says,

"Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a body of people addicted to a novel and mischeivous superstition." (Suetonius, Life of Nero, 16)

5. Josephus (A.D. 37 - 100), was a Jewish historian working under Roman authority. He refers to Jesus as the brother of James who was martyred. Referring to the High Priest, Ananias, he writes,

"...he assembled the Sanhedrin of the judges and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others (or some of his companions), and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned." (Josephus, AJ, 20.9.1)

Josephus also confirmed the existence and martyrdom of John the Baptist. (Josephus, AJ, 18.5.2)

6. In a disputed text, not on textual grounds, but because it's hard to imagine Josephus speaking so highly of Jesus unless he had become a Christian (which is possible), Josephus gives a brief description of Jesus and his mission,

"Now there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men who receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. For he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him, and the tribe of Christians, so named after him, are not extinct to this day." (Josephus, AJ, 18.3.3)

This passage was cited in Eusebius in it's present form (Ecclesiastical History 1.11) and the manuscript evidence favors it. It exists in all the existing copies of this text.

F.F. Bruce suggests the phrase, "if indeed we should call him a man" may indicate that the text is authentic but that Josephus is writing with a tongue in cheek sarcastic reference to the Christian belief that Jesus is the Son of God." (Bruce, NTD, 109)

7. Thallus wrote around A.D. 52. Julius Africanus, in about AD 221 quotes Thallus in a discussion about the darkness that followed the crucifixion of Christ.

8. Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek writer whose works contain sarcastic references to Christianity. "The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day - the distinguished personnage who introduced their novel rites and was crucified on that account . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all of time, which explains the contempt of death and and voluntary self-devotion which is so common amongst them. And then it was impressed upon them by their original lawgiver, that they were all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property." (Lucian of Samosata, DP, 11-13)

Dr. Norman Geisler states the supreme irony of Lucian's remarks, "Despite being one of the church's most vocal critics, Lucian gives one of the most informative accounts of Jesus and early Christianity outside of the New Testament." (Geisler, BECA, 383)

But you say all of this historical record has been "proven false." o.k.

2. I am not aware that anyone is aware today what tomb Jesus was actually buried in. The point is that we don't know which tomb because he didn't stay in it very long. The tomb is actually powerful evidence when you look at it in a legal sense. Not an actual tomb that we can look at today, but the fact that in it's historical context, Christianity thrived in a world where all anyone had to do was drag out a dead body of Jesus to put a stop to it all. This has brought many throughout history to faith.Didn't they find it. I thougth the Shroud of Turin was inside and they are still testing it.

Yes, I see how your lack of reading comprehension would have you believing all sorts of things. Where did I say that the supposed tomb of Christ is evidence? I'm calling it a symbol because that's what it is, but that doesn't make it evidence. Or just because the Temple of the Mound is a symbol for the Muslims you'd say that that's evidence that Mohammed was God's chosen prophet?


Me? I put no faith in it at all, if it even exists. There's no certainty on the authorship of the gospels, much less that the authors were put to death. There's even less certainty that they're based on eyewitness accounts, and if so, how many links went from the "eyewitness" to the written document.


HAHAHAHAHAHA! Where did I say that the Da Vinci Code could some day be seen as the same light as the Bible? C'mon! Did you fail basic English comprehension? I said that the Gospels could have started as a work of fiction that was taken too seriously, just like the Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction taken too seriously. The Bible is far from being the most attested work in all of antiquity, much less historically reliable. It has too many gaps and inconsistencies to be called accurate. We can say that the history of the Jewish people happened along those general lines, but that's far from being accurate or reliable.


Cite them. If you're thinking of the "evidence" of Flavius Iosephus, Tacitus, Plinius II, and Suetonius, save yourself the trouble. Those have been proven false. And unless you can come up with contemporary coins, sculptures, and edicts of and by Jesus, you're gonna' have a very hard time backing that "more evidence than the Emperor" thing.


My novel would be very boring: Did Jesus exist? There's no evidence that he did. The End.

I did laugh at your assertions, I apologize. I don't believe I attacked you as an idiot or anything. I have presented a reasoned, thought out and researched position. But you say I have no "reading comprehension." Chill on the emotions. If I misunderstood you in some way, just say that. I'll try to talk about your positions and not you - since I very well don't know you, as well. Agreed?

I'm still not sure you understand what you attacked me for in that first paragraph. The fact of history that Jesus existed, and was put to death, and the fact that Christianity sprang in this area that was hostile to Jesus is alot of evidence to the tomb of Christ evidence. It would be better worded as the resurrection evidence though. You can choose to disbelieve or ignore the evidence. I don't really care. But don't call it just a symbol and not evidence at all. It's actually quite a bit of evidence to the Christian faith. Those who call themselves Christians actually base everything on that.

You're right, you never said The Da Vinci Code could be seen in the same light as the Bible. I inferred your meaning that when you wrote, "Perhaps that Q Source was a play, and people liked it and started reproducing it, and some people took it as the real truth, just like some people now take The Da Vinci Code. Anything is possible and we'll never know for sure until we find it, if we ever do." However, alot of people died for believing "that play" if you are correct. That doesn't sound to me like the intellectually best option.

And yes, the Bible is the most reliable work in all of antiquity. Do a study on the period of time between the dating of the writing and the earliest manuscripts we have, as well as the number of early manuscripts we have. Then compare that with other works of antiquity and you'll see what I mean.

http://www.biblicaldefense.org/Writings/new_testament_reliability.htm
"historical scholars can consider the extant New Testament manuscripts to be reliable and accurate representations of what the authors originally wrote. Since the New Testament is by far the most accurately copied ancient writing, to question its authenticity is to call into question all of ancient literature."

Didn't they find it. I thougth the Shroud of Turin was inside and they are still testing it.

It may or may not be. I don't believe we can know that for sure. The early Christians did not think much of the tomb where Jesus was laid because He was no longer there. So Christians did not find it important throughout the ages since to point out which one he did indeed rise from.

I don't know that much about the whole Shroud of Turin thing to know if that's credible or not.



Back to The Da Vinci Code... It would be interesting to add a poll to this thread to what extent people here believe the things written in this novel are true.

Didn't they find it. I thougth the Shroud of Turin was inside and they are still testing it.
In the 4th century a group of workers of the Emperor who were looking for Christ's tomb came across a tomb, which they took to be Christ's. All they had was a loose description, and the tomb they found seemed to fit it, kinda. So they said "yeah, this must be it."

They didn't find the shroud there, at least there's no record saying that they did. The shroud supposedly was taken from the tomb by Mary Magdalene and traveled across Europe and finally arrived in Turin. At leat that's what the story says. There's no record its travels, though.

They tested the shroud in 1998, but only a tiny tiny sample. Since the tests are destructive it's obvious that they wouldn't let samples be taken from different parts of the shroud, which would be the ideal to confirm its authenticity. That test revealed an age of around 700 years.

I did laugh at your assertions, I apologize. I don't believe I attacked you as an idiot or anything. I have presented a reasoned, thought out and researched position. But you say I have no "reading comprehension." Chill on the emotions. If I misunderstood you in some way, just say that. I'll try to talk about your positions and not you - since I very well don't know you, as well. Agreed?
Agreed!

I'm still not sure you understand what you attacked me for in that first paragraph. The fact of history that Jesus existed, and was put to death, and the fact that Christianity sprang in this area that was hostile to Jesus is alot of evidence to the tomb of Christ evidence. It would be better worded as the resurrection evidence though. You can choose to disbelieve or ignore the evidence. I don't really care. But don't call it just a symbol and not evidence at all. It's actually quite a bit of evidence to the Christian faith. Those who call themselves Christians actually base everything on that.
You're making a false assumption. The fact that there are tombs in the area where Christ is said to have died is no evidence at all because there are tombs all over the place which could have belonged to anyone. Whether Christians base their faith on that is irrelevant to its validity as evidence, which is none. I'm sorry, but that's how it is.

You're right, you never said The Da Vinci Code could be seen in the same light as the Bible. I inferred your meaning that when you wrote, "Perhaps that Q Source was a play, and people liked it and started reproducing it, and some people took it as the real truth, just like some people now take The Da Vinci Code. Anything is possible and we'll never know for sure until we find it, if we ever do." However, alot of people died for believing "that play" if you are correct. That doesn't sound to me like the intellectually best option.
People die for a lot of false causes. Whether it would be better that they have died for something else or not died at all is also irrelevant to determine the truth. You can't just accept or deny something just because it would be nice, at least not if you want to be intellectually honest and unbiased.

And yes, the Bible is the most reliable work in all of antiquity. Do a study on the period of time between the dating of the writing and the earliest manuscripts we have, as well as the number of early manuscripts we have. Then compare that with other works of antiquity and you'll see what I mean.
On the contrary. Although it's almost impossible to get an original manuscript of any work from that era, there are a number of works that we can be fairly certain are very close to the original. Not only that, but what they say can be closely corroborated by archaelogical and third party evidence, something that can't always be said about the Bible, especially the Gospels.

http://www.biblicaldefense.org/Writings/new_testament_reliability.htm
"historical scholars can consider the extant New Testament manuscripts to be reliable and accurate representations of what the authors originally wrote. Since the New Testament is by far the most accurately copied ancient writing, to question its authenticity is to call into question all of ancient literature."
Noted. Now find an unbiased source.

Are you saying that Clinton getting a blow job (and later lying about it) from a willing, 20 something woman is more devastating than child molestation? I certainly hope you aren't...
Not all of Clintons girlfriends where willing...

Not all of Clintons girlfriends where willing...

Names, description of the unwillingness and sources please ?

There are no minor and major sins. In that you are sorely mistaken. They are not rated from worst to best.
This is where ou are mistaken. You see, there are Mortal and Venial sins, mortal being very bad, and venial being not as bad. If i take a cookie from a cookie jar will I burn in hell right next to a person who killed 100 innocents? I think not.

Names, description of the unwillingness and sources please ?
Please read the book "The Political Zoo" by the brilliant Michael Savage. It sums it up very well.

Same God, accully.
No, Allah and God the Father are NOT one in the same

This is where ou are mistaken. You see, there are Mortal and Venial sins, mortal being very bad, and venial being not as bad. If i take a cookie from a cookie jar will I burn in hell right next to a person who killed 100 innocents? I think not.
God would have to be a real jackass to send someone that stole a cookie to hell

No, Allah and God the Father are NOT one in the same
For the most part they are ... one is just an extention of the origional myth

Ever since the dating there has been speculation as to why the test "failed," but nothing has been proven conclusive. The C14 test conducted in 1989 is the only definitive guide so far that indicated the shroud's age, and it may very well be wrong since only a very small sample was allowed to be tested. Unfortunately, until the keepers of the Shroud allow more exhaustive test we won't know for sure.

The tomb has no evidence behind it other than "it looks like it could maybe have been."


That doesn't mean they say the same, they're still copies. Plus, as I've said before, most of the material the Church has are Latin or Greek translations. And fragments at best.
The Shroud of Turin is the image of Jaccuqes De Molay, the last Grandmaster of the Knights Templar.

God would have to be a real jackass to send someone that stole a cookie to hell
Indeed, fortunately God is not an asshole

For the most part they are ... one is just an extention of the origional myth
Brilliant spelling. It is not a myth, God the Father PROTECTS and LOVES the Jewish people, even after sending His only Son, Jesus to Earth. Allah calls for thier extermination, big difference.

Indeed, fortunately God is not an asshole
Ehhh from what I have heard of the Christian god he would not even deserve to be in the same room as my friends much less be worshiped

But that’s just my take on things

Brilliant spelling. It is not a myth, God the Father PROTECTS and LOVES the Jewish people, even after sending His only Son, Jesus to Earth. Allah calls for thier extermination, big difference.
Brilliant spelling of their as well

Ah but the church has been lying and covering up things for years. So the over all gist of the idea that the church lies and covers up is in fact a truth. Whether the details of his story are fact or not isn't the relevance to me, the fact that the church HAS done just what the plot indicates only makes the plot more intriguing. This is what the church hates most of all. It really isn't the idea that Christ had a wife or children, but that the church has practiced deceit. They don't like being reminded of it publically in any genre.

Whether Brown has a beef with organized religion or not is not what I see in this book at all. But as you said a guy selling a story for personal gain. If in that story a truth of church corruption is embellished to sell fiction so be it. People will dig to find out if it so or not, look at this board alone, haven't we all looked into it? Amazing to me is the simple fact that people are looking at faith and religion at all in this day and age of so many drawing completely away from religion. When was the last time a fictional book or movie even invited discussion?
Interesting that a book attacking Islam in a similar fashion would be spurned by our Leftist society, activist groups would smash it inot the ground in a second because of their minority status.

The Christian God is loving and forgiving, Allah is NOT. But this is not a "Lets disprove that vauge and silly arabic cult" forum, this is a Da Vinci Code forum.

Interesting that a book attacking Islam in a similar fashion would be spurned by our Leftist society, activist groups would smash it inot the ground in a second because of their minority status.
Naw I don’t think too highly of Islam either

I just don’t think they have the right to be discriminated against because they are Islamic. That does not mean I agree with their point of view.

As with the Christian god I find their deity to be kind of an ass.

The Christian God is loving and forgiving, Allah is NOT. But this is not a "Lets disprove that vauge and silly arabic cult" forum, this is a Da Vinci Code forum.
Yes it is … it’s a thread about a rather badly written fictional book that all sorts of silly people seem to be up in arms about

Yes, discrimination based on faith alone is wrong, however our anti-Christian society loves to see anything that attacks Christianity, especially the Roman Catholic Chruch. Why? Because they fear its power, the Church has survivied 2,000 years of constant attack, America nearly crumbled after 200.

But heres the thing. Even if it doesn't shake your faith (or even if you don't have any faith) it still causes people to doubt the teachings of the church. It gives people further fuel for the conspiracy theory.

A mature faith is an examined faith. Questioning the church is not a sin. Even Jesus questioned God. He obeyed, but He questioned.

They should push more for educating people as to the fictionality of the story. And personally I say Dan Brown or the director should provide a disclaimer before the film reassuring the audience that the story is, in fact, fictional.


I don't believe this film deserves any more than the same tag-line after nearly any film "Any similarity to actual persons, events... " It is neither Dan Brown nor Ron Howard's fault that people may be that easily convinced that fiction is fact. It is the fault of the moronic masses. The church does not deserve special treatment. If the church is right, it will stand without handling by kid gloves.

Silly people? If I wrote a ficional book calling you a Nazi, and the idiots of America believed it to be fact, wouldn't you be angry?

Yes, discrimination based on faith alone is wrong, however our anti-Christian society loves to see anything that attacks Christianity, especially the Roman Catholic Chruch. Why? Because they fear its power, the Church has survivied 2,000 years of constant attack, America nearly crumbled after 200.
We attack it because we feel it is a silly fairytale that is being used to justify fucking with our lives.

You choose to use Christianity to justify all kinds of un-necessary laws then be prepared to have the basis of your arguments examined in detail.

If Christians cant handle that they can very well stop using that fairytale to justify silly things.